Home | About | Donate

Without Bold Agenda, Warn Progressives, A Clinton Presidency Won't Stand Chance


Without Bold Agenda, Warn Progressives, A Clinton Presidency Won't Stand Chance

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

While the whole country appears to be on edge ahead of next week's presidential election, the Left is "increasingly confident" that, should a Hillary Clinton presidency come to pass, the Democratic nominee won't be able to turn her back on progressive campaign promises—as many argue President Barack Obama did—because she will need that grassroots support if she hopes to stay in office beyond four years.


This is wishful thinking, at best, or the party line of center-left Democrats intent on ensuring progressives vote for Clinton. There is virtually no evidence that Clinton will govern from the left or push a progressive agenda, especially on foreign policy, as to which she is openly hawkish and has already issued numerous threatening remarks regarding Russia, Syria, and Iran (remember in 2008, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran, a nation of 75 million people).
To argue that she will need to assuage the progressive left to ensure a second term is also fantasy. She will be concerned about attacks from the right, and so will prevaricate as usual to maintain a pretense that she is progressive while ensuring a continuation of neoliberal and neoconservative policies.
Many Trump supporters are attracted to his populist message, professed desire to create or save manufacturing jobs, and anti-trade deal stance -- all part of Bernie Sanders' program that attracted support from millions. This has been lost. Will those millions migrate to Clinton in furtherance of her progressive agenda -- doubtful to say the least. The loss of those millions of voters, who would have supported Bernie Sanders and led to his victory over Trump in this election, and the possibility of real change in America, is yet another tragic consequence of the Democratic Party's corrupt nomination of Clinton.

Stein/Baraka 2016


There will be no bold agenda , If she wins, I predict that she will be impeached , Can you imagine it ? The first husband and wife presidents to be impeached . WE are in deep shit .


Thanks to her various scandals, Clinton will start her term as Damaged Goods, which will give her an excuse to lurch even further right, which she wants to do anyway. Also, Trump's Alt-Right will be the new Tea Party, playing the boogie-man role, so Hillary will lurch right some more. The scandals will paradoxically rally American Dems & Liberals to the defense of Clinton, because they believe she is an innocent victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy (they are partly right...except she herself is a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy). Also, Hillary's pseudo-victimhood will reinforce liberals' belief in their own moral superiority, further dividing them from other working class constituencies.

This is the thing about Democrats...even when they win, you lose.


Just like Obama wasn't able to turn his back on the left 8 and 4 years ago.
Just like Obama wasn't able to turn his back on the Nobel Prize committee with his promise of peace.
This is BS.
Obama has perpetuated the wars and turned his back on all of the "Hope and Change" supporters.
Once Hillary has the throne (and it is a throne, not an office now), she won't even have to pretend to hear the cries of the Progressive Left anymore. Her cash register will be making too much noise for her to hear anything.


Do not throw your vote away ....vote Jill Stein, Green. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Donald.


I agree.

Clinton will push her plutocratic friendly economics, domestic surveillance and zero tolerance of whistle blowers, unsustainable environmental practices, and war. Progressives are already being told to shut up, fall in line, and support her. To wit, in the movie Trumpland, Michael Moore scolds progressives to back her for at least two years. No doubt, as the next election approaches, the lesser evil argument will be dusted off to repressive efforts to promote a progressive agenda. Then, in 8 years, the lesser evil argument will again be used to cow progressives into voting for another right leaning Democrat such as, if its not too soon, Chelsea Clinton.

The only change we have for progressive change is to organize and build progressive movements.


While reading this I felt that I must be living in a different universe than the people quoted in this article. The notion that this lady, or any human being for that matter, in his or her seventh decade, is as malleable, regarding fundamental beliefs and values, as silly putty in the hands of a toddler, stretches believability. Obviously, Ms. Clinton's heart is not into progressive values or politics, she is who she is at this stage of her life, a neoliberal-neocon with the requisite liberal social positions necessay to run as a Democrat. Part of her presidency's raison d'etre, it seems to me, is to be a referendum on, and reaffirmation of, the direction her and Bill, along with the DLC, took the Democratic Party, in the process creating GOP 2.0.


I really like Credo - but Mr. Zaheed appears to be a pretty poor prognosticator. If she wins the election on Tuesday, a more likely record that Clinton will run on in four years will include:
1) Tweaking TPP and then passing it over progressive protests,
2) Tweaking Obamacare with mild help from progressives,
3) Moving the minimum wage up by a couple of bucks to the $10-12/hr range after a compromise with Republicans, but tying it to inflation to gain progressive votes,
4) Creating a new national service program that allows college graduates to wipe out their student loans (her boldest initiative worked out in a deal with Senator McCain)
5) Two Supreme Court appointments that moved the Court more clearly to the left and protected voting rights and abortion rights.
6) Elimination of the carried interest deduction for wall street and a slightly higher tax on the wealthy in exchange for increased military spending and infrastructure spending and a modest cut in other domestic spending (compromising with Republicans who wanted major cuts in Social Security and Medicare)
7) A stern foreign policy that dealt harshly with "terrorism" but only to see it grow; a Middle East peace initiative that fell apart at the last minute - but that will be less important than the new civil war in Pakistan and the nuclear weapon that North Korea sold and is unaccounted for.


" Tragic consequence of the Democratic Party's corrupt nomination of Clinton."

How in the hell can progressives be so sophomoric and naive to expect to have any kind of " bold agenda" ! Kind of like being innocent and going to a corrupt, kangaroo court and expecting justice.

Your vote only counts if you vote for Jill...not Hill.


With the republicans in control of the House there will almost certainly be an impeachment effort. With even less success than the first Clinton impeachment.


Quoted progressives here don't seem to care one whit about military expenditures and perpetual war.

Frankly, I think these issues rank more highly than the other ones.

Guess I am through with ignoring the elephant in the room.


Hillary Clinton is damaged goods, and she is destined to go down in flames, due to her corruption, her lies, her deceit, and her inability to preserve or even appreciate national security.

The FBI has been engaged in a criminal investigation of the Clinton Foundation and its blatant pay-to-play, decidedly unAmerican activities. That investigation is now in overdrive due to the Weiner/Abedin explosion of information. Bret Baier, one of the better Fox News political analysts, reported yesterday that FBI insiders say indictments are almost a certainty.

Hillary Clinton is the absolute wrong choice for 2016' she will guarantee another right-wing decade-long grip on the House in 2020, which is a census year, something nobody talks about but is happening again. It is a strategy of our uni-party oligarches (aka, our shadow government), to keep the establishment in control of the US government.

The Clintons never realize that people don't like them anymore and certainly don't trust them. That didn't stop the likes of DWS, Donna Brazile, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills (see a pattern yet?), and the paid Clinton supporters who brazenly put party before country.


Hillary already has a "bold" agenda: War, War, War. Maybe even nuclear war with Russia, in which case we won't need to care about saving the climate and the environment, anyway.

If there are elections in 2020, the Repubs will run someone smoother but even more evil than Trump, and the DNC will rig the nomination again for Hillary. Whatever.

#NeverHillary #JillStein2016


The more private money there is in politics, the more difficult it is to unseat incumbents, so expect Clinton to be POTUS until 2025 when her supporters are hoping Chelsea becomes POTUS, thereby creating the dynasty many of Clinton's followers have wanted since the dawn of the 21st century.

Those of us who have voted for third party POTUS candidates (since the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) was formed in 1985 and accelerated the rightward momentum of the Party) have endured endless criticism and condescension...until 2016 when criticism and condescension turned to vitriol whenever we even mention Clinton, let alone criticize her. Clinton voters are hysteric. That vitriol and hysteria will continue anytime we mention what Clinton is doing when she is POTUS and the vitriol will be superheated whenever we criticize her. Just as we have seen for decades, those who voted for her will have a stock response to any of our comments and criticisms: "would you rather have Trump".


What do you think of the possibility that President Obama will do something to pardon her actions as Secretary of State (specific to Benghazi and e-mails) to avoid that situation?


Watching Obama cover up so much and helping Clinton restart the cold war with Russia, a formal pardon would come as no surprise.


Well, of course, and probably not altogether well motivated. But why would there not be?

For DPearl, I don't think it works for Obama to pardon Clinton. It makes for a public admission of guilt. Clinton should be able to pardon Obama, however, and then the next president can pardon Clinton.


No. Just no. I'm not buying it, didn't buy it from Obama so why would I buy it from Clinton.


Actually, I don't really think Ryan has the stomach to start impeachment hearings and I'd also guess it would backfire on him and the Republicans in terms of the 2018 elections. I was just wondering if people who take the "impeachment-on-day-one" threat seriously believe it should be pre-empted by some actions now.