Home | About | Donate

Progressive 3.0: Beware the Latest Version of Hillary Clinton

Progressive 3.0: Beware the Latest Version of Hillary Clinton

John Atcheson

Listening to Hillary last night trying to pass herself off as a progressive is like watching a chameleon change colors to match its surroundings. Not quite the same, however. The chameleon’s move is defensive. Hillary’s is strictly offensive.


The contrast between a person of integrity and moral compass with long-held beliefs and a person morphing as a result of political ambition, polls, focus group hocus-pocus, and campaign contribution bribes. Hillary has become what she thinks will win her the nomination, altered her words rather than who she is and who she actually serves - big-money and the Bill Clinton, Obama, DLC corporate right-wing of the Democratic Party, wedded to wealth (like her daughter) as her primary concern, using the 99% needs as talking points absent any real representation or advocacy - only empty words…Hillary has apparently decided “the best defense is a good offensive” - if one cannot run on their record or demonstrate their integrity, attack the opposition to divert attention!
Hillary wants to deflect public/voter attention from her history and who/what she served and supported to what she sez she will do in the future - the actions of a charlatan. Her judgment on ME wars, destabilization and clear support for the policies creating such, has had the most profound destructive and catastrophic consequences, with millions killed or displaced - a record of war and death and displacement Hillary Clinton desperately tries to run from, but cannot!
As the linked piece states re Hillary as Sec. of State: “Her cluelessness and incompetence were monumental”.

Hillary’s distortions, diversions and attempts to change or mask her history in last nights debate are dutifully parroted today by the corrupt media - all in all a pathetic display.



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


Hillary Clinton accused the Sanders campaign, and Sanders supporters, of engaging in an “artful smear” for their critique of the millions of dollars that Wall Street plutocrats have given her in campaign donations and/or speaking fees:

“Time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth, which really comes down to, you know, ‘Anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought.’” - Hillary Clinton

This seems like a paraphrasing of a similar argument made by the Supreme Court in the Citizen’s United decision:

“The McConnell record was “over 100,000 pages” long, McConnell I , 251 F. Supp. 2d, at 209, yet it “does not have any direct examples of votes being exchanged for . . . expenditures,” id. , at 560 (opinion of Kollar-Kotelly, J.). This confirms Buckley ’s reasoning that independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption. In fact, there is only scant evidence that independent expenditures even ingratiate.” - US Supreme Court, Citizen’s United (Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZO.html )


This will be a banner year for politics if we progressives don’t blow it. We have the opportunity to rid ourselves of two dynasties, one long standing, the Bushes, and one clawing it’s way into the plutocracy, the Clintons. Our work is not nearly over, but we have the best opportunity now to take back our democracy for the majority. Let’s not blow this one. Bernie Sanders is our voice and Elizabeth Warren and Tim Canova will have his back.


Terrific piece. Atcheson is becoming my favorite analyst on this campaign because he so clearly paints how the little phrases and posturings fit into the big picture and why they matter. “Essentially, Hillary will be whatever she needs to be to get elected. It’s about her, not us.” That’s it in a nutshell, the difference between Clinton and Bernie that affects everything about how she would act in the White House.

Yesterday’s video clip of Bernie running to the side of a worker who’d fainted when he was giving a talk said volumes. Bernie’s face showed his immediate, very human concern for another human being, and without a second’s hesitation, he ran to the man’s side. I wondered how Hillary would have reacted in the same situation. I see her first glaring at an aide for allowing a disruption; then when she realized someone had fallen, taking a few seconds to decide what would make her look best; THEN perhaps personally going to the man’s side and calling for help.

Truly caring about people is a bright line decision-maker for Bernie. HIllary, who is now trying to re-invent herself as someone who was always about giving, will always need to stop and think first – and what she’ll be thinking about is how her reaction will look.


Last week (before Iowa) it was all about “I’m the pragmatic one,” “I know how things operate.” “I can get things done.” And (btw) don’t expect much, because that is not the way the system works."

This week it is “I am a progressive.” I’m a champion for the progressive issues." I’m a woman running for President, so I must be a progressive." I’m a progressive, just like Bernie Sanders."

No Ms. Clinton, you are not a progressive. So stop claiming that you are.
And btw Obama is not a progressive either. Both of you have had careers demonstrating that.


[quote=“Emphyrio, post:2, topic:18077, full:true”]
…who she actually serves - big-money and the Bill Clinton, Obama, DLC corporate right-wing of the Democratic Party…[/quote]
Good point. I’m often frustrated by the lack of clarity, and mention, about this fact: The DLC-led, corporate faction is not the Democratic Party, but a cancer within in. A recent cancer, inoculated by Bill Clinton and his infamous “triangulation.” Won’t it be ironic if that cancer is excised by an Independent?


If only Bernie would embrace a less militaristic foreign policy by pledging to reduce military bases, denouncing economic sanctions, criticizing drone strikes, etc., he would have won the debate hands down.


[quote=“Steve_Fernandez, post:4, topic:18077, full:true”]
This confirms Buckley’s reasoning that independent expenditures do not lead to, or create the appearance of, quid pro quo corruption. In fact, there is only scant evidence that independent expenditures even ingratiate."[/quote]
Great catch on that parallel. As a long-time [Is “anti-fan” a word?] of the infamous Buckley v. Valeo decision, I can’t help but note its usefulness in illustrating how difficult it is to “idiot-proof” a Supreme Court!

Apparently neither the “justices” nor Her Hillaryness have read their Upton Sinclair:

It is difficult to get a man (sic) to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.


Is Rachel Maddow on a mission of self discrediting? I’m thinking of three questions posed by the not so progressive darling of MSNBC. First, she asked Bernie if he might regret his strident criticisms of corporate America because coporations often play an important role in getting things done. She used the ACA as an example of corporate help (yes she actually said this). Bernie, not skipping a beat, said that he could work with corporations, that there are good corporations, creative people, doing important research etc., but, and here is where he turned the tables on Rachel, he said he will work to close the loopholes that allows corporations to avoid taxes and to park their profits off shore. He mentioned GE and Boeing.

Second, and this is pure mamdy pamdy defeatism, she has flashed on the screen, large photos of Barry Goldwater and George McGovern, as exemplars of lost cause politics, and their massive defeats in the elections of 1964 and 1972, implying such a fate for Bernie and his agenda. Rachel, apparently forgot Hillary’s past as a Goldwater girl who supported Goldwater and wrote letters to the Chicago Tribune critical of its coverage. I fault Bernie for not calling Rachel out on this, for this was a major faux pas.

Finally, Rachel tried to draw an equivalency between HIllary’s e-mail and security breach scandal with Bernie operatives accessing that strange open to all Data Base of the DNC, a worker who posed as a union member in Nevada, and a false charge that Bernie said a newspaper endorsed him when that was not the case at all. This did not go over well and the only one who looked bad was Rachel herself, pathetic. They say she is smart, well maybe, but even smart people can’t square the circle.


Dodd-Frank came up in the debate but again there were no specifics. Clinton said Wall Street reform is following the process laid out by Dodd-Frank but little else. Sanders has not weighed in on how things are going on Dodd-Frank. Voters are again left wondering whether the government is making progress on Wall Street reform or not and if not what should be done. It is kind of crazy to see Democrats running away from the liberal label and instead trying to get labeled progressive. It wasn’t that long ago that Democrats were saying forget about labels. Now they want to be labeled. Go figure.

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


Hillary says that she has a record of getting things done. Could someone tell me what exactly those things are because I can’t find them. I’m sure that they must be there in her record because she keeps telling us that she has this record and knows how to get things done but where exactly was that?

As a senator even amid cynical New Yorkers I believe the sense was that she should try to do something just to make it look good. Nothing comes to mind though.

As our Sec of State… she was pretty incompetent considering wherever she was involved the situation worsened and more war and conflict erupted. Her fiasco in Libya and the continuing catastrophe in Syria are not what is usually considered"a record of getting things done" or at least a record of doing things right.


HC and the Democrat political machine still don’t get it…

Keith Olberman would have been a better choice…but, he got trashed when he became a liability several years ago…having the courage to really attack the mainstream political establishment…he was a pleasure to watch…
Rachel Maddow is just another version of Charlie Rose on NPR…more gatekeepers who are smarmy in order to maintain some form of political access…as useless as …etc…


Let us remember that Chris Dodd and Barney Frank have both sold out in their post-Congressional careers and taken jobs as either lobbyists (Dodd) or advisers (Frank) to industries both helped regulate in Congress.


Hillary was quite transparent to most democrats and especially those that feel the Bern. Just heard Thom Hartmann talk about last night and Bernie mentioned the “50 State Strategy” of Howard Dean’s who is now a lobbyist for pharma or medical, and Hillary said oh thanks for mentioning Howard Dean who is sitting in audience and supporting me. The camera went to Dean and sitting next to him was a lobbyist for Goldman Sachs whose name I’ve forgotten. Bernie is right and so was Howard Dean when he established the 50 State Strategy which the dems stopped when Dean was gone and I guess Dean has joined the money machine.


Even in what might be termed an unfavorable piece on Mrs. Clinton, the author can’t stop himself from calling her a “moderate.”

Which bankster does one have to appoint to regulate the banks, which war does one have to support, how many times do you have say you oppose single payer health insurance, how often do you have to stump for the “free trade” agreement, the actual purpose of which is to exempt corporations from the laws of sovereign nations, before even those who oppose you call you “right wing”?


Sounds like her warm, fuzzy salutes to corporations are the prelude to talking UP the TIPP and TPP. Hope Ms. Maddow won’t be another “it’ll create jobs, Americans!” cheerleader of all that is anti-Democratic and dangerously bad for humans and other living things.