Home | About | Donate

Leftists Against Clintonism: It's Not Just About the Lies, It's About the Record


Leftists Against Clintonism: It's Not Just About the Lies, It's About the Record

Jake Johnson

Speaking at Georgetown University in October of 1991, shortly after he announced that he would be pursuing the presidency, Bill Clinton put forward what he called "A New Covenant," an agenda that proposed an alternative to both "small government" conservatism and "big government" liberalism.


Although I don't know what the new party will be called, I do know that autonomous democracy is a modern idea whose time has come.

The now right-wing democratic party exposes how tired and old-fashioned representative democracy has become.

Democracy is an ancient hunan tool used to focus distributed intelligence. Autonomous democracy tells the government what to do.


Working for the NYC Dept. of Welfare in 1966 for about 6 months, in Spanish Harlem, I can attest to the abject misery the system produced. The future of most of my clients was written off.
And I was also a member of 2 unions, the AFT and the Brotherhood of Railroad Workers, which did nothing to improve the working relationship and job performance. The Unions did prevent firing - about the only benefit I could see.
So, the assertion in this article that Welfare (as we knew it) and Unionization are panaceas is suspect in and from my experience.
However the demonization of these groups has gone overboard and lacks balance, IMO.


I keep on hearing that Clinton's record doesn't matter, that bringing it up is merely evidence of privilege, misogyny, and naive utopianism, and besides, she's evolved from whatever it is we're talking about.

Oh, when will foolish lefties understand that we can only achieve the things we want by voting against the things we want!


"There isn't a dimes worth of difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party."
Both Party's do the bidding of the oligarchy.
The oligarchy donates an equal sum of money to both Party's.
Some claim the Bill Clinton asked Trump to run.
It's more likely that this mentally unstable megalomaniac ran as a lark hoping to bring attention to his brand and nothing more.
Once he won he was caught in a trap from which he couldn't escape.
Who wins this election is of no real consequence for "we the people."
The winner will do what the oligarchy tells them to do.


I agree that unions and welfare are not pancreas... more like kidneys or livers.




This may be easiest to understand by thinking that it is precisely the media's job to cover (as in "hide" and "obfuscate") important events, and to do so by playing up trivial ones, and sometimes even making stuff up, and playing that up as well. When one understands this, then it becomes apparent that the solution cannot be found in the media itself, as it is an integral part of the problem. Public perceptions can only change relatively slowly as people start to shift away from traditional media, causing it to lose its power. The internet is helping this process, but it is by no means fail-proof. We all become the "new media" when we propagate any piece of emerging information that we learn about and find to be relevant. Slowly more and more people are realizing that social media can be more useful than traditional news media in spreading what's going on "out there". This is how, for example, the Sanders campaign was successful despite the blatant traditional media blackout, and why his campaign was particularly effective among younger folk, who are precisely those that have avoided adopting traditional media consumption habits (TV networks, printed newspapers, etc.).


Juilian Assange is getting crucified from all sides: Slate saying he is "fanning a conspiracy theory" and NPR states he is "crafting a storyline":

“WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is crafting a new storyline about who may have provided the material he published that caused an implosion in the Democratic National Committee's leadership this summer.”


After nine investigations of Benghazi including an 11-hour marathon session, all of which found that Clinton had done nothing wrong there is pretty convincing evidence that she is quite honest and has been defamed by the Republicans without evidence. The same thing happened with Whitewater. She was accused by the Republicans but again investigations found her to be honest. Same thing with the Vince Foster affair. The evidence pointed to a suicide but the Republicans claimed it was a homicide involving the Clintons. The more radical left has adopted the Republican strategy of claiming Hillary Clinton is dishonest although it hard to find any evidence that she lies any more than most politicians. The criticisms of what happened to welfare are justified although the old system was certainly flawed and was creating generations of people dependent on the government. A real solution would seem to involve better schools and better neighborhoods. Vast sums of money and resources need to be poured into impoverished areas but too many people don't want to pay for it. There are positives to free trade agreements but NAFTA gave investors too much power. At least Hillary Clinton opposes the TPP as it now stands. That indicates she can learn by her past mistakes in judgement. The Clintons should be praised for finding a way to overcome Reaganism to win elections. For those nostalgic for the old Democratic Party of working class people this was a negative development. But times have changed. Labor unions are no longer the core of the Democratic Party as only a small percentage of workers are now in such unions. That means the Democratic Party had to turn to other sources of money, meaning often corporate money. The alternative would be to become a permanent minority party that lacked the financial resources to compete. What is the new party? It is no longer is the party of southern conservatives who left in the 1960s. It is certainly the party of African Americans as demonstrated in the recent primary where Bernie Sanders chances were destroyed largely by the African American vote. It became the party of environmentalists in the 1970s. What the Bill Clinton did was add a lot of middle class suburbanites to the party as he found a way to combat the Republicans emphasis on family values. A big problem now is how to reincorporate the values of economic equality and justice and still win elections. Perhaps the compromises by Clinton on the Democratic platform to make it more progressive is a step in that direction.


In keeping with Jake's piece and whether or not change can come from the Democratic party (which I do not think can happen):


"What on earth is revolution if it doesn’t include either remove the rot in the Democratic Party, the Wall Street control, or start another party? "

"I don’t think there will be a chance like this again soon. I believe Hillary’s the greater evil, not Trump, because Trump is incompetent and doesn’t have the staff around him, or the political support that Hillary has. I think Bernie missed his chance to take this party and develop it very quickly

Democrats pretend to be a party of the working class, a party of the people. But it’s teetering with Hillary as its candidate. If ever there was a time to split it, this was the year. But Bernie missed his chance. He knuckled under and said okay, the election’s going to be about Trump. Forget the revolution that I’ve talked about.

Forget reforming the Democratic Party, I’m sorry. Forget that I said Hillary is not fit to be President. I’m sorry, she is fit to be President. We’ve got to back her.
That means backing Wall Street, the neocons and the TPP."


"I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself."

Are third parties the answer? Are their leaders immune to an offer they can't refuse? Like huge bribes or real threats to their families and to their lives?

Why do we defend systems the oligarchy designed to keep itself in power? Systems like representative government, elections and parties?

With secure, encrypted online communications, why do we need to jump through hoops to vote for whatever lesser evil candidate the oligarchy finances?


If its not direct, its not democracy.


Libertarians are the worst kind of Capitalist.
They want zero regulation on everything.
They believe in 'every man and women for themselves' and the survival of the fittest.
What a bankrupt ideology Libertarianism is.


This article is a nice summary of the reasons Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party is toxic to progressives. Good job on that. Not much is offered in the way of a strategy going forward, though, except to protest as the screw continues for the next four years, as if our political system is capable of slow evolution into something we can live with. It ain't gonna happen. The Dems are moving right fast -- In 2008 Obama had the political momentum to reverse the process, but he didn't want to. He flopped. Now Hillary will lock in the Dems as the moderate right-wing party, with Wall Streeters like Emanuel, Cuomo, Schumer, and Booker as the only electable alternatives to the Republican crazies. EVOLUTION WON'T WORK -- ONLY REVOLUTION WILL. Is it possible that the Repubs might implode this year after getting slaughtered at the polls up and down the ticket? I don't think so, but maybe. That would leave the Dems as the right wing party, opening a chance for a coalition of labor and greenies and social progressives to form a new left. I'd like to see some articles about that sort of revolution.


"The great masses of the people.....will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." A. Hitler 1933.
Which is why our politicians tells us whoppers on a consistent basis.


Mr, Johnson misrepresents what Chomsky, Albert, and others are calling for. They are NOT calling for "many leftists [to] hold their noses and vote for Hillary Clinton in November," they are calling for ONLY casting a vote for Clinton under the following limited circumstances:

  1. The national polls and electoral vote-tallies show that Trump has a significant possibility of winning
    and (not or)
  2. The state one lives in is a contested "swing" state.

Only if both the above are true does one need to consider voting for Clinton. Everyone in a "safe" state (for either candidate - i.e. California and West Virginia) should vote for Stein in all possible situations.

At very worst, this will likely amount to a small number of voters in only a few states who will have to cast a strategic anti-Trump vote. And a campaign that promotes this strategy also can maximize the number of Green votes because there will be many more safe state voters than non-safe-state voters.

Is this all that complicated? It's not that hard - I've followed these rules and have voted for Nader or the Green candidate in 4 of the 5 last elections - voting for the Democrat (Kerry in '04) only once. Bush ultimately losing Pennsylvania by only 2.5% Even then I was over cautious; Nader only got 0.38% nationally (and much less in Pennsylvania) in that election.


This article is spot on.
The leftists against Clintonism know exactly why we shun her and her neocon policies. And yes, it's not just the lies, but the record. What a record she has too.
Hillary has lied about all the failed policies her and Bill happily pushed. The lies accompany the actions because they have to keep up the appearance that they have the back of the working people and are somehow different and better than Republicans that push these same policies out in the open.
It has worked for years. So many still think she is a progressive. Ha.
If the worthless media scrutinized her and her record, mental condition, and so forth, as they do Trump, more people would see they are much the same. Republicans believe in small government, starving public programs, corporate rule. How is that different than what Clinton and Obama have done? Then there's the wars, perpetual wars. They are bipartisan.
I agree the Dems can't be corrected from within. We've seen that. We need to build an opposition party. Indeed, there is one that has been around a long time, the Greens. If they got the funds and support they need, we would have the third party we need.
Jill not Hill 2016


Respectfully, evolution will work....is working.
Don't be so impatient or many folks will die for no reason.
Who was Bill Clinton working for when he allowed Ollie North to land plane loads of cocaine at the Mena, Arkansas airfield while Bill was governor?


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


If you'd really like to waste a vote
Just jump aboard the Clinton boat
This woman's crooked as can be
And never thinks of you and me

Her sympathies lie there on Wall Sreet
Where sly and greedy friends she'll meet
To plot our people's sad demise
Re screwing proles she'll not think twice

This evil brass and brazen witch
With hubby Bill will serve the rich
But running there in party three
Jill Stein awaits to set us free