Democratic aspirations may be so much unwanted drivel to the aristocracy. But the expectations of real choices at the ballot booth are important to this society. At least the names of Tweedledum and Tweetledee should occasionaly vary! In this age of what the aristocrats must see as unreasonably democratic aspirations a prime necesity for the ruling class is to give some semblance of the potental for change in a society. When Clinton assumes the Democratic nomination by her appearance at her coronation next year she will end that appearance of the potential for change - and she will end it as a Democrat. What should liberals do?
The statement Molly Ivens made near the end of her life that she would not support Hillary Clinton for President under any circumstance was not hedged. Ivens statement was one of utter and complete rebellion against what we have now - which was exactly what we had then. A very strong liklihood of a Clinton nomination. In such a dire circumstance Ivins would rather fight than switch-
Do not sit there cowering and pretending the only way to win is as Republican-lite. If the Washington-based party can't get up and fight, we'll find someone who can.
We should not nominate a compromising, defeatist, never won a dime's lasting progress in a lifetime candidate. But as Mrs Clinton seems likely to win one for nostalgic nepotism alone - what should liberals do?
My advice is work against Rahm Emanuel and the Clinton's style of machine politics and for an ideological Congress to try and fight the Clinton's next NAFTA, next sell out of the poor, next sop to offshore employers funding the political machine. An independant liberal Congress is the best hope anyway. Mark Penn as the strategist for the white House is not a huge improvement over Karl Rove. Actualy Karl never enriched himself representing big tobbaccoas Penn has. Karl has never headed a company working for the private army Blackwater as Penn does. Karl has never busted unions personalyquite so effectively as Ms Clintons guru.
Penn as the next oval office political strategist is in another way worse for liberals. Even with this and other obvious earmarks of an administration of compromise and defeat Clinton has - largely due to mis-labeling by conservatives, become identified as a liberal. The Clinton's were going under the lable liberal when they ruined the lives of millions of defenseless children - an act even Ms Clinton's former board members at the Childrens defense Fund abhor
when President Clinton signed off on the, well, so-called welfare reform bill, you said, "His signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children." So what are your hopes right now for these Democrats? And what are your thoughts about Hillary Rodham Clinton?
MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: Well, you know, Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics. We have to build a constituency, and you don’t -- and we profoundly disagreed with the forms of the welfare reform bill, and we said so...many years after that, when many people are pronouncing welfare reform a great success, you know, we’ve got growing child poverty, we have more children in poverty and in extreme poverty over the last six years than we had earlier in the year. When an economy is down, and the real test of welfare reform is what happens to the poor when the economy is not booming. Well, the poor are suffering,.
Molly Ivins brought to her columns the one thing that most women share. A special bond with children. That bond was rendered by the Clinton's. Never again should liberals allow this three card monty act with their name attached. Liberals wouldn't allow the utterly shocking horrror ofmillions of homeless childrenas the Clintons have. Let's never bother Hill for not calling herself a liberal. I hope the huge numbers laboring under the false pretense that Ms Clinton is a liberal will soon be shown the light. she may continue these politics of horror but not under that old name, please.
We shall have to fight that bunch likely assuming office under Ms Clinton. Fight them for the lives of children, for the sake of peace perhaps and surely for jobs for our own dwindling middle class. Keep that in mind when choosing the lesser of evils this political season.