In what one analyst sees as "a really bad mistake," Hillary Clinton declined to participate in a presidential forum hosted by the 8 million-strong organization MoveOn.org.
I have no problem with her not showing for the debate, she isn't a democrat anyway except in name.
Hillary, Just get out of the way!
Any such "progressive base that she'll need in her corner" would of course not be a progressive base whatsoever.
Democrats like it that ... "She looks like a winner in November."
Hillary helped destroy the gentle healing democracy of Honduras, among others.
Are any of the republicans a proven worse evil than Hillary?
Hillary will be a terrible president...She pays lip service to constituents and in reality serves the big money like Obama has...Teach her a lesson vote Bernie...Dont settle for second best.
Dont waste your vote...Vote for Bernie.
Absolutely right! Moveon isn't a progressive organization! They're third (turd) way all the way!
seriously, Hillary's rap sheet of evil is far longer than any of the nutcases on the Right, but of course that's likely to be a matter of opportunity, too.
but I agree in spirit: there is no rational way to suggest that in the traditional lesser evil campaign that we all know is coming, that HRC is, in fact, the lesser one.
You got it half assed backwards! Sanders is not a democrat - doesn't even claim to be. Hillary is an avowed, pure Democrat in both word and deed.
Clinton paid political operative trolling commondreams.org alert!
In my opinion hill is not a democrat she is a neo- liberal that courts neo-cons for support.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Exactly. If Hillary has the support of the Democratic establishment, that would mean that Democrats are neo liberal.
And that the marriage of the economic power, the neo- liberals and power of the MIC, the neo- cons, would continue controling the empire.
I put my full support of Move On on the shelf during the last election because of their backing of Hillary Clinton.I felt they were scraping rock bottom in order to have a first women president. May be their being snubbed by Hillary will bring them to their senses. Bernie Sanders may encourage them to support the best candidate for a change. I hope so.
Hillary is assuming there's a gun toting warrior base like the other party. Even if there is I can't see them voting for someone who makes their skin crawl.
Here we have an issue with the ambiguity in language. You are (I think) interpreting the post by @KyleGo as support for Hillary. I interpret it as a condemnation of the state of the Democratic party (ie Clinton, bellicose warhawk and wholly owned subsidiary of Wall Street, represents everything the party stands for today).
Which of us is correct?
Yes she is. The Democrats gave us NAFTA, the WTO, the Telecommunications Act, gutted New Deal financial regulations, under Carter they got rid of laws on usury, pushed for policies that led to the explosion in derivatives, Clinton pushed for the privatization of Social Security when in office, they support "school choice" (privatization), gentrification, have supported policies that militarize the police, have given us three free trade deals under Obama, are pushing for the TPP, have supported austerity, on and on. That is what the Democratic Party now is, especially with DWS running it. The Democrats have been this my entire life, the social democratic bent of that party was an aberration that lasted from about the Great Depression until the 1970's.
I am so sick of this bourgeois feminism anyway. If Thatcher were running as a Democratic candidate, would we all line up to support her because she would have been less extreme than someone like Marco Rubio?