"And the record on that is pretty abysmal. She’s an economic conservative who’s supported job-killing trade agreements; a hawkish neocon who supported the Iraq invasion; and a Senator with a be-kind-to-Wall Street economic policy."
Quite true and THAT is why any attempts to dress her up as a Progressive (or Feminist, for that matter) are deceptive and dangerously misplaced.
As I've suggested before: voters should have a 20-point list of subject criteria such as raising the minimum wage. They should vote on THE issues and then their tally should be tied to the candidate who commits to those positions.
The way things are, the candidates LIE and in this corporate-controlled era, nothing ends up put into law or operation that benefits ordinary people. The labels are used to "sell product," but all of the ones advertised stink!
Another author still clinging to the myth of a two-party system.
Why is it that you and I Soiuxrose who so often disagree can see eye to eye on this point, and why is it that so many others, calling themselves "progressive"do not. One factor maybe that Soiuxrose and I have memories. The other may be that others don't mind being lied to if they think Hillary will give them a little of what they want, like not appointing right wing hacks to the Supreme Court. When it comes to expectations on what Hillary would actually do as President, Aim Low.
Although they are two parties, ever since the Clintons started the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in 1985 the Party's mission became the same as the GOP's mission: Maximize corporate "contributions".
Like any other business, the Party prioritizes maximizing revenue over all else. Wall Street is the biggest, most reliable source of money.
Just like Bill was in 1992 and Barack was in 2008, Hillary is currently the Democrats' best corporate money magnet eligible to run.
Tubularsock for President!
Thank you, John Atcheson! This is obviously a complex and critically important issue.
Let me point out that the 2016 Dem Party candidate is VP Joe Biden. Any Dem pol can challenge him for the nomination, of course, likely splitting Dem voters. What has continued to amaze me is that much of the media marketed to libs, perhaps most notoriously MSNBC, have gone into overdrive to "disappear" Biden and sell Clinton, with her long record of support for the right wing agenda -- Pro-war, anti-New Deal, pro-"free trade," etc. She is for everything that progressives have opposed, as her own record shows. It's very important to note that Clinton worked hard promoting the TPP before deciding to play candidate-maybe. This makes sense, since her husband signed on to NAFTA.
I'm not especially concerned about Clinton challenging Biden. What does concern me is the overall integrity of the media marketed to libs, which have been serving as a campaign tool for Clinton Inc.
More complex, but correct. It takes truckloads of money to run a viable campaign, and media cooperation is essential. As Molly Ivins wrote, "You got to dance with them what brung you." I was first old enough to understand the "urgent call" for campaign finance reform back when I was in school, in the mid-1960s. Don't hold your breath. We won't see legitimate campaign finance reform for the same reasons we won't see a third party get equal footing with one of the two Big Players. No matter how you vote, you will be voting for someone who is indebted to corporate interests. The best you can hope for is that this pol will have the integrity NOT to then be led around on a leash, to dare to push back. The best we can do is to figure out what the people want, and then unite to pressure Congress to deliver.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
How can we LET her win the nomination? This is our chance to stop the madness. In spite of all the money she can raise, she will lose my vote and that of others who see no real difference between the parties. Isn't it time for someone like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders to represent the 95% of us who still have Democratic values? We need a "WRITE-IN" revolution. Let's get it started!
What's with all the Joe Biden nonsense? He doesn't poll well at all and has a reputation as being somewhat of a buffoon. He is witty at times and likeable enough but unless he can make fish fall from the sky--no chance.
Hillary obviously has every intention of running. As life goes, we have limited choices. You can get behind Hillary, protest vote, or vote for Bush or whoever the GOP serves up. There is a difference between Hillary's relation with Wall Street and that of the Bushes and the GOP.
Hillary has corporate connections and every President, like it or not, has to pay a lot of attention to Wall Street. Wall Street is an abstraction--closer to the economy than say the 1% or wealthy bankers. You can be for Wall Street (the concrete of our economy) and be for reform of campaign finance, banking, and tax policies. The problem is that many people left and right simplify "Wall Street" into some figurehead that suits their own purpose.
It seems a lot of you commenters here have your own image of what would be perfect and insist upon that as some sort of secular second-coming. It's politics--Hillary is being wisely political. Every time you take a firm stance on any issue you alienate some issue voters regardless what your stance is. It is way too early to form an agenda and a candidate would be arrogant to do so formally before the Party Convention which will adopt a party platform.
Elizabeth Warren isn't running partly because she knows she couldn't win and can do more where she is. You don't have to be President to accomplish your goals..
Elizabeth Warren was able to do more as Special Advisor in the Consumer Protection Agency or as Special Overseer of Troubled Asset Relief Fund than she can and will ever do in the Senate. That's the same trick they pulled on Al Franken. Warren will soon be, like Al, sending out emails by the thousands asking for money.
First term Senators have no power. Before being sclepped off to the Senate, both Franken and Warren were people lots listened to. Not any more. It's sad that Warren fell for it, that letting her be in the game would give her a chance to affect the outcome. Now her considerable influence has been effectively nullified. I'm not where I can follow things like I used to, but I haven't seen a Warren sound byte since I moved overseas.
Warren is more useful in the Senate than anyone in the White House. She can speak her mind.
Atcheson is right about Hillary. She is a war hawk and Wall Street supporter because that's where the money is. Biden? As far as I can see, he's a non-candidate. So, who else is there? Where are the progressive Democratic candidates? Personally, I like Howard Dean. But he's a non-candidate also, as is Kucinich. What about the Governor of Minnesota?Why isn't he a candidate? Unfortunately, I'm just not knowledgeable enough about Democratic politicians to come up with some viable candidates. Let's hear some names and their records.
the only way to get elected is to "appeal to the big funders"
American capitalism funds the political system, so the government has
to give the caps what they want, including profits before people & planet.
An amendment to the U.S. Constitution requiring public funding of elections,
paid for by a Wall Street transaction tax, is the only way to get out from under
the Plutocracy we now have.
Snowball's chance in hell?
Yes, but it's the only non-violent means we have to overthrow
the evil / lesser evil, two party dictatorship.