Skip to main content

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talks about Syria during an event at the White House in Washington, September 9, 2013. REUTERS
Hillary Clinton, decidedly not, either in perception or reality, the left flank of the Democratic Party.
Last weekend, and then on Monday, there was a lot of discussion about whether Hillary Clinton was the right Democratic presidential candidate for 2016 and whether progressives would be wise to spend time, energy and resources trying to stop her.

On Sunday, Egberto Willies argued:

Given Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street baggage however, the triangulation used by the Clintons against the Republicans in the past may just be used against them in 2016. A populist Republican with limited Wall Street ties, with a fairly liberal social stance on marijuana, marriage equality, immigration reform, incarceration (mandatory minimums), and women’s rights is out there waiting. Anyone following the news can see that Republican in the making.
I must be following different news, because no such Republican exists on the news I follow. However, there are good arguments for why, if it were possible, a more progressive presidential candidate for 2016 would be a better fit for Democrats. The problem is, as Markos argued on Monday:
 
If Hillary runs, she's the nominee. [...] There is no alternative to Hillary this cycle. The last time anyone polled the Democratic primary field, Clinton had 73 percent of the vote [...]
Markos argued for making the rest of our government more progressive, a sort of encirclement strategy. I argued for something similar last November. But I also think there is another benefit for progressives to a Hillary Clinton presidency, a less fettered ability to establish the left flank of politics outside a Democratic White House. I'll explain my views on this on the flip.  

In my piece last November, How can progressives can influence presidents, I posited that:

How to conduct a progressive persuasion campaign in an election also raises the issue in more general terms. In that respect, I highly recommend the TDS Memo on Democratic dialogue:
As the Democratic coalition and community looks to the future, however, there is a quite different challenge that the coalition must also prepare to confront: Democrats will soon have to begin debating important and deeply divisive issues about the Democratic platform and message for 2016 and beyond. [...] The critical challenge Democrats face is this: How can Democrats energetically debate their differences while at the same time still retaining a sufficient degree of unity to maintain a united front and “hold the line” against the profound Republican threat.
I'm much less concerned about the unity thing than Ed Kilgore and his group. I'm actually more interested in thinking about how progressives can influence and "win" that debate. [...] How does this phenomenon impact how a progressive movement should interact with a presidential frontrunner? I guess it depends on your view of politicians as much as anything. I'm from the pols are pols and do what they do school:
As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat, it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the time. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

And this is true in every context, I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for president. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol, of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

I don't expect politician saviors. So I think the search is for tactics and strategies that best forward progressive goals (if we can agree on them). [... E]ven if we are dealing with pols who "share" our values and principles, too often they have been wrong on strategy. [...] While Kilgore and Co. are for promoting a productive and unifying debate in the Democratic Party, arguing that maintaining the coalition's unity is critical to everyone's goals (I accept this as true). I am frankly more interested in making sure progressive ideas win out. [...]

I have what is probably an unpopular view—I think progressive values and goals for 2014 and 2016 are best achieved not by "Stopping Hillary!" but instead by attempting, as best as possible, and presenting her with a Democratic Party that is firm in its progressivism. This would be achieved by "persuading" Congressional Democrats and potential candidates that they need to adopt progressive values and positions. [...] I think we've seen already that "leaders" are often led to the head of the ongoing parade (see gay marriage). I would counsel attempting a similar approach to our presidential frontrunner for 2016, who could, in fact, lead a progressive landslide in 2016, even if she herself is not as progressive as the movement.

I want to add one last, and I think, crucial point—which is in fact the title of my post, "Hillary Clinton and a left flank: How a Clinton presidency could redefine progressive governance"—a Hillary Clinton White House will not, by definition, define the left flank of the Democratic Party. The fact is President Barack Obama, THROUGHOUT HIS TIME ON THE NATIONAL STAGE, was and is perceived as more progressive or liberal than his policies have ever been. But that did not stop the establishment media from presenting President Obama as the left flank of American politics. I still am amazed that so many people chose to perceive deep ideological differences between Obama and Clinton in 2008. I thought and repeatedly said there was not a dime's worth of difference between them on policy. I felt somewhat vindicated by the 60 Minutes interview with President Obama and then outgoing Secretary of State Clinton in January 2013:
“Despite our hard-fought primary, we had such agreement on what needed to be done for our country,” Mrs. Clinton said.

“Made for tough debates, by the way,” Mr. Obama added, “because we could never figure out what we were different on.”

“Yeah, we worked at that pretty hard,” she said. [Emphasis supplied.]

A President Hillary Clinton will not be, nor be perceived, as the left flank of the Democratic Party. This permits, in my view, real arguments, initiatives and negotiation from strong progressive elements in Congress. There will be more room for independence, initiatives and influence. This was not possible in my view under the Obama presidency. In 2009, Chris Bowers wrote:
President [Bill] Clinton told the assembled bloggers that one of the best things they could do for elected Democrats is to function as a "counterveiling" source of progressive pressure. That is, he encouraged us to offer left-wing criticism of Democrats on key policy areas, and that we should urge our leaders and elected officials to favor further reaching, more community-focused public policy. In fact, he indicated that he would have wanted more such progressive media pushing him during his time in office.
I think this is a much more likely approach under a President Hillary Clinton than it was to President Obama. In the longer term, increased independence and, hopefully, influence, from progressive segments in and out of Congress would be a good thing that could be produced by a Hillary Clinton presidency.    
EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Hello? (189+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    onionjim, allensl, Frankenoid, brn2bwild, elziax, matching mole, theBreeze, terremoto, pixxer, jrooth, Odysseus, devtob, emelyn, TerryDarc, pat208, Aunt Pat, kerflooey, Catskill Julie, fiercefilms, collardgreens, jwinIL14, Mostel26, Denise Oliver Velez, Habitat Vic, TRPChicago, GoGoGoEverton, kck, Ageing Hippie, ratcityreprobate, sawgrass727, puakev, NewDealer, IndieGuy, jck, democracy inaction, shanikka, dewey of the desert, VirginiaJeff, Bob Friend, Bongobanger, GAS, wdrath, unclebucky, Regina in a Sears Kit House, Powered Grace, jnhobbs, anna shane, Lawrence, fumie, Lahdee, John DE, snacksandpop, Pinto Pony, MrJayTee, Dartagnan, cpresley, oortdust, SeaTurtle, joedemocrat, political mutt, gnothis, akmk, enemy of the people, maggiejean, TomP, Elizaveta, annan, JamieG from Md, jessical, RandomNonviolence, sprogga, DJ Rix, unfangus, poco, tomwatson, antooo, illinifan17, begone, nirbama, chicago minx, Egalitare, Dave in Northridge, indie17, Wednesday Bizzare, EJP in Maine, Pat K California, LOrion, dzog, terrybuck, renbear, Ian Reifowitz, riverlover, psyched, tardis10, MadGeorgiaDem, janatallow, basket, implicate order, lcrp, brooklynbadboy, Lying eyes, Take a Hard Left, RainyDay, jbsoul, Black Max, DSC on the Plateau, cris0000, YucatanMan, Judeling, leonard145b, sidnora, deeproots, CoyoteMarti, sancerre2001, thomask, duha, thanatokephaloides, emal, cassandraX, cocinero, Cadillac64, coral, camlbacker, Lword2, Brecht, Angie in WA State, matt2525, daeros, Fredamae, eztempo, eagleray, Land of Enchantment, Eric Nelson, Mary Mike, ER Doc, myrmecia gulosa, Radiowalla, DeminNewJ, theBCI, TrueBlueMajority, glitterscale, Chitown Charlie, Homers24, One Opinion, bartcopfan, janinsanfran, Andrew C White, inclusiveheart, Sylv, Chicago Lawyer, where4art, stevenaxelrod, enhydra lutris, BobBlueMass, NearlyNormal, mconvente, NinetyWt, Diana in NoVa, pademocrat, Bluesee, emmasnacker, Meteor Blades, LeislerNYC, 88kathy, BYw, bronte17, Railfan, deha, We Shall Overcome, srelar, hlsmlane, huntergeo, bear83, Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle, EdSF, Eddie L, Bruce Webb, Terri, Buckeye54, Ohkwai, jediwashuu, JVolvo, MikePhoenix, kaliope, PipeUp, wildweasels, yoduuuh do or do not, Back In Blue, 4kedtongue

    Is this thing on?

    •  Advice for the ages (46+ / 0-)
      As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat, it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the time. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

      And this is true in every context, I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for president. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

      In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

      Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol, of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

      This is as pertinent now as when you wrote it back in -the dark ages- 2007.

      We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

      by david78209 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 09:31:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Great quote, (23+ / 0-)

        and very true.  Issues matter more than pols.  

        But it is still preferable to have a pol amenable to progressive causes, than to have one that is hostile to them.  More specifically, it is preferable to have an independent treasury secretary, rather than a Goldman Sachs toady or alumni.

        It would be a mistake to conclude that, since issues matter more than pols, pols do not matter.  And it is very telling that HRC supporters are trying to make such an argument.  Very telling indeed.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:24:36 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Why do we always have to dream-up some (26+ / 0-)

          type of eleven-dimensional-chess-excuse to justify supporting third way democrats? They have divided the party, given the republicans almost everything they wanted --  including victories they couldn't have won under Bush -- and they lie about everything...absolutely nothing they promise comes true.

          Most people vote according to how well things have gone for them under the incumbant party...and despite all the spin on this site, things are not that peachy keen for most of the people in this nation. In fact, for most people they suck, and that is going to bite us in the butt in 2014...

          I think the wisest meme to run on is "we will take this country in a new direction." That is what most people wanted in 2008, and like fools, we didn't give it to them...

          If we can't give them something to hope for in 2016, then a populist candidate could pull enough votes to hurt the dems.

          And I promise you, Hillary does not offer us a new direction...she is the same-old-same-old and if Democrats can't understand that, then we're going to be in trouble...no more cults of personality candidates. Give us someone who has the courage to do the right thing for a change.

          In other words, voting for Hillary means we have learned nothing and we deserve to lose.

          •  You Know At One Time I Believed This Too (10+ / 0-)

            But not now. Not after seeing the Democrats lose over and over again for failing to accept a few things about human nature and political realities.

            That was back when I was so much older then but I'm younger than that now.

            And here's the real deal. Nothing scares human beings more than change and that is true for all humans no matter what their political affiliation. Its just a fact of human nature. And no one is better at exploiting that fear than the conservative/Republican/Tea Party. And they are not just better at exploiting it they can also throw billions more dollars than we can to exploit it. Which is why they tend to win. And the margins could not be closer and the results more dramatic than what we are looking at in 2014 and 2016.

            Because its easy on Daily Kos to make our case but we are preaching to the choir and the congregation does not agree with us. The people deciding our elections are the ones in the middle. The moderates and independents and its very easy to scare them away. Which means in trying to win the battle we lose the war.

            So the whole key is to win. Keep the Senate, expand or take back the House, and win the Presidency in 2016 no matter who our candidate is. And for that we need to have the candidate that has the best chance of actually getting elected. Not the one that best represents our ideals but doesn't have a prayer of actually getting elected. Let's leave that losing strategy up to the conservative/Republican/Tea Party and hope they can keep winning elections for us. Instead of following their losing strategy and beating them at it.

            Collect Different Days

            by Homers24 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:54:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  In other words, you've learned nothing (9+ / 0-)

              during the last five years.

              What happened in 2010 was...? If you will remember, third way dems said we lost because progressives were undependable not because Obama's policies were hard to take.

              Here is what you get when you support a third way dem:

              Recently Obama made a deal with republicans to allow one of the worst republican judges in Georgia to fill a vacant spot, just so that Obama could have a judge he likes approved. But if you read the whole story, he gave up a lot more than that...the same way that he has always caved to republicans.

              On the other hand, when progressives complain about the TPP, the president sends out a representative to twist arms, not to listen to the complaints.

              In other words, he will give the republicans more than what they want, but he refuses to listen to progressives unless the complaints reach an overwhelming level, like they have on the Chained CPI.

              I can't say this loud enough: THIRD WAY DEMS FEEL NOTHING BUT CONTEMPT FOR PROGRESSIVES.  Sometimes, I think we need to start an al-anon for progressives. We just can't rap our thoughts around the fact that the third way dems are nothing more than republicans pretending to be dems.

              •  It's been so long since we had a non-3rd way Dem (10+ / 0-)

                in the White House -- at least since Jimmy Carter -- that we've forgotten how a real Dem president acts.

                The last Democratic president who I truly admired was Kennedy. I'd include LBJ if not for Vietnam.

                Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are at best what used to be called moderate Republicans. On everything but social wedge issues, they are Republicans. Please don't bring up minimum wage as a contrary example -- before St. Ronnie came along, Republicans had no problem with minimum wage.

                It's not hard to make the argument than on economic policy, Richard Nixon was far more progressive than is Barack Obama. Even Ike in many ways was more progressive than Obama.

                And when it comes to civil liberties -- I'm not going to go there.

                I agree with the comment above that we should push as hard as we can. But when financial cabinet posts are filled by Wall Street, and a presidential CoS can tell liberals to go f*** themselves, and the president has not only proven willing to pre-emptively concede basic Democratic principles but is negotiating a massive "trade deal" in secret than would essentially lead to a corporate, global coup d'état, I would respectfully suggesting that pushing hard hasn't exactly worked well for us (or this country), and I want to know that our next nominee is NOT going to be more of the same.

                (Yes, Nancy and Harry will hopefully save us from fast-track TPP, but that doesn't change my point.)

                "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. But we can't have both." - Justice Louis Brandeis

                by flitedocnm on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 05:18:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I agree with your assessment of Obama (0+ / 0-)

                but I think there's a long game being played in DC that started at least with Bill Clinton if not earlier.  It's good cop/bad cop.

                Clinton/Gingrich, Obama/Boehner, same game.  The bad cop's job is to throw such a scare into the suspect that the plea deal offered by the good cop sounds attractive.  Those nasty Republican Senators from GA with their blue slips are supposed to distract us from Obama's TPP (which totally sells out environmentalists and workers worldwide--it's the Chamber of Commerce's wet dream).

                If HRC gets nominated and elected, the game will go on.  Just as Obama has been race-baited in every way but being called the N-word to his face, so every misogynist in the country will be on Hillary's case.  As with the witch-hunting of her husband in his second term, the resulting sympathy among reasonable people will distract them from her "third way" (i.e. Republican) policies.  You can't put pressure from the left, effectively, on a President who is being burned at the stake by the right.

                The one way I agree with Armando's article is that policies are more important than pols.  However, most voters, and especially the "undecided" ones, are much more influenced by personalities and melodrama than they are by policies.  Most of us are not policy wonks.  Elizabeth Warren puts passion and personality behind sensible policy choices.  If she could be nominated and elected, the misogynists would go after her too, but then that would mean that most people would overlook her "socialistic" policies; they'd be too busy recoiling in horror from the usual Tea Party/neoConfederate hatemongering.  And with her, pressure from the left would be unnecessary.

            •  Not "The Middle"! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo, PipeUp

              There is no "middle"! There are only voters who don't follow politics like we do. We win by motivating those people, our lean voters, on whatever issue gets them motivated and paying attention.

              Trying to appeal to the middle is self-defeating. Appeal to the motivating. Not good ideas, but good fights.

              Your comment was good until you said "the middle".

          •  Hillary is not the issue - a viable left wing is (5+ / 0-)

            I think I am completely right in supporting a guaranteed income, single payer health care, breaking up the big banks, enforcing real anti-trust laws, and putting businessmen in jail when they break the law - as in West Virginia's latest toxic spill.

            But I also know that as of today, about 95% of the voting public doesn't support these views.

            Armando makes an excellent point - Obama was painted as a leftist by the media  - probably because of being black - and of being attacked as an extremist by the right.  So there has been little traction until recently in pushing him to better policies.

            We now have a few ideas that are pretty weak tea - i.e. not cutting social security, maybe negotiating with Iran, and trying to reverse some inequality.  

            I think Hillary will do a fine job as an establishment liberal - and rather than bemoan the fact we don't have a leftist presidential contender, I would say lets make our ideas part of the democratic mainstream - and push Hillary and those who come after her.  

            So yes, I will support her - but will work for the progressive candidates - and push them to stand up to her on our major issues.  This is so much of a better position to be in then we were under George Bush - a 'moderate' republican when elected - that I can't believe you are suggesting it doesn't matter, and somehow we are getting screwed again.

            All radicals are optimists. If we did not believe things could get better, we would not try.

            by tsackton on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 07:59:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JVolvo

              with all of this.

              •  i'll vote for if I have to, (0+ / 0-)

                because, hopefully, progressives will be voted in her coat tails.  But she is a corporatist and we will have to fight her as we should be fighting Obama right now, which doesn't seem to faze his administration.

                This "Trickle Down" thing has turned out to be somebody pissing on my leg and tellin' me it's rainin'.

                by swtexas on Thu Feb 27, 2014 at 09:44:35 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Actually, some right wing website labels each (0+ / 0-)

              Dem Pres candidate as "the most liberal xyz" just because they are the Dem candidate ~ supposedly based on voting record.  RW echo chamber trumpets the label and CorpMedia repeats it.

              Kerry in 04
              Obama in 08
              X,Y or Z Dem in 2016.

              Now, really, did cautious 1st termer Obama vote crazier left than Sanders or Kennedy?  Of course not.

              I agree with the rest of your post, you 5% wackjob   :o)

              "But I do apologize, JVolvo, for you are arbiter of all that can and cannot be discussed and I bow down to your supremacy when it comes to what can be written on this website." WinSmith 1/22/2014 - "OK" JVolvo 1/23/2014 (sorry, Clive)

              by JVolvo on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 09:23:39 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. It's interesting watching folks trying to (21+ / 0-)

          come up with fallback positions almost 3 years before the election.

          One of the areas where this kind of strategizing will not work, imo, is with Wall St.  No way Hillary's going to go up against her backers, no matter what we say or do.

          •  Let Me Ask You Something (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bluesee

            Who will go up against Wall Street? Elizabeth Warren you think? Maybe but I sincerely doubt it. And here's why. Who wants to preside over a total economic collapse and another Great Depression? Do you think Warren really does? Because if the stock market actually does collapse that is exactly what will happen.

            And don't get me wrong. I admire Elizabeth Warren greatly and hope she continues to fight everyday. But as far as winning a presidential election I honestly believe she does not have a chance. Nope, instead the 1% would use her to get more and more Republicans elected including the Presidency.

            So the key is not to "stand our ground" on any single issue or even multiple issues. Because we will die on that ground and the conservative/Republican/Tea Party will win.

            When we are looking at the billions of dollars the right is going to throw against us in the two upcoming elections this is not the time to be the 300. Yes they put up one great and historical fight. But did you happen to notice they all died and their efforts were futile?

            Collect Different Days

            by Homers24 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:08:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So just let Wall St take over what little of the (10+ / 0-)

              world they don't already control and own?  Everything's a futile fight, until you win.

              Wall St has stolen our country (and its minds too, most of them).  Via ceaseless free trade, Chicago School, consumerist propaganda, and relentless expansion.  Here's a factoid...

              The FIRE sector (Wall St, including finance, insurance, real estate) took 2% of total US corporate profits in 1994.  By 2004 they'd increased this to....40%!

              From whom do you think they took this money?  And do you think this process can continue, without a "crash"?  

              We must just keep electing leaders who represent these fu____g pirates, because TINA?

              The Clintons represent the FIRE sector.  They're our enemy, unless you're very wealthy.  If we give up now - before the primary fight even begins, what should we be called?

              Kos?  Armando?

              •  First And Foremost (4+ / 0-)

                money has always talked and bullshit has always walked. And you are getting ready to walk here pardner unless you can accept the realities of what we have here.

                And don't you even dare try to and lecture me about what Wall Street has taken because I worked my whole life just to have Wall Street take everything I worked for out of my ass pocket. I don't need your speculation on that I lived it and still am.

                But Wall Street actually took over with the drafting of our constitution except the rich and powerful didn't have their own street then. They just had the money and the power just like they do today.

                So no we don't need to keep electing leaders that continue that trend. We need to elect people who can actually get elected and hope of changing that. Gradually because their is no magic wand that will just change that over night.

                Finally let me tell you where we are already beaten here. Its all this phony speculation and hand wringing over Hillary Clinton three years from now instead of concentrating on the election right in front of us less than a year away.

                Collect Different Days

                by Homers24 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 05:04:20 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  And giving Wall Street free reign will PREVENT a (8+ / 0-)

              collapse??? Have memories of 2007-2008 really faded that quickly??????

              "We can either have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few. But we can't have both." - Justice Louis Brandeis

              by flitedocnm on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 05:21:20 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The stock market will collapse (0+ / 0-)

              pretty soon anyhow, especially if nothing is done about the immense student-loan bubble.  We have a whole generation of college graduates who will never be able to afford to buy a house, or even a condo.  The current economy is in the position of Wile E. Coyote over the canyon, just before he looks down.

              Elizabeth Warren is one of the few people who might save Wall Street by force-feeding it some reality pills.  Right now banks think they're in the catbird seat because not even bankruptcy will make student loan debt go away.  So the banks carry all that on their books as if it were real.  They have learned nothing from the subprime mortgage bubble.  Regardless of what the bankers believe, you can't get blood from a turnip.

              Real vitality will not be restored to our economy until we get progressive government spending and taxation policies so that the downward spiral for the 90% is reversed (along with the rocket ride for the 1%; those in the top 10% but not the 1% might be impacted somewhat, but a return to 1960s tax rates would sure hit the 1% hard!)  

              Right now I'm looking at a Deloitte Consulting ad which states three rules:

              1.  Better Before Cheaper
              2.  Revenue Before Cost
              3.  There Are No Other Rules
              The irony here, of course, is that major corporations almost universally follow the opposite of these rules; they try to make everything cheaper, and they cut costs by externalizing them, foisting them on taxpayers, workers and the environment, rather than increasing wages, a move that, by increasing demand, would eventually increase revenue.
        •  Or an FCC chairman (as Net Neutrality is under (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aliasalias, skyounkin

          attack) who spent decades as telecom insider then lobbyist

          Despite that vote of confidence, many in the public interest community remain suspicious of Wheeler — even as they acknowledge that he’s the frontrunner — due to his industry lobbying and the fact that his positions on the major issues facing the FCC remain largely unknown. Earlier in his career, Wheeler served as president of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA), and later as CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA). In late March, more than two dozen public interest groups wrote to Obama expressing alarm that the president was considering a candidate “who was the head of not one but two major industry lobbying groups.”
          Yes, FCC board needs understanding of telecom.  But current Dem trend of appointing foxes to watch the hen-houses really, really sucks.    :o(

          "But I do apologize, JVolvo, for you are arbiter of all that can and cannot be discussed and I bow down to your supremacy when it comes to what can be written on this website." WinSmith 1/22/2014 - "OK" JVolvo 1/23/2014 (sorry, Clive)

          by JVolvo on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 09:12:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Setting foxes to watch hen-houses (0+ / 0-)

            is a bipartisan enterprise and always has been.  I can't claim it started when Ronnie the Popular appointed Don Regan Secretary of the Treasury, but that was one blatant example long ago.  It's the good old revolving door.

            The excuse is that we need someone who knows a lot about [name your area] to effectively regulate [said area].  In most cases, affected laypeople, especially those who have had to absorb the costs externalized by [said area], would do a better job than those who've already drunk way too much of the Kool-aid.

    •  Advice for the ages (8+ / 0-)
      As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat, it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the time. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

      And this is true in every context, I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for president. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

      In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

      Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol, of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

      This is as pertinent now as when you wrote it back in -the dark ages- 2007.

      And, yes, I think "this thing is on" but it's running on about one cylinder.

      We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

      by david78209 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 09:35:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Advice for the ages (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aunt Pat, fiercefilms, twigg, basket, Buddykat
      As citizens and activists, our allegiances have to be to the issues we believe in. I am a partisan Democrat, it is true. But the reason I am is because I know who we can pressure to do the right thing some of the time. Republicans aren't them. But that does not mean we accept the failings of our Democrats. There is nothing more important that we can do, as citizens, activists or bloggers than fight to pressure DEMOCRATS to do the right thing on OUR issues.

      And this is true in every context, I think. Be it pressing the Speaker or the Senate majority leader, or the new hope running for president. There is nothing more important we can do. Nothing. It's more important BY FAR than "fighting" for your favorite pol because your favorite pol will ALWAYS, I mean ALWAYS, disappoint you.

      In the middle of primary fights, citizens, activists and bloggers like to think their guy or woman is different. They are going to change the way politics works. They are going to not disappoint. In short, they are not going to be pols. That is, in a word, idiotic.

      Yes, they are all pols. And they do what they do. Do not fight for pols. Fight for the issues you care about. That often means fighting for a pol, of course. But remember, you are fighting for the issues. Not the pols.

      This is as pertinent now as when you wrote it back in -the dark ages- 2007.

      And, yes, I think "this thing is on" but it's running on about one cylinder.

      We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

      by david78209 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 09:57:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Daily kos loading miserable slow for me today. (12+ / 0-)

      Anyone else?

      "So listen, oh, Don't wait." Vampire Weekend.

      by Publius2008 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:16:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  One o Af the most significant things we can do to (26+ / 0-)

      promote progressive positions among pols is to absolutely AVOID rewarding those who betray us by violating our positions AND their promises.  Clinton is such a one.  Our community gave them $2M at a time when their campaign was essentially bankrupt, on the promise that Clinton would lift the ban on gays in the military.  We saved his campaign.  Instead he gave us Don't Ask, Don't Tell, which not only FAILED to fulfill his promises but also removed the issue from being an executive order and made the issue a formally legislated  law, making it  in enormously more difficult for any future president to change the law.  They basically locked in discrimination into our military and our culture for the next 20 years.  As events have shown, once the ban was lifted, the rest is sliding along nicely.

      As if this betrayal were not enough they then rubbed salt in our very deep wounds by signing the Defense of Marriage Act.  The Clintons are a creep show and delayed gay rights by 20 years.  We could have had a life.  I am deeply, deeply embittered by this and don't think Clinton's co-President deserves rewarding.  The message you send to the democratic party is "Go ahead, betray us again.  We don't mind."  The message should be, "betray us and there are consequences."  And if you send this message all of your other attempts to support progressive ideas will be moot because no one will see any benefit in complying, ever.  Especially Clinton.  With, Clinton as President, any advocacy will just be a total waste of time and money.

      GOP Wars against: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, Women, Unions, Workers, Unemployed, Voters, Elderly, Kids, Poor, Sick, Disabled, Dying, Lovers, Kindness, Rationalism, Science, Sanity, Reality.

      by SGWM on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:56:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  HRC, the betrayer (22+ / 0-)

        Foreign policy:  Hawk
        Economic policy:  Wall Street
        Social policy:  Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

        GOP Wars against: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, Women, Unions, Workers, Unemployed, Voters, Elderly, Kids, Poor, Sick, Disabled, Dying, Lovers, Kindness, Rationalism, Science, Sanity, Reality.

        by SGWM on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:57:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Best comment ever. (16+ / 0-)

        The same could be said of trade and climate change policy. Environmentalists helped Bill get elected and he became the Neville Chamberlain of the climate crisis. Hillary continued that legacy by helping to grease the wheels at the state Dept for Keystone XL.
        Unions helped Clinton get elected and he said thanks with NAFTA.

        Time for accountability.

        •  TIMELINES ARE FUNNY THINGS (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tari, bear83, aznavy

          NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992. It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries in 1993. The U.S. House of Representatives approved it by 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993. The U.S. Senate approved it by 60 to 38 on November 20, three days later.

          The impetus for NAFTA actually began with President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on a North American common market. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act. This is important because it gave the President "fast-track" authority to negotiate free trade agreements, while only allowing Congress the ability to approve or disapprove, not change negotiating points. Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney agreed with Reagan to begin negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which was signed in 1988, went into effect in 1989 and is now suspended due to NAFTA. (Source: NaFina, NAFTA Timeline)

          Clinton signed the final draft which became one of his waterloos.

          Those who think they KNOW EVERYTHING really piss off those of us who DO.

          by olegar on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 06:08:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Accountability: Absolutely, and in a nutshell. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          apimomfan2

          Love it.  Thanks.

          GOP Wars against: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, Women, Unions, Workers, Unemployed, Voters, Elderly, Kids, Poor, Sick, Disabled, Dying, Lovers, Kindness, Rationalism, Science, Sanity, Reality.

          by SGWM on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 06:16:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I so totally, totally agree. Totes. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Shawn87, jm214, bartcopfan, Bluesee, Terri

        Whatever the president wills, so shall it be! The only, and I mean one and only reason gay marriage wasn't legalized 20 years ago in every state is solely because Bill Clinton didn't want it be. Seriously, there was no other opposition at all. Noting stood in is way except the will of the President.

        That also explains the NSA, Guantanamo, why the banks haven't been nationalized, why the minimum wage hasn't been raised, why gay marriage is still illegal in most states - all because that is exactly what Obama wants. And what the president wants, the president gets! There is literally nothing standing in the way of his divine will; there is no force on the planet that can prevent the president from making things the way he wants them to be. All he has to do is speak, and instantly the entire edifice of jurisprudence reconfigures itself and its 200+ year history to match his pronouncements. The will of the people, their attitudes and expectations, are like putty in his hands: he need merely wave a hand, and a thousand years of ingrained cultural and religious prejudice evaporates, as if it had never been. He need merely point, and implacable Federal forces of black helicopters descend on every single state, city, and county government to enforce his edicts without fail.

        I so totally, totally agree. Totes, even.

      •  Got it: we win by punishing success (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Terri

        We must immediately seek out any politicians who have made any progress at all, and punish them for failure to achieve total victory. Because dog knows the only possible reason for a politician to fail to advance a policy is because the politician doesn't really want to advance the policy. There is no other conceivable source of failure than weakness of will on the part of the leader.

        With progressive politics, the only reasonable strategy is to destroy anyone who gets close to our goals. That way the only politicians left standing will be completely pure. Anyone who dares to make the argument that they achieved what was possible at the time is merely inventing cover for their failure to achieve perfection. Also, these people never change, and seeing their incremental efforts rewarded will not in any way encourage them to take bigger steps.

        •  Somebody pleas (6+ / 0-)

          just make this word go away...

          incremental
          It's dead to me.

          This all started with "what the Republicans did to language".

          by lunachickie on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:25:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How about Pragmatically Incremental (TM)? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lunachickie

            Make that excremental?

            "But I do apologize, JVolvo, for you are arbiter of all that can and cannot be discussed and I bow down to your supremacy when it comes to what can be written on this website." WinSmith 1/22/2014 - "OK" JVolvo 1/23/2014 (sorry, Clive)

            by JVolvo on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 09:28:13 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  This is nuts. Partial victory in someone's life? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mickT, ChuckChuckerson, JVolvo

          Partial victory in Jim Crow? Reevaluate your priorities and values.  There are places for partial victories and places where that is nuts.  Don't Ask was NOT a partial Victory, it wasn't even same old same old with lipstick, it was way worse than the status quo.

          GOP Wars against: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, Women, Unions, Workers, Unemployed, Voters, Elderly, Kids, Poor, Sick, Disabled, Dying, Lovers, Kindness, Rationalism, Science, Sanity, Reality.

          by SGWM on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 06:12:24 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for the long-winded version of... (0+ / 0-)

          "The Pony" story.

          We've never heard that one before.




          Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

          by DeadHead on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 06:21:21 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Objection--assumes facts not in evidence! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stevenaxelrod, walkabout, Buckeye54
        As if this betrayal were not enough they then rubbed salt in our very deep wounds by signing the Defense of Marriage Act.
        I hear and appreciate your strong opinion, but I also remember the political climate of the Speaker Gingrich Congress of 1995-6. I agree w/ those who say that, had Clinton not signed DOMA (reprehensible though it was), we'd now be staring at a situation where "traditional marriage" was much more strongly embedded than it currently is via Constitutional amendment. My wife and I were among the ineffectual 25% who worked and voted against such a state constitutional amendment here in Jokelahoma in 2004. Instead, LGBT rights are on an (IMHO, unstoppable) upswing--surely one of the fastest reversals of American public opinion in history--even here, where a federal court judge recently overturned that anti-LGBT amendment.

        Please understand, I have plenty of concerns about where HRC would lead us and to whom (Goldman Sachs?) she would feel obligation(s). But I also see her as one of the prime objects of conservative hatred from the 1990s. As virulent as the anti-Obama forces have been--w/ strong racial overtones--I guarantee she'll see the same (from most of the same people) opposition and misogynist-overtones. I think we can work with and from that to keep progressive pressure on her, as Armando suggests.

        "Push the button, Max!" Jack Lemmon as Professor Fate, The Great Race

        by bartcopfan on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:14:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's a lot of gay Republicans, and many smoke (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mickT

          pot. Let me put up my lightning rod and suggest that the two progressive motions you can see in our polity, gay rights and movement toward repeal of the Great Pot Prohibition, are hardly pure progressive. The NSA, which is a shorthand for a much larger horror, and the collective epithet "Wall Street," and so much else, are still on a heavy roll, and I'm sure everyone else has their own favorite examples of What's Wrong.

          It's a waste of time to try to catalog all the bad, and nominal spinnable "good," that our current crop of Dems, including Obama and his people, and the rest of the Rulers, have managed or manufactured. Ordinary people, who used to make, and still do, most of the REAL wealth that funds all the rest and underwrites imperialism and financialism, are getting more and more screwed. To all you "realists" who want to hold onto The Hillary's horsetail, with all that image implies, is more of the same, with more vehemence, going to make a damn bit of difference in the TPPing of the White House, the "all of the above energy strategy," the militarization/security-stating-securitization of everything? Most of you know some or a lot of how the Deep State operates. Is yielding that still-important LEGITIMACY of the electoral process to the people who laugh at it, and brag on it, and happily gobble it up and use it to feed the muscles that they use to beat the rest of us with going to Make Things Better?

          The kleptocrats have a unifying principle: MORE. More for themselves, at the cost to everyone else. We eat their externalities, they eat our lunch, and our children's lunch. What is the simple statement of the unifying principle of people who would like to have food security, real safety and privacy for themselves and their families, half a chance at stopping the runaway heat death of the planet (which the rich folks plan on profiting from too, http://www.slate.com/... )?

          So let's fight each other, get sidetracked by trolls and true believers, insist we each have the inside track on how to incrementally marginalize our way to what? A "better life?" "Elect more [and better, supposedly] Democrats?" How's that going to work out for us? Anyone paying attention to what's going on in the former Imperial province of Ukraine? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...

          "Is that all there is?" Peggy Lee.

          by jm214 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 06:06:39 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Reprehensible is the key word. A veto would have (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Willinois, apimomfan2

          signaled to the nation that this bigotry is unacceptable whether the veto had be overridden or not.  And that would have helped the cause.  Those are the facts inn evidence, bart.

          GOP Wars against: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Immigrants, Mexicans, Blacks, Gays, Women, Unions, Workers, Unemployed, Voters, Elderly, Kids, Poor, Sick, Disabled, Dying, Lovers, Kindness, Rationalism, Science, Sanity, Reality.

          by SGWM on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 06:15:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Spot on, correct analysis of the situation. Add: (13+ / 0-)

      The politics of the situation is BEST for even the centrists like Clinton. That's because the old Clinton focus on middle  income, blue collar white folks, the Reagan Democrats if you will, are a shrinking demographic of the electorate. Furthermore, they are increasingly becoming pure-bred Republicans.

      But if Clinton can pull some of those folks, even in low percentages, this shrinks the playing field for Republicans as they are almost certain to fuck up outreach to those parts of the electorate that are growing. Republicans have a political strategy that relies on running up the score with older white people only. But even with 60+ percent of that vote, they still can't win as Mitt Romney's Campaign demonstrated. In 2020, they wont even be able to win with 70% of the older white vote.

      So even if you're a Centrist type, whatever that means, you have ever interest is moving left to capture every bit of the growing demographics, rather than triangulating against them. I think the Clintons themselves get this, which is why they made a point of showing up at de Blasio's inaugural and putting themselves front and center.

        •  Or they're earning some fake populist cred (18+ / 0-)

          in preparation for 2016.

          I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:33:59 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Kind of like that guy who joined the right church? (7+ / 0-)

            Worked as a community organizer? Used phrases like "Yes we can!" and "Be the change you seek"? That guy?

            Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

            by expatjourno on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:35:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He poisoned the well. (6+ / 0-)

              Even if Gandhi himself arose and started a populist progressive movement and ran for office, people probably wouldn't believe him. And I understand why.

              I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:16:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Did you even read the original post? (0+ / 0-)

                I mean, seriously. Did you?

                Your desire to have a perfect saintly leader who will lead us all into the promised land by his pure awesomeness is pretty much the entire thing the diary was arguing against.

                Maybe you should try reading the original post.

                •  No (5+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  blueoasis, jm214, apimomfan2, Lysis, JVolvo

                  what I think he's saying is that Obama poisoned the well for anybody believing any candidate anymore.

                  I knew this was coming. People ascribed all kinds of beliefs and false hopes onto him and saw what they wanted to see not the reality of who he was and is.

                  It's the policy stupid

                  by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:10:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  You misread my comment. (9+ / 0-)

                  And you're misunderstanding my view of Gandhi, but that's understandable.

                  My view is that Gandhi was one wicked savvy lawyer and political thinker in addition to being a moral leader. He didn't just waft along on a cloud of saintliness and make things happen through the strength of his virtue.

                  Anyway, the point is not that I want a saintly leader who will lead us all into the promised land.  The point is that people flock to moral leaders who will lead them, if not into the promised land, into a better life.

                  You want people to flock to leaders whose claim to fame is how well they understand DC and fit into its culture, including high-priced donor dinners. The American people don't like DC, don't like its culture, such as it is, and don't like the donors or the dinners. They won't turn out for people like that unless those people have a really good story to tell them that distracts them from who they really are. And both sides are running out of stories. Stories that will fly, anyway. The Democrats' political narrative is sort of like the political equivalent of tar sands dilbit. Diluted bitumen stripped from sand is what you mine when your sources of good readily available petroleum products are running out. If the Tea Party disbanded tomorrow, most of the Democrats in office would lose about 60% of their campaign support and momentum, in money, volunteers, and messaging. Without extremist Republicans to run against, they have practically nothing to run on.

                  I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

                  by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:20:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I have to disagree with you here. (3+ / 0-)

                    The Democrats still have a greatest hits collection that is second to none.

                    Equal rights for all
                    Preserving the environment for our children
                    Sound economics
                    A living wage
                    Fair taxation
                    Freedom to organize
                    Protecting Medicare and Social Security
                    A path to citizenship
                    All we have to fear is fear itself

                    And the negative message that Republicans have stood in the way of every advance society has made.

                    Basically, the same messages of the New Deal, the civil rights movement and the environmental movement, plus a few new ones on the playlist.

                    Demorcrats have great, substantive messages—if they want to use them.

                    It just takes creating four boxes of messages: What we say about us, what we say about them, what they say about us, what they say about them. And then executing our messages and executing against theirs.

                    Elizabeth Warren is on the right track. And while I don't believe in riding heroes, I do think that her lifelong track record on some of the economic issues gives her genuine credibility. Then again, she had White House backing, so maybe not.

                    Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

                    by expatjourno on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 12:15:49 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The Democrats have visibly abandoned (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JVolvo, Miz Trom, expatjourno

                      all but two of those messages:  equal rights and a path to citizenship. And the version of "equal rights" that they support is an amputated one that in no way accounts for poverty. So you get analyses of racism that don't address money, for instance.

                      They are trying to run on that amputated version of "equal rights for all" but will they be able to appear principled while continuing to screw everyone who isn't rich? It worked twice with Obama, but I have my doubts as to whether sexism can do the same trick for them that racism did.

                      When I say "They're running out of stories to run on," what I mean is: Here are the stories they have left:

                      1)Eew! The Republicans are so extremist!

                       2)Look, we're running a woman! Just like we ran a black guy last time!

                      Take away the first story (Republican extremism) and what they have left is not nearly enough to capture the imaginations of an American people that is being economically driven into the ground.

                      I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

                      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:36:10 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Yeah, those are the ones they're running on. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        SouthernLiberalinMD

                        And they have abandoned the others.

                        I would not equate abandoning messages with running out of them, especially since it seems obvious to me that the abandoned messages would resonate with voters.

                        But I totally agree with what you mean.

                        They are trying to run on that amputated version of "equal rights for all" but will they be able to appear principled while continuing to screw everyone who isn't rich? It worked twice with Obama, but I have my doubts as to whether sexism can do the same trick for them that racism did.
                        Excellent point.

                        Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

                        by expatjourno on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 10:02:54 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Thanks, and I think we only differ here (0+ / 0-)

                          semantically.

                          I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

                          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 10:08:35 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  Doesn't mean I think your comment is wrong (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JVolvo, expatjourno

                      I was just saying something else.

                      I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

                      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:36:37 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Elizabeth Warren is on the right track (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      JVolvo, expatjourno, joedemocrat

                      but I will be blown away (and owe Armando three rounds of drinks) if she runs against Hillary. And the bench is thin on her side of the mountain. I'd be surprised if there were more than 50 politicians on the Hill who hail from that wing of the Democratic party--and would be willing to back their beliefs up with a fight.

                      I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

                      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:39:13 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I don't see her running against Hillary, either. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        joedemocrat

                        Too bad, because it would strike one helluva blow against tokenism.

                        Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

                        by expatjourno on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 10:04:25 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  And that situation is what should be defining... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        joedemocrat

                        ...the major hunk of our (electoral) politicking right now: Filling that very empty bench from the state legislatures on up. Otherwise, we're going to be in the same place as now in 2020 and 2030, although the nation will be in even deeper crises.

                        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

                        by Meteor Blades on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 04:07:54 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Way to miss the point. (0+ / 0-)

                  Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

                  by expatjourno on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:51:00 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  That, and payback--Bill de Blasio was HRC's (4+ / 0-)

            (NY) Senatorial campaign manager, IIRC.

            ;-)

            Mollie

            "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


            hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

            by musiccitymollie on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:05:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Ditto, gb. N/T (0+ / 0-)

          Mollie

          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

          by musiccitymollie on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:43:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Or you could say "The 99% have to like it or (9+ / 0-)

        lump it. I'm going to please my big donors, who will shower me with mega-bucks and then I will dominate the airwaves, and then I will win."

        Until someone or something disrupts this equation:

         big bucks=domination of the airwaves=win

        And this one:

        Incumbent+gerrymandering=permanent or near-permanent ownership of the office

        none of them is going to give a damn about what the majority of the voters think. Aside from the few of them who care without having to be frightened of us.

        I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:33:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think they know they can't win like that. (10+ / 0-)

          You can be certain they're going to govern like that, but I think its highly unlikely they're going to campaign like that ever again. Look at how rapidly the Blue Dogs have shrunk to irrelevance. Hillary Clinton may be an internationalist oligarch loving corporate institutionalist, but she isn't stupid. The writing is on the wall.

          We need to be not so worried about finding the perfect progressive to put in the White House. We're a generation away from that since, quite frankly, a lot of old white folks are just going to have to die. Instead, we need to be much more focused on reshaping the Democratic Party at the state and local level and building up a deep bench.

          •  i don't think anyone is "worried about finding... (8+ / 0-)

            ...the perfect progressive to put in the White House."

            But nominating Hillary would be like nominating Joe Lieberman.

            I can hold my nose when I vote, but I'm not going to swallow my vomit.

            The rest of your comment I agree with.

            Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

            by expatjourno on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:40:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Or Barack Obama. (5+ / 0-)

              Save the issues of the Iraq War and making all three branches of American government subservient to the Israeli Prime Minister, there isn't much difference between Joe Lieberman and President Obama.

              But with the clearing out of Blue Dogs in the House, over the long haul we stand a much better chance of winning a very cohesive, yet slim, Democratic majority in the House if there is a Democrat in the White House. There's a lot of dead wood in the House we could be clearing out. Especially in the Black Caucus. Not to mention the Democratic House caucus is very, very old. Much older than the GOP caucus. We need to start moving some of the lazier bums off into retirement and get some fresh faces out there.

              •  Agreed. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                JVolvo

                Obama: Pro-Pentagon, pro-Wall Street, pro-drilling, pro-fracking, pro-KXL, pro-surveillance. And the only person he prosecuted for the U.S. torture program is the man who revealed it. Clinton: More of the same.

                by expatjourno on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:48:58 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Unfortunately, the elder statesmen/women (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                expatjourno

                include lots of people like John Conyers and John Lewis. Some of the best policy positions rest with the old.

                I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 09:14:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Time for both of those guys to go. (0+ / 0-)

                  Conyers especially. But Lewis too. Ask anyone in Atlanta and they'll tell you he's been useless for years. They need a WORKING congressman confronting current problems with vigor, not some old man resting on laurels from 50 years ago.

                  •  They vote right. The young bloods coming in (0+ / 0-)

                    after them will almost certainly vote as the richest guy in their donor pool tells them to vote.

                    I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

                    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 02:32:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not really worried much about the White House (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joedemocrat, coral, mconvente, JVolvo

            Really deep changes need to happen before we'd be able to put anybody good in there. Or before it would be any use to put anybody good in there. If we put Warren in, assuming we could, I think there's a fairly good chance that the next time we saw her in front of a camera she'd be giving Hillary-Clinton-style talking points.

            So I agree with you on a number of your points. I don't think our deeper analysis of the situation is necessarily the same, but I agree to some extent with your focus.

            I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:15:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Before it woudl be any use" (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              bartcopfan, Terri

              The fifteen million people who now have health insurance say "Fuck you. Fuck you very much."

              Also, I guess every single gay person in military, but I don't want presume. Maybe some of them are in GOProud.

              •  Before it would be any use (0+ / 0-)

                on any economic or ecological issue, or any civil liberties issue involving dissent or police abuse or the security sector.

                I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:53:02 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  They showed up to slurp up some of his cred. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dclawyer06, apimomfan2

        Pretty transparent.

      •  There are no "Reagan Dems"--they are Republicans! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dallasdoc, Bluesee, JVolvo

        But even scarier, I've been told the UAW debacle was actually "a rejection of the Dem Party, in general," more than the union.  (because of the close association of unions with the Dem Party)

        I also know from the same relatives that the ACA is very unpopular there (then there are other issues, of course).

        At any rate, it is true that the UAW was able to come into the state and establish a local in Springhill TN (outside of Nashville) several years ago.

        Some of the Special Elections coming up may give us a heads up on the severity of the situation.

        Chris Matthews said on "Meet The Press" earlier today that the "rosy scenario" in 2010 was a loss of 5-6 Senate seats (for Dems).

        Dunno--I'm not keeping up with them, although I've heard some commentary on how difficult the races are for several Southern Dem Senators.

        But I do believe that strategists are correct--many (including union households) working-class folks have left the Dem Party.

        For good or ill, there is a very narrow constituency now--the same coalition that got the President elected, and that's it.  

        The question is, will this coalition elect Hillary, or any DLC Dem?

        The youth vote where we live went very heavily for Paul in 2012, although the President did quite well in 2008.

        From polls, it sounds as though the youth vote may swing to the Libertarians, unless Dems change their agenda (away from a corporatist one, to a populist one).

        From all that I read, that is not at all likely to happen if Secretary Clinton is the nominee.

        The "Money Honey"* has already declared on a Sunday Talk Show several months ago that Hillary is the choice of "Big Business."

        *Maria Bartiromo

        So we'll see . . .

        Mollie

        "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


        hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

        by musiccitymollie on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:02:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary sure (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Lysis

          got a lot of working class votes in 2008.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:13:06 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  A lot has happened since 2008 . . . (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bluesee, JVolvo

            Like the obsessive attempt by the Democratic Party to pass a "Grand Bargain"--which would begin to dismantle our social insurance programs as we know them, if they are passed and implemented.

            I know of no other Social Security cuts which were to be levied on those folks already retired--until this Administration offered up the Chained CPI (in exchange for tax revenue).

            That, and the "Cadillac-Tax" on better health insurance plans (some of which were unions plans), which also has had a ruinous effect on Mr M's once excellent group health policy--and I'm among the "most left" in the Party, but am getting sick and tired of the assault on the social safety net.

            I'm just lucky that Mr M and I have excellent retirement plans (including defined benefit plans), and that I finally got to file BEFORE this Administration enacts more cuts to federal employee retirement plans.

            Not too many "near retiree" federal workers are "wild about" this crew after their salary freezes, and the ensuing assault on their retirement plans--which is ongoing according to OPM.

            At any rate, Democrats need to get off the kick of going after Social Security, Medicare and federal pensions (I believe that they restored some cuts to military pensions).

            Anyhow, it was Chris Matthews who said that Southern Dem Senators are in so much trouble--not me.

            However, I have read that Landrieu has actually run "to the left," for the first time in her career--because she can't pick up Reagan Dems.  Therefore, she's had to distance herself from the ACA, etc., while attempting to "sound" left and court the minority vote in Loiusiana.  Supposedly, it will be her only hope to win (because she cannot garner the "Reagan Dem" vote in any substantial numbers).

            Mary Pryor in Arkansas is having the same problem, from what I've heard on C-Span.

            He even began running ads holding a huge Bible in his hand.  Now, can you imagine a Democrat Senator doing that?

            Jeeezzz!!!

            Mollie

            "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


            hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

            by musiccitymollie on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:33:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  50 state strategy pushed by Dean (12+ / 0-)

              and then the Dems backpedaled. When you don't mount a credible campaign for Democratic candidates in deep Red States you are giving up the chance to publicize your agenda, educate the public about policy, and build support for eventual change when people wake up to the truth (because you've been lighting the way).

              Abandoning the 50 state strategy is the worst political decision the national Democratic party has made in the past few decades. They are allowing the Tea Party to take over the GOP by not presenting a progressive or even moderate counterforce to insane right wing policies.  

              Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

              by coral on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:23:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  You are correct. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musiccitymollie, JVolvo

              Running after Obama is not going to be a piece of cake.

              I'm not disagreeing with you on the southern democratic senators.

              I know Pryor is a blue dog and a lot of people here don't like him but Tom Cotton is downright ODIOUS. I hope Pryor can pull this one out.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:35:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think anyone much cares (0+ / 0-)

          about Tennessee Democrats. The people of Tennessee elect their ultra right wing nutcase majority so by all means they should have it. We can't worry about the opinions of people in states we have no reason to compete in.

          •  Frankly, if the midterms are the bloodbath that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Buckeye54

            some analysts are predicting, it would seem that Democrats should worry!

            Again, I'm basing my opinion on relatives' opinions of the UAW fiasco.

            TN is considered by some analysts to be a nominal "purple" state.  

            If I recall correctly, Al Gore hails from TN (although he couldn't win his own state--but that was because of Gore's affiliation with MonicaGate, because of Clinton, and a few other issues).

            The bottom line is that the Democratic Party needs to get off the kick of "entitlement reform" (cuts).

            They are going to suffer a massive shellacking if this obsession continues.  

            In both 2014 and 2016 . . .

            Mollie

            "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


            hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

            by musiccitymollie on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:43:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Fortunately (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musiccitymollie

              for Hillary she has had no part in all of that.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:40:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not sure what you mean that "that." If you're (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CenPhx, JVolvo

                referring to "entitlement" reform, when I get back from a meeting, I'll post you a copy of the DLC's manifesto on social and economic policy.

                If you recall, she ran to the right of Obama on Social Security.  Not that it mattered, since I haven't heard a peep out of this Administration about "raising the cap" on taxable wages--even though PBO said he favored it.

                At any rate, Hillary was staunchly against bringing up to the 90% mark where it had traditionally been for decades.

                Now, that's gonna win a lot of votes--Dems willing to cut the poorest seniors by up to 10% compounded over 30 years, but unwilling to ask more affluent seniors to pay FICA taxes on a few more thousand dollars of their earnings!

                I imagine after the Democratic Party's many attempts at striking a "Grand Bargain--ALL of the Former Secretary Clinton's stances (and those of her many associated organizations--DLC, Third Way, No Labels, etc.) over her lifetime will be examined with a fine-toothed comb.  

                And they should be.

                Then there was the "deal" that was almost struck under FP Clinton and Gingrich that Erskine Bowles almost struck--it will surely be rehashed, under the circumstances of the past five years of attempts to cut the social safety net programs.

                Jane Hamsher wrote an excellent diary on this topic that will surely resurface.  We need to know HRC's stance on this deal (remember, MonicaGate is all that saved us from this deal).

                And, does anyone actually believe that it is a coincidence that PBO selected that off-the-charts right-winger Erskine Bowles to co-chair the Fiscal Commission?

                ;-)

                Mollie

                "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


                hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

                by musiccitymollie on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 05:38:42 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I do not (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Lysis

                  remember her running to the right on social security from Obama. I remember Obama not telling people that he was for privatizing social security which his economic team supported.

                  I remember overall she was to the left of Obama on the economy. She wanted to do a HOLC to help underwater homeowners and Obama said that was not possible and that these people did not deserve the houses that they had bought.

                  She's not part of no labels. She was partisan. Obama is the one that ran for president as being nonpartisan.

                  Go to one of her townhalls and ask her these questions. She had many of them back in 2008 and spent hours talking with the voters.

                  It's the policy stupid

                  by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 03:55:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm sorry, but she did. Please see below. (0+ / 0-)
                    Clinton called Obama’s proposal to raise Social Security taxes on annual earnings over $97,500 “a trillion-dollar increase on middle class families.”

                    Obama defended his proposal: “Only 6% of Americans make more than $97,000--so 6% is not the middle class --it’s the upper class.” Clinton responded that some of her constituents would still find the increase burdensome. “I represent firefighters. I represent school supervisors,” she said.

                    This is one of the reasons that some near-retirees voted for PBO over HRC (the first time around).

                    And below is an excerpt from the DLC's "Hyde Park Declaration" which HRC signed on to.

                    Create Retirement Savings Accounts

                    Clinton adopted the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":

                    Balance America’s Commitments to the Young and the Old

                    An ever-growing share of the federal budget today consists of automatic transfers from working Americans to retirees. Moreover, the costs of the big entitlements for the elderly -- Social Security and Medicare -- are growing at rates that will eventually bankrupt them and that could leave little to pay for everything else government does.

                    We can’t just spend our way out of the problem; we must find a way to contain future costs.

                    The federal government already spends seven times as much on the elderly as it does on children. To allow that ratio to grow even more imbalanced would be grossly unfair to today’s workers and future generations.

                    In addition, Social Security and Medicare need to be modernized to reflect conditions not envisioned when they were created in the 1930s and the 1960s. Social Security, for example, needs a stronger basic benefit to bolster its critical role in reducing poverty in old age. Medicare needs to offer retirees more choices and a modern benefit package that includes prescription drugs.

                    Such changes, however, will only add to the cost of the programs unless they are accompanied by structural reforms that restrain their growth and limit their claim on the working families whose taxes support the programs.

                    Goals for 2010

                    Honor our commitment to seniors by ensuring the future solvency of Social Security and Medicare.

                    Make structural reforms in Social Security and Medicare that slow their future cost growth, modernize benefits (including a prescription drug benefit for Medicare), and give beneficiaries more choice and control over their retirement and health security.

                    Create Retirement Savings Accounts to enable low-income Americans to save for their own retirement.  (The President just signed an Executive Order to this effect.)

                    [Source: The Hyde Park Declaration 00-DLC7 on Aug 1, 2000.]

                    (I will be posting the manifesto--their words--again, in its entirety later.  Right now I've got too many competing obligations to even post comments--much less diaries--and it is very lengthy and detailed.)

                    Many mainstream articles say that "No Labels" is the bipartisan recarnation of the DLC.

                    Partly due to the fact that many of the "founders," charter members, and policy wonks of this organization are both staunch Clinton fundraisers/bundlers/advisors/strategists/operatives, etc, and former members of the DLC.

                    Heck, one of the main founders, Nancy Jacobson, is the "wife" of Dem strategist and pollster Mark Penn--her campaign manager in 2008 (if my memory serves me correctly).

                    The Washington Post said, "Although No Labels bills itself as a citizens' movement, its leaders are veterans of campaign politics."[37] No Labels was founded by veteran Democratic fundraiser[11] Nancy Jacobson . . .  (she is Mark Penn's wife)

                    From Wikipedia:

                    Nancy Jacobson is a United States Democratic Party fundraiser.[1] She has been the National Finance Chair for Indiana Senator Evan Bayh since 1995, and was Finance Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) under President Clinton.

                    She has helped launch political organizations to support centrist Democratic Party ideas and candidates,[2] and engage women in the political process.[3] In 2010, she (along with Mark McKinnon) co-founded No Labels, a 501(c)(4) citizens movement of Republicans, Democrats and Independents[4] whose mission is to address the politics of problem solving.[5] Jacobson was named one of the 50 Most Powerful People in D.C. by GQ Magazine in 2007.[6]

                    This organization "kicked off" informally in summer of 2010, and again formally in New York City on December 14, 2010.

                    It was in February 2011* that DLC was then "folded into the Clinton Foundation."

                    *On February 7, 2011, Politico reported that the DLC would dissolve, and would do so as early as the following week.[4] On July 5 of that year, DLC founder Al From announced in a statement on the organization's website that the historical records of the DLC have been purchased by the Clinton Foundation.[5]

                    The now defunct DLC website provides a wealth of information regarding the corporatist neoliberal agenda.

                    For the most part, the social safety net proposals (including the Grand Bargain) of this Administration ARE the policies of the DLC/Third Way Movement/No Labels.

                    Just check out their websites!

                    ;-)

                    Mollie

                    "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


                    hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

                    by musiccitymollie on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 11:04:48 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

        •  TN and KY both have the "leave me alone" creed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          musiccitymollie

          that runs deep. It's in the water or something.  

          That's why Rand Paul makes such headway in the region.

          And I'd hypothesize that there is a good chunk of urban demographics who share that "leave me alone" sentiment because they live in the belly of the iron-fisted militarized-SWAT police-state beast.


          One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

          by bronte17 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 07:26:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Repub strategy of old white peeps only... (0+ / 0-)

        gotta get over that presumption.

        Rand Paul is and has been working hard against the GOP mentality on that one.

        Not only is U.S. Sen. Rand Paul’s “leave me alone” brand of libertarianism at the core of his brand within the Republican Party, it’s the foundation of his message to broaden the appeal of the party.

        Perhaps at no time was that more apparent than Friday night at the Jefferson County Republican Party’s “Party for the Party” event aimed at bringing in people who have been under-represented in many GOP events at the past: young people and African Americans, particularly.

        Paul said he believes the party can form a “leave me alone coalition” of people who are upset at government agencies like the NSA for snooping into emails and cell phone data or authorities sending accused terrorists to Guantanamo Bay without a trial. Paul urged Republicans to use a louder voice to support “the entire Bill of Rights.”

        If you want to be for the 2nd Amendment, you’ve got to be for the 4th Amendment,” Paul told the crowd of several hundred Republicans on Friday night.


        One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

        by bronte17 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 07:18:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Isn't working. Wont work. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          apimomfan2

          Ron Paul is misguided in thinking that its only social issues that are driving away the expanding demographic groups. Their entire fiscal policy, foreign policy, and theory of government is antithetical to those groups as well.

          The base of the party is the problem and they can't get rid of their base.

          •  The thing (0+ / 0-)

            is Paul is with the GOP on social issues. The only thing he seems to break with the GOP on is the security state and the War in Iraq.

            He's not really what i would even call a libertarian. He's a garden variety conservative with a libertarian streak when it comes to spying etc.

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 05:23:57 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  bbb... did you see the "leave me alone" issue (0+ / 0-)

            that Rand Paul is trumpeting. This is the beginning of the GOP realignment and I believe it will be successful.

            That issue will be a resoundingly effective slogan for campaigning and cuts across urban/rural divides.


            One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. --Carl Jung

            by bronte17 on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 05:42:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I think your approach makes sense. It won't (29+ / 0-)

    satisfy some elements here, but I think this represents a rational course.

    This site, btw, was down for a frustratingly long time.

    "The soil under the grass is dreaming of a young forest, and under the pavement the soil is dreaming of grass."--Wendell Berry

    by Wildthumb on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 09:12:25 AM PST

  •  I would rather Hillary than a Republican. (12+ / 0-)

    This little scrap:

    A populist Republican with limited Wall Street ties, with a fairly liberal social stance on marijuana, marriage equality, immigration reform, incarceration (mandatory minimums), and women’s rights is out there waiting. Anyone following the news can see that Republican in the making.
    Is calling for Mr. Etch-A-Sketch Romney. I think he will end up running against HRC.

    A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

    by onionjim on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 09:17:17 AM PST

    •  Populist GOPer? Fairly Lib on Social issues? Ha! (10+ / 0-)

      That critter don't exist and if one arose 9 times out of 10 it would be a wolf in sheep's clothing.

      Factor in the crazy in the primaries and that critter would be butchered and dressed in no time.

      Yes, a Mitt could survive the primary season because the crazies could not coalesce around one candidate but even Mitt couldn't gotten support if he'd been a "Populist".  Even Porky wouldn't put on that image.

      "Reason is six-sevenths of treason," said one of his neighbors. "Intelligence is what the enemy uses," said another.

      by Misterpuff on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:14:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Such Republicans used to exist (11+ / 0-)

        but they'd be drummed out of the party today.

        Heck, St. Ronald of Reagan would be drummed out of the party today.

        So this West Virginian walks into a bar and says, "Fix me a Green River."

        by Omir the Storyteller on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:31:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  and the best of them (16+ / 0-)

          would be way worse than Hillary.

          All her own initiatives have been progressive, and the only credible problem, that she's maybe too quick to intervene on the international front, would apply far more to a newbie republican who listens to neo-cons.  Mitt did, they wrote his foreign policy, egad, that was the scariest part about him being president, another W regarding his own lack of interest in the wide world and under the sway of crazy advisors. (How old is Kissinger, anyway, how can he still be alive?)

          That's the problem, come to think of it.  Rational Republicans on domestic policy listen to neo-cons, and the ones that would not, just go too far the other way into isolationism, plus awful domestic policy.

          The truth is that Democrats are the old Republicans on the economy, only liberal with domestic policies, which, turns out are what fuels the economy.  And that may be the reason the crazies could take over the Republicans, and it's Hillary's husband's fault. He stole their better ideas, and did some damage with them, but in the process he removed any reason for a Republican party.

          Democrats are better than libertarians on individual rights, think abortion.  And better on growing the economy than Republicans, think infrastructure projects and partnerships with business on education.  And greener than, well, there is room for a greener party, an unpractical greener party that will keep them on their toes.  And Hillary's heart is with moms and kid, universal pre-school was part of her 2008 campaign.  

          She's going to run on "practical populism," meaning turns out that helping people climb out of poverty grows the economy, go figure.  Not 'compassionate conservatism,' 'practical populism.'  (heard it first here!!)

      •  There's no populist. (8+ / 0-)

        But a Colin Powell type could give her the run of her life.
        Thing is, the Republicans are too stupid to take that tack.

        Either that, or both parties are making out like horny weasels as soon as the cameras turn off, as Matt Taibbi says.

        If I were working for the Republican party, and the Republican party did actually want to win, the playbook for that wouldn't be so hard to construct.

        I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:36:00 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The problem (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Trendar, llywrch, coral

          is that the GOP do want to win but the people who vote in the primaries think that the candidates that the GOP in DC picks out for them are sure losers.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:15:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Outside the 80 TP districts (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joedemocrat, mconvente, Odysseus

            I think Colin Powell could play well with the Republican voters.

            Inside those districts? Not sure.

            What would have to happen is a conversation within the Republican party about what it takes to beat HRC. I've been thinking about it, and there's only 5 policy positions, maybe 6, that they'd need to change. That and some messaging control would do it.

            1)Stop talking about rape. Disavow anybody who does that stupid rape-is-OK crap. You sound like lunatics and bastards, which you are, but you don't want to come off like that.

            2)Stop opposing contraception. You are not going to win any friends by opposing sex. Americans like sex. Even Republican husbands don't want to worry about having a kid every time, well, you get the picture.

            3) Stop it with the mandatory vaginal exams. Republican men, on average, don't like the idea of the government ordering doctors to order their wives to spread their legs. Nor their daughters. And if they don't like it, you can bet your bootie the rest of America won't like it either.

            4) Stop shutting down the government. (already done)

            5)Stop crashing the debt ceiling. (already done)

            6) Support either Social Security (as it currently is) or the kind of immigration policy Latinos in this country want. (You want to try to get that demographic, and they're too smart to give you their support for nothing. Ante up.)

            That would give you enough to go on with. And how much would you be losing, really? You could still be anti-abortion. You could still grind the poor to dust, and create no jobs. You're Republicans. The bar is much, much lower for you. Democrats are expected to help the people, because they're supposed to be the party of the people. You aren't. Plus you have the best messaging infrastructure since Goebbels.

            If you really want to get exciting,

            7) Oppose the TPP on the grounds that it imperils American sovereignty. You could fry the Democrats on that one. But you'd have to convince your donors that you didn't really mean it, or come up with some workaround that would give them the corporate-friendly policies they want despite the defeat of TPP. That way, you get to look populist and patriotic and still give your rich friends goodies.

            **The only reason I'm writing this stuff in public is that I'm sure the Republicans will never do it, so it doesn't really matter if they read this. They're too dumb or too fanatical to take this road.

            I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:31:45 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are (4+ / 0-)

              correct that the GOP is not going to do that anytime in the future. They are convinced that not enough old white people showed up to vote and that is the strategy that they are banking on.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:19:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah. Dumb. They seem to have lost (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joedemocrat

                their knowledge of how to run a campaign.

                I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:24:31 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

                  they haven't lost the knowledge on how to run a campaign so much as have not adjusted to the modern world. It's not like if they modernized the party that they would not win.

                  But right now modernization would probably lose them as many voters and it would gain them.

                  It's the policy stupid

                  by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:15:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I don't agree. I think that, were they smart (0+ / 0-)

                    or perhaps I should say psychologically capable of doing the most advantageous thing politically, they could, as I said earlier, give Hillary the run of her life, and might possibly beat her. Congress is even easier, as they have gerrymandering on their side there.

                    But they are devoted to keeping on doing exactly what they're doing.

                    I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

                    by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 07:25:16 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

            •  They will lose their base (0+ / 0-)

              if they do those things. There is no way a candidate could win GOP primary with that agenda.

              Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

              by coral on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:29:04 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's why the conversation (0+ / 0-)

                would be necessary. You'd have to get the TP on board with those things. And the carrot would be that they hate HRC's guts and would love to make her, first, squirm, and then lose.

                I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:48:37 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  If the leadership of the extreme right (0+ / 0-)

                came on board, most of the rank-and-file would too.

                I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:49:38 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  On top of it, if they kept pushing that playbook (0+ / 0-)

                they could well drive the Democratic party into permanent minority. That's quite a carrot.

                But they are too dumb to do it.

                I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:50:23 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

        •  Colin Powell will not run for pres (0+ / 0-)

          and if he did, he couldn't win the GOP primary. He endorsed Obama in 2008.

          Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

          by coral on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:27:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then find someone else in the military (0+ / 0-)

            or outside of politics with name recognition and run them. Using that playbook. The tough part would be the behind-the-scenes negotiation, getting everybody on board with the carrot of driving the Democratic party into permanent minority and putting the GOP's thumb firmly into the Clintons' eye. Once enough of the far right was on board it wouldn't be hard to make a fierce race of it, and it wouldn't be that hard to win.

            They could find a candidate, they'd just have to think outside the box.

            I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 09:11:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  You could be right... (8+ / 0-)

      I keep looking for the GOP frontrunners, and all I see is old information.

      Huckleberry is jammed.
      Christie's a crisp.
      Paul Rand is going Galt.
      rAyn Paul is fading.
      Bush is wearing Baptist Preacher glasses.
      Perry is wearing smart glasses.

      And a few others with funny names ain't even in 1%.

      But another run by Mitsy could actually be possible.

      I want to see him try.... Maybe they'll get his hair and teeth right this time.

      Ugh. --UB.

      "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

      by unclebucky on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:35:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ann wants to be first lady (7+ / 0-)

        more than Mitt wants to be prez.

        That meme is already out there and would only grow if he let himself be talked into doing it again.

        Please proceed...

        Mistakes are the portals of discovery. - James Joyce

        by Beastly Fool on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:38:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  A few threats (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        onionjim, auapplemac, unfangus, Portlaw

        Rob Portman, Jeb! Huntsman, Paul Ryan is the likely nominee, today.

        •  Those are not necessarily threats... (0+ / 0-)

          They have to be daylighted not just in friendly sites but in places where the fence-sitters can judge.

          The "Base" of the GOP have been trained like pitt bulls.

          Ugh. --UB.

          "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

          by unclebucky on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:40:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Portman and Jeb (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          whizdom, Portlaw

          I consider real possibilities, Huntsman and Ryan, not so much. Huntsman could put a roomful of cokeheads to sleep, and Ryan's another RW clown, just one who hasn't had as much scrutiny as the 2012 carload.

          "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

          by sidnora on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:09:49 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Rob Portman (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          whizdom, apimomfan2

          came out in favor of gay rights. He's a no go for the GOP primary voters.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:25:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Not batshit crazy" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coral, apimomfan2

            does seem to be a deal breaker, but they (GOP Primary voters) can't be that stupid for that long, can they?  Sooner or later they gotta realize that it ain't working.

            •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

              sooner or later they are going to get tired of losing and do something about it or they are either going into the dustbin of history. Take your pick. As of right now they are doing nothing to change despite the post mortem done after 2012. They have one strategy: get more old white people to the voting booths.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:21:54 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Nope... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ga6thDem

              "Batshit crazy" primary voters are CRAZY...NOT stupid. Crazy people often do things that make little sense. They tend to continue being self destructive until they become extinct.

              "Because we are all connected...."

              by Shawn87 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:30:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Mitt's answer to the question (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        unclebucky

        whether he wants to run again is, and I quote,

        Oh, no, no, no. No, no, no, no, no. No, no, no…I think that Chris Christie and Paul Ryan and Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, and the list goes on, have a much better chance of doing that, and so I will support one of them as they become the nominee…I don’t have a top choice. I’m inclined to Jeb and Chris and Paul Ryan, of course, who I think the world of. Scott Walker is extraordinarily impressive. Marco Rubio. We’ve got a number of very, very good people. And part of it is, let them get on the stage and see how they work with one another and how they debate and how they go through the crucible of a campaign, and then we’ll be able to make that selection.
        which does not stop Republicans asking ever more frequently since everybody threw Christie under the Bridge.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:54:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Mitzy thinks that... (0+ / 0-)

          All of the above are "very good people"...

          I thought Mormons didn't take drugs...

          Or is that he....

          Ugh. --UB.

          "Daddy, every time a bell rings, a Randian Libertaria­n picks up his Pan Am tickets for the Libertaria­n Paradise of West Dakota!"

          by unclebucky on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 05:10:05 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Jeb. nt (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Colorado is the Shiznit, Yahzi

        glasses or no glasses. His only disadvantage is his name, which, ironically, is also his only advantage.

        "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

        by sidnora on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:07:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  If we don't keep the Senate, all discussions of a (7+ / 0-)

      Dem president FAIL.

      A Dem Prez with a R House and Senate will stymie any efforts to take this country forward.

      All the prez will be good for is to hold the fort rather than advancing our causes.

      Work for getting good D people elected to the Senate. Even moderates and a few right of left leaning people will be better than the Rs taking over both houses.

      It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

      by auapplemac on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:04:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Always rather Democratic (6+ / 0-)

      than a Repug,  but I'm from  Jersey & become awful tired of never getting the candidates I want on the  ballot.

      "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx

      by DJ Rix on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:07:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "I'd rather Have Hillary than a Republican" sounds (15+ / 0-)

      like a bumper sticker to me. (sigh :(  So excited for 2016, let me tell you)

    •  On what planet does Mitt Romney (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      onionjim, atana, Shawn87

      have limited Wall Street ties with liberal stances on marijuana, marriage equality and women's rights?

      you might be right that Mitt runs again. i think he wants too and if the GOP field is dysfunctional again he might just jump in late. but no amount of etch a sketch will turn into into anything other than a retread of the same tired message he ran on in 2012, with even less credibility behind it because so much of that message will have turned out to be the bullshit it always was.

    •  Does anybody remember Huntsman? (0+ / 0-)

      You know, the father of Abby Huntsman, that woman on The Cycle on MSNBC who replaced S. E. Cupp. The guy who tried to run for President, but nothing happened.

      Jon Who?™ to the GOP.

      The Diarist is positing a Republican grandmother with wheels, who would in fact be a trolley car.

      Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

      by Mokurai on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:34:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "I would rather Hillary than a Republican". (11+ / 0-)

      Clever. That one has never been used before.

      If I turn into another, dig me up from under what is covering the better part of me. -- Incubus

      by Colorado is the Shiznit on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:35:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Southern Rep women told me they'd vote for her (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ga6thDem, llywrch, Lysis, coral, Odysseus, Bluesee

      during the primaries against Obama in the heart of TN, the steely-eyed, late 50s, thin as a rail woman who owns the Shell station down by I-40, who knows I'm a Democrat, asked

      "Yer voting for her, ain'tcha?"

      "Yes ma'am, I am."

      "Good. She's been through it. She's a momma. Put up with some real crap. Stood up to it all. I'll vote for her when I get the chance."

      "I hope you do."

      It was odd. Most of the time I keep my politics to myself, and mine are not popular around here. But I ran into this kind of encounter 4 or 5 times, and I found it intriguing.

    •  Social issues (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      apimomfan2

      I fail to see any GOP who are moderate on social issues. They are all antediluvian.

      Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

      by coral on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:44:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The thing nobody is saying (6+ / 0-)
      A populist Republican with limited Wall Street ties, with a fairly liberal social stance on marijuana, marriage equality, immigration reform, incarceration (mandatory minimums), and women’s rights . . .
      This is Hillary Clinton.

      Well, minus the "populist" part.

      "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

      by Geenius at Wrok on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:53:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Finally, you said it. nt (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        apimomfan2

        A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

        by onionjim on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:33:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  She talks a good populist line (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        apimomfan2

        that's why she did better among white working class voters in primaries vs. Obama.

        Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

        by coral on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:33:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  She didn't do better among white working class (0+ / 0-)

          voters. She did better among white working class voters in Appalachia and the Highland South.

          "The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is the first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk. Every state is totalitarian at heart; there are no ends to the cruelty it will go to to protect itself." -- Ian McDonald

          by Geenius at Wrok on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:10:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Unless that "credible challenger" (49+ / 0-)

      gets creamed.

      I'd actually rather a "non-credible challenger" who can more easily exceed expectations and paradoxically, have a stronger effect on the political narrative in favor of progressivism.

      My choice is Bernie Sanders.

      •  Oh yeah. (11+ / 0-)

        Bernie could move the window, he's a good debater.

        A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

        by onionjim on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:17:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not from what I saw of him against Michele Bachman (4+ / 0-)

          on CNN.

          He got frustrated and backed off. Maybe it was personal reaction to her interruptions, but to those watching who are not familiar with him, it came across as weak. And when he was making his argument, he just kept repeating the same phrases over  and over.

          It was a script rather that a debate. There were other points he could have made, but just stuck to the same point as if there were no other reasons.

          It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

          by auapplemac on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:12:18 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He is very good with people. Almost every Friday (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior, llywrch, Eric Nelson, Bluesee

            afternoon he is on the radio with Tom Hartman -- Lunch With Bernie. I was never a fan of Bernie's until I started listening to the show. He explains legislation and liberal positions in a way that would, I think, appeal to most people.

            I think he would do very well in a debate with a respectful, thoughtful group of participants, which describes most Democrats at this level.

          •  He's definitely not a great speaker! I've heard (0+ / 0-)

            him on "Brunch With Bernie."

            I've spoken to him several times over the years, and he often repeats the same "talking points," no matter what you say to him.

            He seems to be a nice person, and maybe his heart is in the right place.

            But in the end, he appears to be on quite a short leash.  IOW, he can go out a say things that the corporatist/Establishment Democrats would NEVER say, but only within restricted parameters.

            At least, that is my impression of Senator Sanders.

            He did not seem to be as constrained when he was a US Representative.  But then, neither did Senator Sherrod Brown.

            It's sort of a shame.  Most of my favorite Dems seemed to change a bit after they became Senators--almost wish they hadn't.

            ;-)

            Mollie

            "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


            hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

            by musiccitymollie on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:56:24 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  It needs to be someone with enough cred (7+ / 0-)

        to be able to get into the televised debates. Otherwise you'll never see or hear from them, so in effect they won't exist and there's no way they can move the needle.

        Sanders would do it if he were serious about running. There's no way he could win the election once the word "socialist" starts getting tossed around (and he is a self-described socialist), but he just has to be visible and be himself.

        So this West Virginian walks into a bar and says, "Fix me a Green River."

        by Omir the Storyteller on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:34:43 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  A strong challenger leaves behind a (13+ / 0-)

        more potent organization.  

        Example:  Dean got "creamed" in 2004, yet because of his organization and nurturing of the progressive movement, the dems were poised to take back congress only a few years later.  Dean vaulted into the DNC leadership to become the most successful DNC chair in recent memory.

        That only happens with a serious challenger.  A vanity candidate like Sanders or Gravel is good for some soundbites and makes the nominee look more "centrists", but has little lasting effect on the party.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:11:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ultimately, though (0+ / 0-)

          I feel Dean's assumption of DNC chair was all for naught.  It was a classic sop — give him a position that seems like something where he can actually do good. And he did.  Trouble is, everything a DNC chair does gets re-done next cycle by the next chair.  

          And ultimately...no one listens to the party committee chairs.  It's not a policy position.

          Shirley Chisholm was right. Our Republic is in deep trouble.

          by Big River Bandido on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:06:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  I have a lot of respect for Dean (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Zinman

          He energized a very demoralized base. That's how I found Daily Kos.

          Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

          by coral on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:36:19 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Bernie isn't a Democrat. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        brae70

        The first rule of government should be "Do no harm." The urge to act can frustrate the desire to help.

        by Common Cents on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:48:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Bernie can run as an Independent. (6+ / 0-)

          He's savvy enough though (unlike Nader) to drop out and throw his support to the Democrat at the right time.
             For doing that, Bernie would of course extract a price.

            I think he'll do just that if Elizabeth Warren does not run.

          "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

          by elwior on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:52:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This site doesn't support non-Dems (0+ / 0-)

            The first rule of government should be "Do no harm." The urge to act can frustrate the desire to help.

            by Common Cents on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:59:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not sure what'd happen if Bernie runs though. (7+ / 0-)

              He's very, very, very good.
                 And very, very, very popular here.

              "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

              by elwior on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:02:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Says who? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CenPhx, k9disc, elwior

              This site is nominally for More and Better Democrats. Better Democrats means Progressives and Liberals at a minimum, not today's centrist, Third Way, corporatist, or Blue Dog Democrats. Sanders is better than almost any Democrat today.

              However, Sanders can't get the nomination, and he couldn't win a general election nationwide. He can define one edge of the Overton Window, which is just as important as whom we can put up for President against the crazies. It is up to the rest of us to take the other edge back from the crazies. Which apparently requires that they drive millions more of their own children away (check), and we get millions more existing Democrats to the polls (surprisingly, check).

              Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

              by Mokurai on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:11:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Says (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dr Swig Mcjigger

                Markos

                And yes, this is a partisan election-centric site. We will cover politicians and elections and scandals. And if that's not to someone's liking, they can go elsewhere.
                •  Oh, and Bernie (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  elwior

                  is an exception,  since he's backed by the Dems in his state.   Should he decide to run as an Independent against Hillary though, he'll be treated just as any other Dem opponent.

                  I hope he doesn't do that, cuz I like Bernie a lot.

                •  Which has what to do with the question? (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't see Democrats mentioned in your quotation. Partisan on this site means anti-Republican, for sure, but that does not make it Democrats-only.

                  Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

                  by Mokurai on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:08:27 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Egad, you've been here since 2008 (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dr Swig Mcjigger

                    and didn't know this was a partisan Democratic site?

                    Geez!  OK then, once again, according to Markos

                    If you advocate for third party? Zap! This is a Democratic site. Advocating primaries is okay. Advocating third party is not.
                    Heh.  Tell you what, if it's further proof you insist on, find yourself a non-Democrat you can get behind who's running against a Democrat and promote that candidate here on this website.  Better yet, do up a diary in support of that candidate.

                    I'll start the stop watch once you've posted the diary and check in with you, oh say an hour from then to see if you're still here.

              •  I was thinking that this diary... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                elwior

                is much about the Overton Window.  
                http://en.wikipedia.org/...

                And the other concept, that our Democratic President is a pol and will always be a pol, can be broadened.  Perhaps the President MUST be an uber-pol in order to win (which is why the downfall of Guv Christie is so enjoyable, because he is definitely mister Rethuglican uber-pol).  (But I digress.)

                If we can get more liberals in Congress, they can stretch the Overton Window and shape the public policy debate, much as Warren and Sanders have done with Social Security.  Perhaps we should view a President Hillary as the uber-pol who is simply necessary to keeping a Rethug out of the office.  Necessary in case we don't retain control of the Senate, and necessary if we do.  Necessary if we can't retake the House, and necessary if we do.  In other words, think of the President as an important vessel but not so much as the leader of the Democratic Party.  

                But if we think of her this way, then as liberals, we have to make our voices louder.  And louder.  And make her hear our unified voices.  (Cue the patriotic music now.)  

            •  I'm pretty sure... (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CenPhx, onionjim, Brecht, Dallasdoc, elwior

              I've read indications that Bernie would possibly be an viewed as an exception.




              Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

              by DeadHead on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:26:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for that MB quote. (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                onionjim, DeadHead, Dallasdoc

                So the way I understand the rule is advocating for people to vote for a third party candidate in an election between a Dem and a Repub is bannable, but it is okay to advocate, in the abstract (to push our Dems to the left) or to advocate for a leftier candidate (be they another Dem or a Socialist or Ind) in a primary election?

                Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.

                by CenPhx on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:35:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's good (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CenPhx, greenbell, coral, elwior

                  Bernie is not a Democrat because he is occupying the space on the left that the Democrats have abandoned. He's got principles, man.

                  A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

                  by onionjim on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:10:17 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And he does a lot of good by clearly (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    elwior

                    advocating policies that would benefit a lot of people who are left out of the political debate. He also helps Progressive Democrats by presenting issues from a perspective further to their left, so they can be seen as moderate.

                    Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

                    by coral on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:46:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Not sure... (0+ / 0-)

                  If there's a Democrat involved and the advocacy of the other candidate could impact the race such that a Republican could win it, I would advise caution, in terms of staying in bounds here on the site.

                  I can't answer more definitively than that, unfortunately.




                  Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

                  by DeadHead on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 06:42:34 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I don't think Armando is supporting Bernie (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elwior, coral

              winning. He's supporting him running, for long- and medium-term strategic reasons.

              and one reason he's doing that is because he knows Bernie wouldn't win.

              I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:54:59 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Bernie could re-register as a Dem (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                elwior

                That means he would not take votes from the eventual Dem candidate in the General, but he would be able to move the debates in the Primary in a progressive direction.

                Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now 400ppm. That is "Climate Cluster Chaos". (hat tip to JeffW for CCC)

                by Zinman on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 05:03:34 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Guess somebody could ask him to. (0+ / 0-)

                  I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

                  by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 09:04:08 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  What if supporting a non-dem helps to elect more (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              llywrch, CenPhx, elwior, coral

              and better democrats?

              Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

              by k9disc on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:04:56 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  I would hope he would (extract a price). (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elwior
          •  Warren won't run. (0+ / 0-)

            She's very serious on policy. The Senate is the perfect place for her. Especially on Banking Committee. She's probably the only person in politics that I can confidently say is completely incorruptible. Especially when it comes to Wall Street.

            What she needs to make change is to have a Democratic president who is sympathetic to her issues and has the charisma, confidence, and skill to get stuff through a difficult Congress.

            That and Wyden in Senate on national security surveillance. But I am less optimistic about the prospects for taming / controlling the totally autonomous NSA/Intelligence/Deep State, than I am about the prospects for an expanded safety net and better economic regulation in the domestic sphere.

            I'm cynical enough to believe that anyone who could credibly challenge the NSA would not survive his/her first term if he/she could get elected.

            Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

            by coral on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:43:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  That's why he might challenge Hillary. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          k9disc

          Because he's not a Democrat.

          If any Democrat challenges Hillary from the left, I'll travel to whatever city Armando resides in and buy him three rounds of drinks. Anything up to and including the 12-year-old Bushmills.

          I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:54:11 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  He won't challenge Hillary (0+ / 0-)

            He'll support her in the general. Hillary is very good on safety net, family, women's, and children's issues.

            Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

            by coral on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:48:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  <SHRUG> (5+ / 0-)

        Not to be rude, but it seems pretty obvious that the only challenger that might arise from the left would have to be Sanders. No Democrat is going to challenge Hillary from the left, certainly no DC Democrat. They've all gotten their marching orders. These days it's extremely rare that a Democrat will challenge the marching orders handed out by leadership--especially electorally. Unless, of course, you're talking about pulling a Bart Stupak or a Joe Lieberman or a Ben Nelson and challenging the marching orders from the right. Right-wing Democrats can get away with that because it makes the donors happy. But next to no one will challenge the leadership's will from the left.

        That leaves 3rd-party candidates, and the only 3rd-party candidate that has enough visibility to make it into the debates and into the media in general is Sanders. It's hard to do a media blackout on a Senator.

        I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

        by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:52:25 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You've described the failure of more and better (5+ / 0-)

          All we have to show for it is that ZERO progressive Democrats will challenge the right of center establishment party calling into question whether we have in fact elected any progressive Democrats all.  

          I mean when our only hope is that the only Senator not affiliated with a major party may dare to talk about the issues that concern us I think total futility about sums up my last 45 years of voting.

          Then I read that not to worry older white voters are going to die and that will save the day, but being old and white, that strategy isn't doing it for me either.

          •  On policy, it's a bit different. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coral

            People like Liz Warren and Alan Grayson and John Conyers will sometimes defy them from the left on policy.  But it's rare to have it happen electorally these days.

            (not saying it's good enough on policy, just to clarify; but it is more likely to get progressive defiance on policy than a defiant progressive challenge to Hillary 2016.)

            I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:38:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  We have some very good Dems in Congress (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SouthernLiberalinMD

              Wyden is great on surveillance. He's giving Clapper et al an ongoing migraine headache.

              Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

              by coral on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:49:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sen. Wyden is a little to the right economically (0+ / 0-)

                for me, but I love him on civil liberties and the rule of law.

                I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

                by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:46:21 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Try not to give in to the futility. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CenPhx, GussieFN, Miz Trom

            Despair is the enemy's weapon.

            I fight with it most days myself, and some days it wins.
            But it's important to let it win as little as possible. Despair is their main tool these days. If you start to feel it, do something to feed your spirit.

            I should take this advice myself.

            I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:40:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  For some (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SouthernLiberalinMD

            reason congress is reluctant to criticze Obama's policy decisions. It's like what happened under Bush. Whatever Bush wanted even if it went against their supposed beliefs they supported it. The same thing with Obama.

            I also remember the left wing of the party was very critical of Bill Clinton and would vote against some of the things that he put forth. It's an interesting turn of events.

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:27:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly right. (0+ / 0-)

              One of the developments that has seriously disturbed me over the past four years or so.

              I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 09:05:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Unless a "stalking horse" candidate is annointed, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SouthernLiberalinMD

          which is a slight possibility (if ever so slight).

          That's basically what Sanders would be, I suppose.

          It would be a total waste of time and energy.  Talk about a caricature!

          I would fear that FS Clinton would run even farther to the right, LOL!  

          As if we need THAT!!!

          Mollie

          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

          by musiccitymollie on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:47:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think she'd run farther to the right. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            musiccitymollie

            It may or may not be a waste of time and resources, but undeniably there's a deeper discussion that needs to take place. And I'd like us to find a place and time to have it.

            I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

            by SouthernLiberalinMD on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 09:06:49 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I also would LOVE to see a "serious" primary (0+ / 0-)

              challenge from the left, SLMD.  Didn't mean to belittle that notion.

              What I object to [in regard to any candidate running simply to move the Overton window] is that this confuses many less well-informed voters (especially on the left).

              We have enough corporatist Dems muddying the water, already.

              Again, if a "feasible" candidate who is not affiliated with the corporatist Dem faction (DLC, Third Way, New Dem, No Labels) of the Party would run--this ol' girl would be ecstatic!

              I just want the true progressive candidate to run to win!

              (I worry about FS Clinton running further to the right  because of one of her major fundraisers from the F.I.R.E. sector said that HRC will be heavily going after Republicans and Independents voters.  This was said months ago during an Aspen [Institute] gathering which is heavily attended by Establishment Dems.  I seriously doubt that we can change the "Third Wayism" of a Clinton--no matter who runs!)

              But I guess we can "dream."

              ;-)

              Mollie

              "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


              hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

              by musiccitymollie on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:45:56 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. (0+ / 0-)

        In order to run in the primaries against Clinton he would have to join the Democratic Party, which he has said he does not want to do. Other than that, good post Armando.

        "If you love your Uncle Sam bring them home, bring them home." - Pete Seeger.

        by brae70 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:56:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  A nothing to lose, "loose cannon" can really (0+ / 0-)

        advance issues and is a great story for the media, who would eat it up.

        "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

        by We Shall Overcome on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 07:40:45 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Right. (21+ / 0-)

      Ok, how do you convince Hillary Clinton not to be the messenger for the financial industry?

      The only sentence that will do that:

      Ms. Clinton, Elizabeth Warren is a credible challenger.

        •  Then I don't Vote Democratic Party For President (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rbird, k9disc, cybrestrike

          Pretty easy decision to make.

          •  I will vote for the Democratic nominee (37+ / 0-)

            in 2016- Hillary or not. I am not voting 3rd party, or GOP, or sitting out.

            There is simply too much at stake. President Obama and the next President will shape the SCOTUS for decades.

            I think Hillary would be better than any Republican.

            •  Well, so will I (10+ / 0-)

              I live in a state (Washington) where the Democrat is going to prevail, so I suppose I could throw my vote away by voting third party. And make no mistake, it would be throwing my vote away. It's noteworthy if all third party candidates combined gather more than 2% of the votes in any presidential election, combined.

              But in any of the swing states, voting third party or not voting at all is exactly like voting for a Republican. Of course we all must do what our conscience tells us to do. Mine tells me to do what I can, where I can, to never, ever cause another Republican to be elected to any office, anywhere, until they disembark from the Disoriented Express (and maybe not even then, but I have a long long time to think about that).

              So this West Virginian walks into a bar and says, "Fix me a Green River."

              by Omir the Storyteller on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:43:32 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  You're clearly at the right site then. (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            VirginiaJeff, GAS, Lawrence, dzog, edwardssl

            Talk about cutting your nose off..

            While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:13:23 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Then the Republicans win (4+ / 0-)

            and more damage is done.

            This is your world These are your people You can live for yourself today Or help build tomorrow for everyone -8.75, -8.00

            by DisNoir36 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:07:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  please don't go nadar on us... see how well that (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            auapplemac, elwior, hooper

            worked out?

            If Hill is 2016, I will hold my nose til I gag and vote D.  I cannot tell you how much I dislike the Clinton policies.

            "The corporate state’s repression, now on the brink of totalitarianism, would with the help of Christie, his corporate backers ... become a full-blown corporate fascism.' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_trouble_with_chris_christie_20140112

            by SeaTurtle on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:08:27 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Do you dislike ALL Hillary policies? (6+ / 0-)

              For example, the global focus on development for women and feminism championed by HRC since 1995?

              Is that bad too because it's "Clinton?"

              Just askin...

              •  no you're not 'just askin' - you are insulting. (0+ / 0-)

                move along.  

                "The corporate state’s repression, now on the brink of totalitarianism, would with the help of Christie, his corporate backers ... become a full-blown corporate fascism.' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_trouble_with_chris_christie_20140112

                by SeaTurtle on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:31:15 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  full disclosure: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CenPhx
                  Tom Watson is a frequent speaker and commentator on trends and issues related to media, technology and society and has appeared on shows ranging from CNN’s Moneyline to NPR’s All Things Considered. He has spoken at venues that have included the Global Philanthropy Forum, Clinton Global Initiative, Conrad N. Hilton Humanitarian Symposium, the Skoll World Forum, MIT Enterprise Forum, the Conference Board, Boardsource Leadership Forum, the Forum on Philanthropy, Association of Fundraising Professionals, and the Performance Institute as well as in university settings, including Harvard Business School, Columbia Business School, New York University and City University London.

                  Tom was a member of the the La Pietra Coalition to Advance Women in the World, an international group of activists working to change the perception of women’s status in society. </blockquote>

                  Cause Wired

                  The Lat Pietra Coalition which:

                  We have used many opportunities to increase our presence in the global community, from the OECD to the APEC Women leaders Forum, to the Clinton Global Initiative CGI to the upcoming G20 Annual Meeting in France.
                  La Pietra Coalition

                  and La Pietra which has connections in its past to:

                  Vital Voices was started by Hilary Clinton in 1997 as the Vital Voices Democracy Initiative. It was a follow-up commitment to the Beijing Conference, a foreign policy initiative of the U.S. State Department that served to promote the advancement of women as a foreign policy goal. In 2000 it was re-established as a nonprofit organiza- tion, Vital Voices Global Partnership. Vital Voices has remained deeply conscious of its roots in Beijing and its connection to Beijing is never more palpable than when it is in contact with the women in its global network, women for whom Beijing still resonates and for whom the Beijing Platform serves as both map and compass.

                  `````````````````````````````````````````````

                  So.

                  !.  Congratulations and thanks to Tom Watson being involved in such worthwhile work and supporting such worthwhile causes.

                  2.  Tom Watson appears to have been long associated wth the Clintons, which is fine, but it is interesting to note when in a discussion about whether she is the best candidate.

                  "The corporate state’s repression, now on the brink of totalitarianism, would with the help of Christie, his corporate backers ... become a full-blown corporate fascism.' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_trouble_with_chris_christie_20140112

                  by SeaTurtle on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:01:45 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Thanks for the disclosure, SeaTurtle. N/T (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SeaTurtle

                    Mollie

                    "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


                    hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

                    by musiccitymollie on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 08:35:38 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Do we get to see full disclosures (0+ / 0-)

                    for all the people who work/worked for Obama, too?

                    Kudos to Tom Watson, BTW.

                    Full disclosure: I worked for the ERA campaign in the 1970s, and have dreamed about Hillary becoming president since 1992.

                    •  why would we? (0+ / 0-)
                      Do we get to see full disclosures (0+ / 0-)
                      for all the people who work/worked for Obama, too?
                      O's not running in the primary or general?

                      If you have worked with/for the Clintons and are lobbying for Hillary's selection, I think it appropriate that disclosure be made.  I trust you can see the difference?

                      And yes, I agree with you, atana, as I said:

                      !.  Congratulations and thanks to Tom Watson being involved in such worthwhile work and supporting such worthwhile causes.

                      "The corporate state’s repression, now on the brink of totalitarianism, would with the help of Christie, his corporate backers ... become a full-blown corporate fascism.' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_trouble_with_chris_christie_20140112

                      by SeaTurtle on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 09:21:40 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  This is a *progressive* web site (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                cassandraX, coral, Lysis

                What have women and feminism got to do with progressive policy?

                /snark

              •  What exactly does this "championing" mean? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Jazzenterprises

                I may have missed the big policy results.  Or is the election of Hillary the desired culmination?

                •  1995 was the women's conference in Beijing (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Lysis

                  which I'm sure you followed intently :-)

                •  Here you go... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Lysis

                  ISO: USA
                  *************************
                  The electronic version of this document has been prepared at the Fourth
                  World Conference on Women by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
                  in collaboration with the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women
                  Secretariat.
                  *************************
                  AS WRITTEN

                  FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON
                  REMARKS FOR  THE UNITED NATIONS FOURTH WORLD CONFERENCE ON WOMEN

                  BEIJING, CHINA  
                  SEPTEMBER 5, 1995

                  Mrs. Mongella,
                  Distinguished delegates and guests,

                  I would like to thank the Secretary General of the United Nations for
                  inviting me to be part of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on
                  Women. This is truly a celebration -- a celebration of the contributions
                  women make in every aspect of life: in the home, on the job, in their
                  communities, as mothers, wives, sisters, daughters, learners, workers,
                  citizens and leaders.

                  It is also a coming together, much the way women come together every day
                  in every country.

                  We come together in fields and in factories. In village markets and
                  supermarkets. In living rooms and board rooms.

                  Whether it is while playing with our children in the park or washing
                  clothes in a river, or taking a break at the office water cooler, we
                  come together and talk about our aspirations and concerns. And time and
                  again, our talk turns to our children and our families.

                  However different we may be, there is far more that unites us than
                  divides us. We share a common future. And we are here to find common
                  ground so that we may help bring new dignity and respect to women and
                  girls all over the world -- and in so doing, bring new strength and
                  stability to families as well.

                  By gathering in Beijing, we are focusing world attention on issues that
                  matter most in the lives of women and their families: access to
                  education, health care, jobs, and credit, the chance to enjoy basic
                  legal and human rights and participate fully in the political life of
                  their countries.

                  There are some who question the reason for this conference. Let them
                  listen to the voices of women in their homes, neighborhoods, and
                  workplaces.

                  There are some who wonder whether the lives of women and girls matter to
                  economic and political progress around the globe. . . . Let them look at
                  the women gathered here and at Huairou. . .the homemakers, nurses,
                  teachers, lawyers, policymakers, and women who run their own businesses.

                  It is conferences like this that compel governments and peoples
                  everywhere to listen, look and face the world's most pressing problems.

                  Wasn't it after the women's conference in Nairobi ten years ago that the
                  world focused for the first time on the crisis of domestic violence?

                  Earlier today, I participated in a World Health Organization forum,
                  where government officials, NGOs, and individual citizens are working on
                  ways to address the health problems of women and girls.

                  Tomorrow, I will attend a gathering of the United Nations Development
                  Fund for Women. There, the discussion will focus on local -- and highly
                  successful -- programs that give hard-working women access to credit so
                  they can improve their own lives and the lives of their families.

                  What we are learning around the world is that, if women are healthy and
                  educated, their families will flourish. If women are free from violence,
                  their families will flourish. If women have a chance to work and earn as
                  full and equal partners in society, their families will flourish.

                  And when families flourish, communities and nations will flourish.

                  That is why every woman, every man, every child, every family, and every
                  nation on our planet has a stake in the discussion that takes place
                  here.

                  Over the past 25 years, I have worked persistently on issues relating to
                  women, children and families. Over the past two-and-a-half years, I have
                  had the opportunity to learn more about the challenges facing women in
                  my own country and around the world.

                  I have met new mothers in Jojakarta, Indonesia, who come together
                  regularly in their village to discuss nutrition, family planning, and
                  baby care.

                  I have met working parents in Denmark who talk about the comfort they
                  feel in knowing that their children can be cared for in creative, safe,
                  and nurturing after-school centers.

                  I have met women in South Africa who helped lead the struggle to end
                  apartheid and are now helping build a new democracy.

                  I have met with the leading women of the Western Hemisphere who are
                  working every day to promote literacy and better health care for the
                  children of their countries.

                  I have met women in India and Bangladesh who are taking out small loans
                  to buy milk cows, rickshaws, thread and other materials to create a
                  livelihood for themselves and their families. '

                  I have met doctors and nurses in Belarus and Ukraine who are trying to
                  keep children alive in the aftermath of Chernobyl.

                  The great challenge of this conference is to give voice to women
                  everywhere whose experiences go unnoticed, whose words go unheard.

                  Women comprise more than half the world's population. Women are 70t
                  percent of the world's poor, and two-thirds of those who are not taught
                  to read and write.

                  Women are the primary caretakers for most of the world's children and
                  elderly. Yet much of the work we do is not valued -not by economists,
                  not by historians, not by popular culture, not by government leaders.

                  At this very moment, as we sit here, women around the world are giving
                  birth, raising children, cooking meals, washing clothes, cleaning
                  houses, planting crops, working on assembly lines, running companies,
                  and running countries.

                  Women also are dying from diseases that should have been prevented or
                  treated; they are watching their children succumb to malnutrition caused
                  by poverty and economic deprivation; they are being denied the right to
                  go to school by their own fathers and brothers; they are being forced
                  into prostitution, and they are being barred from the ballot box and the
                  bank lending office.

                  Those of us who have the opportunity to be here have the responsibility
                  to speak for those who could not.

                  As an American, I want to speak up for women in my own country -- women
                  who are raising children on the minimum wage, women who can't afford
                  health care or child care, women whose lives are threatened by violence,
                  including violence in their own homes.

                  I want to speak up for mothers who are fighting for good schools, safe
                  neighborhoods, clean air and clean airwaves. . . for older women, some
                  of them widows, who have raised their families and now find that their
                  skills and life experiences are not valued in the workplace. . . for
                  women who are working all night as nurses, hotel clerks, and fast food
                  chefs so that they can be at home during the day with their kids. . .
                  and for women everywhere who simply don't have time to do everything
                  they are called upon to do each day.

                  Speaking to you today, I speak for them, just as each of us speaks for
                  women around the world who are denied the chance to go to school, or see
                  a doctor, or own property, or have a say about the direction of their
                  lives, simply because they are women.

                  The truth is that most women around the world work both inside and
                  outside the home, usually by necessity.

                  We need to understand that there is ho formula for how women should lead
                  their lives. That is why we must respect the choices that each woman
                  makes for herself and her family. Every woman deserves the chance to
                  realize her God-given potential.

                  We also must recognize that women will never gain full dignity until
                  their human rights are respected and protected.

                  Our goals for this conference, to strengthen families and societies by
                  empowering women to take greater control over their own destinies,
                  cannot be fully achieved unless all governments -here and around the
                  world -- accept their responsibility to protect and promote
                  internationally recognized human rights.

                  The international community has long acknowledged -- and recently
                  affirmed at Vienna -- that both women and men are entitled to a range of
                  protections and personal freedoms, from the right of personal security
                  to the right to determine freely the number and spacing of the children
                  they bear.

                  No one should be forced to remain silent for fear of religious or
                  political persecution, arrest, abuse or torture.

                  Tragically, women are most often the ones whose human rights are
                  violated. Even in the late 20th century, the rape of women continues to
                  be used as an instrument of armed conflict. Women and children make up a
                  large majority of the world's refugees. And when women are excluded from
                  the political process, they become even more vulnerable to abuse.

                  I believe that, on the eve of a new millennium, it is time to break our
                  silence. It is time for us to say here in Beijing, and the world to
                  hear, that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as
                  separate from human rights.

                  These abuses have continued because, for too long, the history of women
                  has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are
                  trying to silence our words.

                  The voices of this conference and of the women at Huairou must be heard
                  loud and clear:

                  It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or
                  drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are
                  born girls. '

                  It is a violation of human rights when women and girls are sold into the
                  slavery of prostitution.

                  It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline,
                  set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are
                  deemed too small.

                  It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in
                  their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape
                  as a tactic or prize of war.

                  It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death
                  worldwide among women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected
                  to in their own homes.

                  It is a violation of human rights when young girls are brutalized by the
                  painful and degrading practice of genital mutilation.

                  It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to
                  plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have
                  abortions or being sterilized against their will.

                  If there is one message that echoes forth from this conference, it is
                  that human rights are women's rights.... And women's rights are human
                  rights.

                  Let us not forget that among those rights are the right to speak freely.
                  And the right to be heard.

                  Women must enjoy the right to participate fully in the social and
                  political lives of their countries if we want freedom and democracy to
                  thrive and endure.

                  It is indefensible that many women in non-governmental organizations who
                  wished to participate in this conference have not been able to attend --
                  or have been prohibited from fully taking part.

                  Let me be clear. Freedom means the right of people to assemble,
                  organize, and debate openly. It means respecting the views of those who
                  may disagree with the views of their governments. It means not taking
                  citizens away from their loved ones and jailing them, mistreating them,
                  or denying them their freedom or dignity because of the peaceful
                  expression of their ideas and opinions.

                  In my country, we recently celebrated the 75th anniversary of women's
                  suffrage. It took 150 years after the signing of our Declaration of
                  Independence for women to win the right to vote. It took 72 years of
                  organized struggle on the part of many courageous women and men.

                  It was one of America's most divisive philosophical wars. But it was
                  also a bloodless war. Suffrage was achieved without a shot fired.

                  We have also been reminded, in V-J Day observances last weekend, of the
                  good that comes when men and women join together to combat the forces of
                  tyranny and build a better world.

                  We have seen peace prevail in most places for a half century. We have
                  avoided another world war.

                  But we have not solved older, deeply-rooted problems that continue to
                  diminish the potential of half the world's population.

                  Now it is time to act on behalf of women everywhere.

                  If we take bold steps to better the lives of women, we will be taking
                  bold steps to better the lives of children and families too. Families
                  rely on mothers and wives for emotional support and care; families rely
                  on women for labor in the home; and increasingly, families rely on women
                  for income needed to raise healthy children and care for other
                  relatives.

                  As long as discrimination and inequities remain so commonplace around
                  the world -- as long as girls and women are valued less, fed less, fed
                  last, overworked, underpaid, not schooled and subjected to violence in
                  and out of their homes -the potential of the human family to create a
                  peaceful, prosperous world will not be realized.

                  Let this conference be our -- and the world's -- call to action.

                  And let us heed the call so that we can create a world in which every
                  woman is treated with respect and dignity, every boy and girl is loved
                  and cared for equally, and every family has the hope of a strong and
                  stable future.

                  Thank you very much.

                  God's blessings on you, your work and all who will benefit from it.

            •  Then support Elizabeth Warren for president 2016! (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              hooper, Jazzenterprises

              "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

              by elwior on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:55:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  NADAR!! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cybrestrike

              Sorry, my MST3K just came out.

              For those of you who are also fans, remember when the Brains always used to shout RADAR?

              I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:39:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Wishing for Warren is a waste of time (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          unfangus

          As it would be with any alternative candidate. The only solution there, and one that I suspect will get no traction, is to organize a political machine with funding, a powerful network, and some influence on the party and the media to pick a credible alternative candidate. To Clinton. And Biden. Does anyone think that Joe has no intention of running? There is no reason to expect any alternate candidate will face an expensive campaign between a Hillary and a two term VP with similar political views and ties. We don't hear too much about challengers considering a run because it would be such a daunting task for anyone without some powerful sponsorship behind them.

          Start successfully building the recruitment machine and then people can talk about alternatives. Because I doubt you'll see anyone, other than perhaps a progressive or centrist scold who expects to lose the primary, to step up to the plate in 2016.

          •  Biden would like to run (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SeaTurtle, coral

            and, if Clinton were out of it, Biden would be the front runner.

            But how is he doing on fund raising? Any serious candidate for 2016 should already have an immense war chest at this point. You will be up against the Koch brothers.

            •  Neither has declared yet. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elwior

              How does Clinton's war chest stand at this time? She'll raise money. And I assume so will an old Democratic hand with the vice-presidency as part of his résumé. It would be an uphill battle for him, but I think he'll try.

          •  If it is a "waste of time," I'll be fine with (5+ / 0-)

            wasting some of mine.

            "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

            by elwior on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:57:20 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Great. Get her to run. Which was my point (0+ / 0-)

              I don't think she wants to run. As much as we love her and what she stands for and how she conducts herself, I don't think, even if drafted, that she would accept the job. If you can prove me wrong that would be great. Make it happen.

              And again with Bernie Sanders. Great guy, it might be fun to see a primary challenge from him to shake things up, but a socialist will not win the general. Still, if it's worth it enough people will make it happen. There is still some time to plan.

              All I'm saying is that you are probably accomplishing nothing waiting for someone to decide to run. It's not going to happen unless progressives make it possible, in a big way, for someone to run. With the right candidate. Like who? I'm not sure. Howard Dean? He was DNC chairman and won a couple very important races and though he's supported Clinton I've heard he hasn't done so in a way to not apply for the job himself. But it's possible his day has come and gone. On the other hand, he was probably the father of our current progressive movement. But who else? There is probably a short list most would agree on.

              But so what? If there isn't a credible machine to attract, vet, groom, fund and make a lot of noise about progressive, populist politics you may be wasting time that shouldn't be wasted. If that can be done. Again if such an attempt may crushed, which I'm not so certain of, that would likely knock progressive politics back a bit. Then again, we might finally give our proposals for governance a full hearing. Many, many Americans haven't any idea about what the progressive viewpoint  is all about at all. Which might plant some powerful seeds just as the Occupy message did.

              Still, how we do in 2014 has everything to do with 2016. At this point making plans for 2016 mostly comes about a week after November's elections.

        •  Then at least we fought for something. (8+ / 0-)

          We vote for HRC in the general knowing that we did our best to nominate a progressive.  

          It's better to try and fail than to just give up and vote for the Wal*Mart candidate.  

          "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

          by Subterranean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:04:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  what do you mean 'wiped out?' (4+ / 0-)

          what is to be so feared?

          Are not all losers wiped out to some degree?

          "The corporate state’s repression, now on the brink of totalitarianism, would with the help of Christie, his corporate backers ... become a full-blown corporate fascism.' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_trouble_with_chris_christie_20140112

          by SeaTurtle on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:07:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  in the above comment, to clarify, I am (0+ / 0-)

            talking about primary contestants... not sending someone who wasn't strong to the general?

            "The corporate state’s repression, now on the brink of totalitarianism, would with the help of Christie, his corporate backers ... become a full-blown corporate fascism.' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_trouble_with_chris_christie_20140112

            by SeaTurtle on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:26:22 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Which she? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dallasdoc, hooper

          I assume Warren?

          And you can't convince Hillary Clinton not to be the messenger for the financial industry. The best you could do is get her to move to the left, verbally at least, for the duration of her campaign.

          I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:56:29 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Warren would run if Hillary (0+ / 0-)

          were unable to for some reason. But I think she'd be more effective in the Senate.

          If she ran in the primaries, the banks would do everything in their power to destroy her. She has some extremely powerful enemies. Some of the most powerful and wealthiest people on earth.

          Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

          by coral on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:52:50 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Until she gets wiped out (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TomP

        Then what?

        •  But what if she doesn't get wiped out? (14+ / 0-)

          Barack Obama was supposed to lose badly to Hillary in 2008, but surprise, surprise, surprise.
             I believe it could easily happen again.

          "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

          by elwior on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:05:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Obama outraised her (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TomP, James Allen, cpresley

            and not just from "small Internet contributors".

            That's a mistake she learned from and will not make twice.

          •  One criticism of Obama that I think holds water (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sprogga, katesmom, boriskamite

            is that he reached the White House without much experience running any large organization.  He had a background in academia, specifically law schools, and served a fraction of a term as a senator, before moving up.
            Elizabeth Warren running in 2016 would fit that profile very closely.  

            We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

            by david78209 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:49:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  And if Warren mounts a serious challenge (6+ / 0-)

            and loses, her campaign organization will leave progressives more organized and ready to challenge President Clinton.

            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

            by Subterranean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:06:14 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Leave Her Alone! (6+ / 0-)

              I just love the way that we so glibly plan Elizabeth Warren's life and career for her. Ever think that she seriously believes that she can do the country, and Democrats, more good by staying in the Senate - where she is building credibility and influence - for a full term, and through re-election?

              I'm far more radical than HRC has ever seemed to be, but I'll vote for her rather than sit it out pouting, and I will never vote for any Republican under any circumstances. I don't hate my country, after all...

              You meet them halfway with love, peace, and persuasion ~ And expect them to rise for the occasion...

              by paz3 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:39:09 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think she can handle it. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                CenPhx, hooper

                Whether or not she runs.

                "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

                by elwior on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:42:40 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  She has already endorsed HRC. (7+ / 0-)

                  Please, give this up. She's not running.

                  I love her, but I'm living in the real world, where 1) she was an extremely reluctant candidate for Senate, 2) she wasn't the most effective campaigner the world has ever seen, 3) her entire political experience consists of 13 months in the Senate, and 4) she has already endorsed HRC.

                  "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                  by sidnora on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:20:07 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Someone said yesterday that E.W. is running (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Lysis

                but "doesn't know it yet."

                You see, she just needs a puppeter (male, presumably) to make her career decisions for her.

                But Elizabeth Warren is a lot smarter than her wannabe puppeters, and will not jig to their whistle.

                •  Oh, please! (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CenPhx, hooper, Dallasdoc

                  "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

                  by elwior on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:00:05 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Leave it to an HRC supporter (6+ / 0-)

                  to transmogrify my support for a female candidate into evidence of me being a sexist.

                  What's really interesting is a Hillary supporter accusing a Warren supporter of wanting a woman who has a male around to make career decisions for her.

                  "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                  by Subterranean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:09:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I know it. (5+ / 0-)

                    I don't mind people promoting, supporting, or defending their favored candidate, but I dislike dishonest gameplaying, especially coming from our side.
                       I expect it from the R's.

                    "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

                    by elwior on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:12:27 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  That *is* interesting (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coral, Sharon Wraight, Lysis

                    Since Hillary haters tend to think that Hillary's election is really the reelection of Bill.

                    •  Some HRC critics (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      hooper

                      see it as a distraction to have Bill mucking about in her administration, but I've never heard a single one claim that HRC's reelection is about reelecting Bill.

                      The ONLY people I've heard make such a suggestion are those who support HRC.  A lot of UAW members I've spoken to are supporting HRC because "times were good under Clinton".  They don't make any distinction between Bill Clinton and HRC and seem to view and HRC presidency as Bill's third term.  A lot of these union guys are economically liberal but socially conservative, so they don't have very enlightened views of women.  

                      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                      by Subterranean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:36:18 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Clarification (0+ / 0-)

                        I don't mean to paint all union guys with such a broad brush.  The one's I've talked with are older white guys who moved to rural MI due to "white flight".  Many of them are teabaggers, but a few remain democrats.  

                        This is NOT a representative sample and I don't intend it to be.  

                        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                        by Subterranean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:39:41 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I actually (0+ / 0-)

                          find what you are saying fascinating because I would have thought these same guys would never have voted for a woman. Just curious did they vote for Obama?

                          It's the policy stupid

                          by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:23:00 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Yes, but not in the primaries (0+ / 0-)

                            Among the few who vote democratic, most supported either Edwards or HRC, but ultimately accepted Obama.  

                            The white flight union guys who vote republican, they are just freakin' crazy when it comes to gender and race.  It's like a wormhole opened up in the 1950s and deposited them here.  They are the quintessential Reagan Democrats and harbor a passionate hatred for liberals that is fueled by race, gender, and propaganda.  They don't pound Bibles when railing about social issues, they just have paleolithic beliefs (much like Limbaugh, to whom they listen whenever driving).  

                            It's really quite an experience meeting someone who is living off the government teat along with a generous pension, and HATES everything happening in the country.  These guys have everything, yet the way they talk, you would think they were displaced refugees.  After a while it dawns on you that they are mostly talking about culture - it's a tribal thing.  Mainstream culture has passed them by and it makes them feel like aliens in their own country every time they turn on the TV or watch a movie.  In a sense, they really are refugees.  

                            "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                            by Subterranean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:12:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I gleaned (0+ / 0-)

                            something similar from watching the show (don't laugh) Mad Men. It made me understand that these guys long for the days when they had no rules but everybody else did. The GOP has been promising these guys a return to those days as a way of getting their vote.  Instead of them adjusting to the current culture, they want the GOP to use the government to return us back to the 1950's. Now exactly how the GOP could do all of that is beyond me. I know they could legislate some of it back. Limbaugh has been able to mine their resentment that things have changed. He's a master of fleecing these people and telling them what they want to hear. So yeah, they are refugees because they can't adjust to modern culture or either refuse to adjust. in a lot of ways it's just very sad.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:45:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  I was already hearing jeers that Bill (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Subterranean, Sharon Wraight

                        "aspires to be first lady" when Hillary was running for the Senate seat in NY.

              •  Pardon me, (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dallasdoc

                Please replace "Warren" with a serious challenger of your choice.

                Based on some of Warren's comments and speeches, I'm not convinced she isn't running, but it's obviously unlikely that she'll run.

                "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                by Subterranean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:05:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  No, I'm going to stick with E.W. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Subterranean, k9disc, Dallasdoc, hooper

                  She's our best possible candidate.

                  "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

                  by elwior on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:08:28 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Me too. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    elwior, Dallasdoc

                    On her last Maddow appearance, some of Warren's answers struck me as being more national in scope than normal for a sitting Senator.  Could be I'm just seeing what I want to see in them, but they seemed consistent the idea of her running for president.  She also has some of Obama's campaign people on her staff, including a speechwriter.

                    Also, if we assume for a moment that Warren intends to run, then the best strategy against the Clinton Machine is to lay low as long as possible.  Warren cannot beat Clinton by building her own machine to directly challenge HRC, instead she must fight an insurgent campaign.

                    Likely?  Nope.  But neither was Dean's rise.  The public is restless and as yet their anger at wall street remains unconsummated.  Warren is the person to tap that anger for the greater good.

                    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

                    by Subterranean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:21:03 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  As much as I like Elizabeth Warren ... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coral

                I think that she will do better by staying in the Senate.  of course Hillary isn't the perfect candidate, but who is? Any president is a crap shoot.  Who would have predicted Lincoln's greatness when he was first elected? By same token some presidents have been elected to great fanfare and have proven to be disasters - U. S. Grant comes to mind.

                I will vote for Hillary if she runs and then try to push her policies in the right direction.  With Warren and Bernie Sanders, plus Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich in the Senate, this may be easier.  However we need to give ANY Democratic president control of both Senate and House before we start demanding a "progressive" government. If people keep electing reps like Bachmann or senators like Cruz, you can't expect too much from even a Bernie Sanders.

                •  I don't get the "would be better in the Senate" (0+ / 0-)

                  argument.  How so?

                  •  Legislation is developed (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Desert Scientist

                    in the Senate, sometimes in close communication with the White House. Think Affordable Care Act. Warren has a very powerful position in the Senate. She has tremendous expertise and knowledge of the way Congress works. She can be more effective with the backing of a Democratic president and do more for Americans in the Senate.

                    She has done so much already by imagining, pushing, and creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, without even being an elected official, and with the opposition of many Democrats both in Congress and in the Obama Administration (i.e. Geithner). She needs time in the Senate to effect more change.

                    The presidency can be a relatively powerless position in regard to domestic policy. And domestic policy is where Warren excels.

                    Skepticism of all the elite institutions, not trust, is what required for successful leadership in this era. Digby

                    by coral on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 05:10:04 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Mrs. Clinton is the perfect candidate (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        stewarjt, Sam I Am, coral

        for that "opening to China" strategy that Nixon put on the map.

        If pressed in a friendly way, you'd have to ask:

        Why would she not be for raising the minimum wage?

        Why would she not be for universal health care?

        Why would she not be for re-enfranchisement of felons?

        Why would she not be for expanding social security and improving Medicare?

        Why would she not support a more robust U.N.?

        Why would she not vigorously support the reverse of global warming?

        Why would she not support expanded voting rights?

        Stronger protections for LGBT Americans?

        Better access to women's health clinics?

        Full employment?

        The more progressives push NOW on all these issues, the easier it will be for her to stand up to the Chamber of Commerce, the investment, insurance and banking communities.

        The more progressive in the financial community already see honest opportunity in taxing wealth and raising the minimum wage and insuring as many Americans as possible - their number will only grow as these issues and their implementation become more and more mainstream.

        And whether it be Hillary, or Bernie Sanders, or Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren or whomever - the progressive cause WILL find its way into the next democratic primary season. If for no other reason than that it confounds nearly 100% of all national republicans.

        The progressive flag only needs to be detailed clearly and aggressively in whatever issue it appears. The public is waking. A new season of optimism is about to arrive...

        Mistakes are the portals of discovery. - James Joyce

        by Beastly Fool on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:02:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think it will be necessary (11+ / 0-)

      First, and this is just my opinion, but I really believe Hillary is a lot more progressive than she gets credit for. But she is also a political animal, and a damn good one too. She is a pragmatist and will do what it takes to win and be successful.

      Will she lead from the left, probably not, but if we follow Kos advice and focus on electing a progressive congress she will smell which way the wind is blowing and lead by following. That's what she is good at. She just needs good advisors, not Bob Shrum like morons.

      "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government" -Thomas Jefferson

      by Phil In Denver on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:57:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How do you elect a progressive congress when your (5+ / 0-)

        President, is pushing Freetrade and market based freedom?

        This is where I think this whole diary and the very idea of HRC2016 is terrible. I mean the diary is well written, and is a legit argument, but it doesn't take into account that the Democrats are off their ideological moorings and have been for 20 years now.

        Those ideological moorings - a government protects and serves all of it's people and creates a society that is fair and equitable - we're all sitting there right now - well, maybe not all of us, but a great majority of us.

        Hillary is another step from those ideological moorings, and I really question how you go about building a movement that challenges the Establishment when the head of your party is the Establishment.

        This strikes me as some kind of anti-overton window construct, and also as some kind of excuse for toeing the line.

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:48:32 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The answer is (0+ / 0-)

          you change the nature of the establishment itself. Thanks to the rise of the millenials, this country has become more progressive and is moving further and further left. New congressional leaders will reflect that in time. Hillary is certainly the "establishment", but only insofar as she will go where she thinks the the establishment is heading. Hillary is first and foremost a politician, and like all good politicians she will follow the wishes of her constituents.

          There is NO WAY that anyone else on the horizon will unseat her, that's just the way it is. So why waste energy tilting at windmills?I am not a big fan of hers, I will never forgive her for her Iraq war vote and subsequent refusal to denounce it. But I am a realist, she will be the nominee barring something very unexpected and unlikely. And frankly I think she will make a vastly superior leader to Obama. Give her a progressive congress and she will lead progressively. Give her a centrist one, and she will lead in a centrist way. It's who she is. So the onus is on us to give her the kind of congress she will need to lead in a progressive fashion.

          "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government" -Thomas Jefferson

          by Phil In Denver on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:56:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Tilting at windmills is a silly task - not an (0+ / 0-)

            impossible one - not accepting Hillary is not tilting at windmills, it's fighting real live giant warriors - the Establishment.

            Since when is rolling over for the Establishment going to harm or change the nature of the Establishment?

            If we elect Hillary without a fight from the Left, there will be little doubt who her constituents are, and it won't be the voters.

            Hillary will not promote progressive policy. She's a free trader - progressive policy is not in her DNA. She believes in moderate Republican policy - it's what she is. The best we will get is more markety solutions to our nation's troubles.

            That's why I can't vote for her, and why I think the bandied about in this is really nothing more that repackaged 11th dimensional chess - the Team Edition.

            Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

            by k9disc on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 09:19:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  What evidence do you have of that? (0+ / 0-)

              Bill Clinton has already backtracked on Free trade and Hillary has never been a strong supporter of it anyway. You are operating on 20 year dated information. This country has moved well past the free trade era, and the Clintons know it and have done so as well.

              Hillary is the type to put her finger in the wind and base her positions on that. Always has been, forever will be.

              Furthermore, whether you can vote for her or not is not the issue. The issue is how she will lead, and make no mistake, no matter how you personally choose to vote in the next presidential election, ultimately she will lead and there is nothing you can do to stop that.

              But what you can do, what we all can do, is help to give her the kind of congress that will lead in a progressive direction, and she WILL follow that. Hillary is far from an optimal choice, but she is also far from Satan incarnate. She is a pol, and she will do what pragmatism and the congress she has permits.

              "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government" -Thomas Jefferson

              by Phil In Denver on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:55:30 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Hear, hear, k9disc! ;-) N/T (0+ / 0-)

              Mollie

              "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


              hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

              by musiccitymollie on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:00:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  in the way that she helped Obama (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tomwatson, cpresley, atana, coral, DiesIrae

      Obama was a far more credible presidential candidate because she fought to the end, so he really had to win.  And that was a real win for him, on the national stage.  

      And he helped her message, because she was left of him, she admitted that health care would require a mandate, and he pretended it would not. She first named young adults who didn't want to pay for insurance the 'invincibles' She laid out the arguments that were needed for ACA.  

      And when she moved gracefully and enthusiastically to his side when he got the nomination, she showed the nation is important.  I don't think sore losers will be tolerated anymore, she showed how stupid would have been (Think McCain/Palin).

      But she won't have a credible challenger, in the primary or in the general election, she's just far too competent and experienced at this point, she's now objectively peerless.

      In 2006, when I started blogging for her (on the NYT site, and later here) she had detractors.  Lots of sexism in the '08 primary.  Things have changed, the country is less racist and less sexist.     And both Obama and Michelle will be out there, campaigning for her.  It'll be about voter registration and getting votes counted.  Right now the entire nation agrees with the Democratic agenda.  And it's pretty much her husband's fault.  

    •  my point exactly elwior.... (6+ / 0-)

      otherwise there is no pressure on her to listen to progressive ideas, she can just continue to serve the Clintonistas of Wall Street.

      "The corporate state’s repression, now on the brink of totalitarianism, would with the help of Christie, his corporate backers ... become a full-blown corporate fascism.' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_trouble_with_chris_christie_20140112

      by SeaTurtle on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:05:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How about four or five progressives, (4+ / 0-)

      quietly admitting they're angling for the #2 spot, but running in the primaries and showing up in caucus states and for debates - consciously shaping the debate - keeping their issues in Hillary's view and on her plate.
      Let it be an open secret that the democratic party listens when 80% of the American public believes every firearms purchase should be registered, and that oil companies should at least be taxed and not subsidized, and that polluters never be let off the hook.

      Let it be a free exploration of progressive values and the public's desire to see them implemented.

      The obsession with the presidency ought to reflect the races down ticket and provide inspiration and motivation for voters and candidates to get on board with the progressive causes as well.

      The more openly progressive candidates declared in the primaries, the better it is for the cause...

      Even if it does turn into a coronation...

      Maybe especially so, as these candidates could provide guidance for filling the cabinet in any potential democratic administration...

      AND for selecting the actual VP...

      Mistakes are the portals of discovery. - James Joyce

      by Beastly Fool on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:16:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If the primary is a blowout, then a challenger (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      atana, Armando, Lysis

      does not pull Hillary to the left.  Rather, it allows here to define herself for independents as a centrist candidate.  That is not necessarily a bad thing, particularly if she is campaigning for House Reps and Senators in purple states and districts.

      Unlike 2008, when a tough primary was clearly helpful to a relatively inexperienced Senator Obama, I don't think Hillary Clinton needs that kind of schooling.  I am left not seeing a big advantage in a challenge from the left.

      So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

      by illinifan17 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:21:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  If she defines herself, and wins, as a centrist (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cybrestrike, Dallasdoc

        candidate then we, and America loses.

        Democrats are losing, and repeatedly resuscitating Republicans in large part because candidates refuse to take a stand on Democratic political ideals.

        Your comment pretty much says that a lack of a vigorous Union and Fair Wage debate in a Democratic primary would be good for HRC's election chances.

        But to not have that debate is to not build receivers in the body politic for the kinds of policy that we want to implement. Which means that our ideas have little pop culture circulation. Which is why people mistakenly believe this is a conservative country.

        That's been the problem for decades.

        Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

        by k9disc on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:59:19 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Unless it'a a real one, I agree. (0+ / 0-)
  •  I'm coming to the point (22+ / 0-)

    where I don't give a shit, let alone two, about whatever Democrat compromises his or her way to the top of the ticket.

    I'll stay in the 2014 midterm elections.

    And damned but this site is still dragging it's ass.

  •  But the Clintons bigfoot primaries.. (38+ / 0-)

    ---and they're not shopping for the most progressive candidate a district will support*. They want loyalists and/or people who share their ideology.

    So by electing Hillary we would empower the very machine that would marginalize us.

    *They were in the LA Mayoral contest ferchrissakes.

      •  How so? (23+ / 0-)

        How will democrats take on their own sitting WH when it backs corporatists(I'm going out on a limb here) in races across the country?

        Where will we organize that primary?
        Here?
        .....
        .....
        Sorry but I don't get the problem here. What is so exotic and threatening about an election? We need a robust debate over policy and the needs of the Democratic party's very diverse voters.

        Hillary has time to speak to bankers, why not democratic voters? She's addressing those constituents' needs, I guarantee it.

      •  Dems don't have successful primary challenges (15+ / 0-)

        It's not part of the party's contemporary DNA.  GOP Senate incumbents are often toppled or leave the party before they get toppled in a primary.  JoeMentum is the only Dem senator I'm aware of to lose a primary this century, and he won the GE, anyhow.

        If you can cite several House Dem incumbents who were toppled in primaries this century, please do so.  The party, on balance, has a strong institutional bias in support of the status quo.  Whatever insurgent energy that developed when Dean was DNC Chair was subsequently funneled into OFA.

        Thus far, I see little indication of any independent power center developing that could successfully challenge the party machinery.  Assuming that HRC is the 2016 nominee, Team Clinton will make sure they control said machinery.
         

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:19:32 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

          •  Learned helplessness in service to (15+ / 0-)

            False progressivism.

            Which is to say, liberalism.

            Funny, though, the practitioners of learned helplessness are never helpless when it comes to punching hippies for Goldman Sachs and the Surveillance State...

            •  The label doesn't matter. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              on the cusp, MrJayTee, dclawyer06

              I call myself a liberal because it's a dirty word to the right, and I assure you my liberalism has little to do with any Clintons. "Progressive" is the left flinching away from its  past instead of owning it.

              "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

              by sidnora on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:25:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Different labels for different phenomena (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dclawyer06

                Respectfully, the notion that liberal = left is sheer absurdity and wishful thinking.

                Liberalism has long been comfortable (even enthusiastic) with empire and colonialism, from the British Empire to our own empire today.  Lyndon Johnson and his supporters were the soul of liberalism, sincerely pressing a War on Poverty here at home while abroad remorselessly crushing national movements that would not knuckle under to US capital and its allies.

                Liberals like HRC and President Obama are his children, their essence being, if only we'd just do capitalism right, we'd all be fine, with a wink and a few drone-launched bombs unleashed on the innocent and a hand out to JP Morgan.

                That's liberalism, and if you share those values, you are indeed a liberal, unless you're going to say Clinton and Obama and the whole Democratic party (the part that actually holds power) aren't completely in line with the history of liberalism.

                I don't see the most of people who call themselves progressives agreeing with the liberal wink/bomb/collect the cash strategy at all.

                Of course, you can call yourself whatever you like. You can even choose the label for the purpose of twitting the right. But calling yourself liberal, regardless of the reason, doesn't make liberalism and progressivism similar, though often they are fellow travelers--for all the good it does the progressives.

                To me, greatest similarity is the refusal of both groups to hold their alleged representatives accountable for sucking up to capital, but then I am neither a progressive nor a liberal.

            •  I think it's the hippies (us) who have the (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RFK Lives, MrJayTee, dclawyer06

              learned helplessness.

              Hillary doesn't seem to have any helplessness beyond the helplessness almost all politicians have these days. And being so close to Wall St, I bet she doesn't mind being helpless in relation to them.

              I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

              by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:54:51 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  so do you (0+ / 0-)

            think we should give up on primaries as a way to move the party left?

            The internet is crazy. It is like people arguing about what kind of cheese to throw at a portrait, in order to destroy it completely

            by GideonAB on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:28:36 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  In 2016 there will be many 2010 Rs up esp. (0+ / 0-)

          In the Senate. No need to primary incumbents there.

          Steve Gilliard Lives.

          by Bethesda 1971 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:25:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  It's a legacy (5+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RFK Lives, PhilJD, poligirl, hooper, Dallasdoc

          of the Cold War. Socialists were completely wiped out. Even thrown in jail, or at least blacklisted.
             The left has never recoved.

          None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

          by gjohnsit on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:25:58 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, of course there's Donna Edwards. (0+ / 0-)

          I worked on that campaign. Actually, I've worked on a few campaigns where Dem. incumbents were toppled, but only one on the Federal level.

          I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:52:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thanks for taking the discussion (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dallasdoc

          in a realistic direction, BTW.

          I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

          by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:53:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Hasn't happened since Dean was running the DNC (18+ / 0-)

        Notice how the progressive challenges to conservative dems dried up after Dean left the DNC?  The DNC now uses its influence to lock those challengers out.  

        There's not going to be anyone like Dean running the DNC under HRC.  Not by a long shot.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:02:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe we could get him (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elwior, dclawyer06

          to primary her?

          I trace most of what's wrong with the politics (as opposed to the policies, that's another issue) of the present-day Democratic Party to the day Dean left the chairmanship of the DNC. Even if he couldn't win a presidential primary, having him back as chair would be tremendous.

          "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

          by sidnora on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:29:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You know (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            sidnora

            what is interesting? Dean was a leading light of the DLC back in the day. in 1980 he thought Teddy Kennedy was too liberal.

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:24:42 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He knows how to win. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dclawyer06

              National elections and state elections. And he's made no secret of it: it's the 50-state strategy. It worked in 2006, it worked in 2008, and then they couldn't wait to get rid of him, because if it had worked in 2010 the party wouldn't have had any more excuses for not moving to the left.

              On policy, I think he's changed a bit since 1980. He's changed since 2004, when his main liberal stance was against the Iraq war, and he was quite conservative in many other respects (for the record, I was a fervent supporter, even with those positions I disagreed with). For instance, I don't know his current stance on gun control; in 2004 he had a 100% rating from the NRA, IIRC.

              "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

              by sidnora on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:39:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                I'm not commenting on his strategy but as his stance as a candidate.

                I just hear so much whining about the DLC but yet the same people who purport to hate the DLC and everything it stands for think Dean would be a great candidate. Interesting.

                It's the policy stupid

                by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:54:04 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're referring to policy positions he held (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  dclawyer06

                  over 30 years ago.

                  I have met him multiple times in the past 5 years, most extensively when he endorsed a friend of mine in a local race. My friend's politics could best be described as socialist; he ran to the left of, and lost to the person who founded the New York City Council Progressive Caucus. And Dean ended up supporting that guy, too.

                  People do change, you know.

                  "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                  by sidnora on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:36:40 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

                    no, I'm talking about policy positions he held in the 90's which was more like 20 years ago. He has the leading DLCer back then.

                    It's the policy stupid

                    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:45:13 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You did mention 1980 (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      dclawyer06

                      in your original comment.

                      And yes, people can even change in 20 years.

                      There are people on this very site who voted for Ronald Reagan. I didn't, I hated and feared him. There are people on this very site who thought Bill Clinton was a swell president. I didn't, I thought his character flaws made him unpredictable and unreliable. Should I disdain any alliance with those who were not as perceptive as I was 20 or 30 years ago?

                      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                      by sidnora on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:55:02 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  My point really (0+ / 0-)

                        is that for 23 years as lt. gov and gov. he was big time DLC. so he was DLC up until 10 years ago. I understand people change. My problem is that people should give that same break to everybody and get past the DLC stuff.

                        It's the policy stupid

                        by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:03:24 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Wait a minute, (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          dclawyer06

                          now it's 10 years ago?

                          By that time he was running for president, and while he still subscribed to some conservative positions (as I mentioned above, guns was one of them), he was clearly moving away from the right wing of the party by then. HRC voted for the war that Dean called "stupid", remember?

                          Who should I be giving these breaks to? Not anyone who's still involved with that DLC/Third Way crap. If they don't know better at this point, they've lost me.

                          "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                          by sidnora on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:14:32 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  When I actually went (0+ / 0-)

                            and checked the dates he was governor until 2003. Apparently he decided to not be DLC or talk about the DLC when he met up with Joe Trippi.

                            How do you know Hillary is still involved with the third way stuff?

                            I really don't care about the war vote at this point. It's been dissected and dissected and I feel like Obama used that to play people for a fool. After watching him fold like a cheap lawn chair for six years there's no way he would have voted against the AUMF.

                            And Howard Dean only decided to be against the AUMF when he met up with Joe Trippi and he said that there was 30% of the party that was obssessed with that vote and no one was picking up that demographic.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 04:52:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How do I know (0+ / 0-)

                            that HRC is still involved with the Third Way stuff? Since I haven't done any research, I don't know. But I never mentioned her w/r/t Third Way, you did.

                            And as for her Iraq vote, maybe you can easily let her skate by on that, but I was her constituent at the time. I voted her into office. New Yorkers were fiercely, and very vocally, opposed to going into Iraq. There were huge demonstrations going on, hundreds of thousands of people in the streets, before the invasion. She chose to ignore us and cast the vote she thought would position her better for her presidential campaign.

                            If I thought for even a few seconds that her vote reflected her actual policy beliefs, I might be able to cut her some slack on it, but it was all politics, and transparently so. If I knew what a bonehead move invading Iraq was, she had to. She's no dummy. She betrayed her constituents and helped send hundreds of thousands to their deaths because she thought she needed to look tough. I may have to vote for her in 2016, but I'll be holding my nose as I do it.

                            "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                            by sidnora on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 08:28:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  How do (0+ / 0-)

                            you know the majority of New Yorkers were opposed? I know there were people who were vocal but I have no idea if that was a majority.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 03:43:13 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I believe there were polls (0+ / 0-)

                            at the time. Also, you can figure that for every person who's upset enough to go out into streets, there are at least ten sitting at home that agree. There were at least half a million people, and possibly as many as a million, at the Feb. 15, 2003 demo in NYC, right before the invasion. (You may recall that there were huge demos all over the world that day).

                            "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

                            by sidnora on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 08:56:43 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not to dispute the fact, but I can't find anything (0+ / 0-)

                            except material about DLCers Gephardt and Kerry ambushing Dean's Presidential run at the behest and direction of the DLC--that's all over the internet.

                            Where is the material that substantiates that Governor Dean was ever a member of the DLC, please?

                            Again, not saying you're wrong since Dean's clearly a right-winger also, but my searches don't yield any evidence that he was actually a member of the DLC organization.

                            Do you have a link or a website that you can refer me to, please?  (Oh, and I've searched the DLC website, and it didn't yield anything in response to Dean's name.)

                            Thanks--

                            Mollie

                            "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


                            hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

                            by musiccitymollie on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 08:44:10 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Here (0+ / 0-)

                            http://www.monitor.net/...

                            As governor of Vermont his priorities aligned with the DLC.

                            It's the policy stupid

                            by Ga6thDem on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 03:41:42 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Thanks for the link. I must say, though, (0+ / 0-)

                            that I didn't interpret Norm Soloman's post quite the same way that you apparently have:

                            Dean was a leading light of the DLC back in the day.

                            Now, he is FAR to the right of me--as are ALL of the corporatist (DLC/Third Way/No Labels/New Dems) neoliberal Establishment Democrats--no argument with you there.

                            But would it not be more accurate to say that he is very similar in his views to the typical DLC/Third Way/No Labels Dems, than to say what you said to the other commenter?

                            IOW, I've researched and written on this topic many times, and I've never seen (nor did Solomon present) any "record" of the fact that Dean was a member of the DLC.

                            They (the DLC) attacked him viciously, if you recall.

                            (But if you find one, please let me know.  It's a "big internet"--so maybe I've missed it, LOL!)

                            I agree with Solomon that it was ridiculous to label Howard Dean a "liberal" based upon his then "anti-Iraq War" stance.

                            But isn't that what the "lamestream" media (and yes, I agree with Palin on this one--they are corrupt, selling the corporatist agenda relentlessly and dishonesly) ALWAYS does?

                            Remember when right-winger and Rhodes Scholar  investment banker Bill Bradley was considered to be "a liberal?"

                            On what basis, for Pete's Sake?

                            None, except that the corporatist media always seeks to (and mostly succeeds) in duping the uninformed factions of the Democratic Party Base.

                            I only wish folks would let the Clinton/Obama Wars be "put to rest."

                            I literally had to disengage from politics in 2007 and 2008 due to the absurd interparty squabbling.

                            The "mindboggling" aspect was that there was never a more striking example of a choice between two political candidates who were "Tweedledum and Tweedledee."  (IMO)

                            I'm "hoping" that the upcoming election cycle will make this obvious to those folks who still insist on fighting this battle.  

                            (Not to say you are--don't know your politics.  But I see it everywhere in the progressive blogosphere, and it is beyond depressing, IMO.)

                            Again, thanks for the link.  It was good to see by own opinion (and apparently yours) validated by Solomon.

                            ;-)

                            (This is garbled and rambling--sorry, pushed for time!)

                            Mollie

                            "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


                            hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

                            by musiccitymollie on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 11:39:39 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Beat them in primaries (0+ / 0-)

      REALLY make the point!

    •  And how (5+ / 0-)

      has that worked out for you with Obama? He seems to detest the very same people who worked so hard for him.

      It's the policy stupid

      by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:06:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Messaging. Party machinery. (15+ / 0-)

      I remember how Hillary participated in the last war against progressives in the Democratic Party. She didn't even talk about universal health care for over a decade after the '93 failure. She only talked about the safe line of retreat, "prescription drugs for seniors." It took Dean coming along against the party establishment to put universal health care back at the center of debate. Handing Clinton the tools to beat back progressives again is idiotic. It will not help progressives build power to have the entire machinery of the Democratic Party and the White House turned against us again!
      People will look back and wish fondly for a the days when Obama essentially begged to be pressured by an organized left.

    •  You're talking about that whole (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybrestrike, on the cusp, dclawyer06

      what-goes-on-behind-the-scenes-in-the-Party area, dclawyer.

      You're not supposed to do that.

      I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:43:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I totally agree with you. It is ratification of (6+ / 0-)

      the DLC and corporate sponsored public policy.

      It is a very uncompromising position. I don't see how it could be of any benefit.

      Democracy - 1 person 1 vote. Free Markets - More dollars more power.

      by k9disc on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:02:21 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I agree and with the growth of the Elizabeth (13+ / 0-)

    Warren wing of the party and it's new influence, it might bring a better future. It is also true that the power of the internet was not present during the first Clinton administration and it is big now and will be bigger in 2017.

    I'm in the Henry Wallace part of the Democratic Party.

    by CTDemoFarmer on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 09:28:28 AM PST

    •  Warren: educate HRC re: banksters in debates .. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CenPhx, boriskamite, sfbaytransplant

      Warren could at least publicly sketch out the fustercluck that is corporate/$ ownership of the political system as HRC stands by - wide-eyed-doe-in-the-headlights-like - at her podium, this theme may begin to resonate.

      Of course, we'd need a moderator that would enable that. Rachel M., anyone? If BillO can interview the Pres. before the Super Bowl...

      ..now, where did I leave my torches and villagers?

      by FrankSpoke on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:55:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  First (7+ / 0-)

    of all I too would like to know where this Republican is going to come from because as far as I can see the GOP is going to be using the exact same platform they have been using for almost 40 years and their base is not going to allow them to change it.

    Not sure why we did not have this policy discussion back in 2008 though.

    And the fact that Obama is perceived as the left wing of the party is very bad news but it's not news to me. Too many people refuse to look at his actual policy while in office.

    It's the policy stupid

    by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 09:47:51 AM PST

    •  All they have to do is repackage Ryan (0+ / 0-)

      1) He's paid his dues running with Romney.  Republicans like that.
      2) He's paid his dues with establishment movement conservatives with right wing economics.  They trust him.
      3)  He's Catholic.  I think Mormonism hurt Romney because it reinforced his weirdness and odd elitism which doesn't play in middle America.  
      4) He's a white guy.  American have done 8 years of social change and might be ready to pull back a bit.  

      What he needs:

      Some handlers to repackage and reintroduce him as the young, energetic, Irish, Catholic heir to JFK.  I was a bit impressed with how he positioned himself recently on the budget deal.  If he can find a young Peggy Noonan to write him some consumer friendly speeches and they teach him to smile I could see him running to the center safe to do that because the lobbies on the right know they've got him.

      •  Ryan's smarmy attitude likely defies repackaging. (8+ / 0-)
      •  I agree with you that Ryan (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tomwatson

        ...would make about as credible a candidate as the GOP could come up with about now--barring the miraculous arrival of the unicorn Republican posited by Egberto Willies, of course. Romney is toast; there is NO upside for him to waste another $110 million to get his ass kicked again.

        Ryan will have had four more years of sausage-making experience and would be able to point to a few legislative compromises that give him a centimeter of air from Tea Party absolutism.

        He would doubtless be encouraged to dress his social conservatism in more "compassionate" guise. Visually he looks like what right-wingers like in a pol. He can certainly out-debate the clown car full of reality-show rejects who show up at primary time, and knows how to talk about numbers, even they're made up. All of this plus the elements you note above make him a serious contender for the nom.

        Too bad for Ryan that, assuming he navigates the process seamlessly, he'll have to debate Hillary. She will wipe the floor with him. And on women's issues she will peel back that nice veneer, not only exposing Ryan's reactionary views but using him as a proxy to shame the entire GOP.

        Winning elections is great, but building movements is better.

        by Alvin K on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:35:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Are you kidding? (0+ / 0-)

        A failed VP candidate with unpopular ideas? He's certainly not going to package himself as the heir to JFK as a Republican.

        His problem is not going to be with Republicans. His problem is going to be how does he get more people to vote for him than voted for Romney?

        It's the policy stupid

        by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:06:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not as hard as you think (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Portlaw, hooper

          Romney was a horrible candidate for the middle west.  Obama's campaign always had the right election strategy.  He was the candidate from Illinois who proved he could win in Iowa and he ran the table from PA through IA even picking up Indiana the first time.  Republicans need a candidate who can flip some of the those states.  I'm just saying with the right campaign strategy Ryan might do it.  Jeb Bush could also do it.

          •  Ryan (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lysis

            was and is a terrible candidate. He did not even carry his own congressional district in 2012.

            Jeb Bush has a poisonous last name and his own mother said he should not run. Play the tape "his own mother said he shouldn't run" cue the laugh track.

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:10:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Clinton vs Bush! Lancaster vs York!! Perfect. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            CenPhx
          •  And also (0+ / 0-)

            the polls showed that Ryan actually drug Romney down. Romney was polling better BEFORE he picked Ryan. Romney might have made a race of it if he had picked someone like Susannah Martinez of New Mexico who is viewed as a moderate.

            I frankly think people were looking for a change in 2012 but after the GOP primaries and Romney picking Ryan, the whole situation just became so unpalpatable to too many voters.

            It's the policy stupid

            by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:12:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Even a Democratic sweep of both houses in 2014... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lawrence, Hillbilly Dem, dzog, sidnora

      ...would at best have the GOP leadership considering careful moves to the left in 2016. It would probably take a decade of that to convince most conservatives to even consider, much less make such a shift. They've been so effectively brainwashed by fear for the last 40 years to undo their trajectory any time soon.

  •  hey Armando (26+ / 0-)

    I understand your reasoning. I think Markos is probably right and Hillary will be the nominee.

    I just remember NAFTA and welfare reform and stuff like that.

    I've commented I think the Democratic Party will move to the left when public opinion is firmly there and our job is to promote what policies should pass to educate and help persuade.

    But I often think we are near a political tipping point. The last 14 years (if not longer) has been a miserable failure of government policy. There has been no policy to reverse the declining middle class, protect U.S. workers against companies sending jobs abroad, and help the long term unemployed.

    The Democratic Party hasn't changed in response to the economy. The GOP has but by going off the rails more.

    The Democratic Party has to change.

    I've read a lot of Thomas Frank lately...

  •  Populist Republican? (3+ / 0-)
    A populist Republican with limited Wall Street ties, with a fairly liberal social stance on marijuana, marriage equality, immigration reform, incarceration (mandatory minimums), and women’s rights is out there waiting.
    Look at how well that did Jon Huntsman: wiped out before Herm Cain, The Donald, Michele Bachperson, etc, etc, etc. which led to the election of President Romney.

    What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

    by TerryDarc on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 09:54:31 AM PST

    •  True (2+ / 0-)

      DOA for Republican primaries!

      But I'd 100% welcome a 3 way race between whatever trash emerges from the Republican nomination process, and 3rd party conservative of some ilk, and Hillary!

    •  All "populist Republican" means is enough populism (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell

      ... to appeal to a broader swath of voters and get elected.

      Then, turn hard right and bring the Far and Farther Right in with you throughout your not-at-all-new administration. Oh Yeah, for good measure and media-pleasing balance, appoint a token moderate or two to, say, Postmaster General and Comptroller.

      2014 is HERE. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

      by TRPChicago on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:16:34 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Without a progressive challenge (25+ / 0-)

    we are stuck with yet another neoliberal candidate.

    None are so hopelessly enslaved, as those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. -Johann von Goethe

    by gjohnsit on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:01:51 AM PST

    •  Here's what I don't understand: (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Willinois, poco, ssgbryan, puakev, dzog

      Why do so many people lament at the 'cult of personality' and the 'authoritarianism' of Obma, yet focus so hard on the presidency itself? Are we OK with an authoritarian cultish president as long as he/she are sufficiently progressive?

      While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

      by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:17:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I know its a sucky choice (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GoGoGoEverton

        but I would rather have a corporate dempublican than a Tea Party Republican asshat.

        After the election there may be ways to make the Hillary listen. There's always hope.

        One thing is for sure, I won't be supporting some spoiler third party candidate, unless they are polling VERY high.

        A true craftsman will meticulously construct the apparatus of his own demise.

        by onionjim on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:27:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Authoritarian progressives. (7+ / 0-)

        It is an odd contradiction. I never realized how strong authoritarian tendencies are among progressives until Obama took office. Those who talk about people power but seem to think Obama should make all change happen for them, like he never said he would.
        Obama said repeatedly in '08 that making real changing during his Presidency was going to take a movement from the bottom up. The real failure of the past 5 years is that so many progressives never let go of their wish for an all-powerful FDR or LBJ with a super-majority to do everything for them.

        •  The problem (4+ / 0-)

          is that he himself never believed the whole bottom up thing or either he did not have the dedication to make it work.

          It's the policy stupid

          by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:17:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  As I wrote (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TheMomCat, cpresley, Lysis, ek hornbeck

            this is part of the good news.

            Folks like Willinois will rediscover that policies they supported under Obama are not so progressive when they come from clinton.

            Seriously, this will be a big deal.

          •  How so? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            puakev

            They revived OFA again and I've seen them do a lot of organizing on the ground, despite many progressives being too cynical about OFA to participate.

            Organizing from the ground up, by definition, has to come from the ground, not the White House. I don't think we can blame Obama for the grassroots failing to do a better job of organizing and pressuring Congress.

            •  And how has (4+ / 0-)

              any of this changed Obama's stance on drones or anything else? You're essentially saying that you can't influence Obama by organizing.

              It's the policy stupid

              by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:19:41 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  He has been responsive (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DiesIrae

                on NSA spying, making another call for limits on executive power, which he had supported even before Snowden became news. I'd like to see even stronger restrictions but it's usually Congress that acts to limit Presidential power.

                I think he was headed the wrong way on Syria and responded to public opposition. He keeps stalling Keystone XL, possibly until it's dead, and we'll see how that ends up. He's talking more about economic inequality, or at least people are noticing more that he's talking about it.

                But really, since Obama has been to the left of Congress his entire time in office I'm most disappointed in the failure of the progressive netroots to make a real effort at pushing Congress left. A mature strategy would be pushing Obama when he needs it and pushing Congress to support Obama when he asks for something progressive.

                •  You see (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  cybrestrike, ek hornbeck

                  this is the problem i have always had with Obama. He talks and talks but does nothing. It's kind of like less have a discussion about income inequality in this country.

                  I'm sure he'll sign Keystone after the mid term elections.

                  He has not been to the left of congress. Obama has been center right the whole time he has been in office. Bill Clinton was more liberal than Obama.

                  It's the policy stupid

                  by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:10:33 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Action (0+ / 0-)

                    was the stimulus bill, which did reduce income inequality. It's like everyone forgot that ever happened.

                    Bill Clinton deregulated the lending industry. Obama regulated it. Clinton did nothing on energy. Obama made the biggest investment in clean energy and efficiency in American history. Clinton took us backward on gay rights. Obama forward. Clinton shrunk the safety net even with a Democratic Congress. Obama was expanding it before Republicans took Congress.

                    Calling Clinton more liberal takes a very short memory, no matter how much cherry picking one does over Obama.

                    •  The stimulus (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Lysis, ek hornbeck

                      was such a wasted opportunity in my book. it did something but larding it up with 40% of it being tax cuts because the GOP wanted that was a big mistake.

                      Obama did not regulate anything. I wish he had but he didn't. I have personally dealt with Obama's "legislation" and while it might be there on paper he's not making anybody obey what it says.

                      Obama had a gay bashing gospel tour for pete's sake. Don't ask don't tell was advanced for it's time. DOMA kept a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage from happening. Would you rather have had a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage? That's what people would be dealing with if DOMA had not delayed things until people's opinions changed on the subject.

                      Obama is a true blue supply sider on economics and it's the reason why the economy is still sputtering along.

                      Obama expanded the safety net how? By big cuts in food stamps that even Clinton didn't do? Taking money out of food stamps for the SNAP program? Cutting medicare to the point where he's almost destroyed the program? Offering up chained CPI?

                      It's the policy stupid

                      by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:43:09 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  What a load (11+ / 0-)

          Have you not been paying attention or been willingly blind?

          It has to be one or the other if you haven't noticed the many people that asked even demanded that both he and the other so called Democrats do something other than bail out bankers, feed the MIC, expand the wars. kill people in countries we are not at war with and talk about the evil monster under the bed.

          Nobody wanted he or anyone else to be anything or anybody other than actual Democrats and at this point he and those that chose the letter for themselves have failed that task.

          Victim of the system~Bob Marley

          by LaEscapee on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:45:26 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Let's look at your list. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DiesIrae

            "do something other than bail out bankers"

            Obama pushed hard against extreme lobbying by the banks to pass the largest regulation on banks, lending, and wall street since the new deal. That's progressive. Bush bailed out the bankers before Obama took office.

            "feed the MIC"
            Obama used to get criticized a lot of not cutting the defense budget. Ever notice how you don't hear those criticisms anymore? That's because he's cutting it. He has also done a lot of good on nuclear nonproliferation that no one talks about.

            "expand the wars"

            He ended Iraq. Avoided larger wars in Syria and Iran that some Democrats would have escalated. I never liked the escalation in Afghanistan but he's now withdrawing troops, just as he said he would. That's about as much as I realistically hoped for from Obama.

            "and talk about the evil monster under the bed."

            A big reason support for war in Afghanistan and elsewhere has faded is that Obama doesn't fearmonger the way Bush did. It's extremely important to have a President who does't stoke fear the way previous ones have done. Comparing Obama's rhetoric to Bush's warmongering would be delusional.

            You can make any politician look conservative if you cherry pick bad things and ignore the good. I like to look at facts. Reality. Both the good and bad.

    •  gjohnsit (0+ / 0-)

      I have avoided asking this, but have to: What exactly makes BHO a neoliberal? Can you give me a couple of examples.

      New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

      by AlexDrew on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:43:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just a few non-starters (13+ / 0-)

    I'm for Hillary as long as:

    - nobody from the Rubin neo-liberal school of economics has any place in the administration
    - nobody from the Rhee school of education deform has any place near education policy
    - nobody from the Israel Lobby / neo-con schools has any place in the administration

  •  Exsqueeze me . . . " another benefit for (11+ / 0-)

    progressives to a Hillary Clinton presidency" . . . uh, it'll make it clear that centrist-DLC is just Fascist-lite?

    Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

    by bobdevo on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:13:45 AM PST

  •  The advantage I see (15+ / 0-)

    To a Clinton candidacy is that maybe this time my fellow progressives will go into it with eyes open as to what she is, unlike the pretty but fictional picture they painted of who Obama is.

    "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

    by MargaretPOA on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:15:15 AM PST

    •  And that is the only advantage. (0+ / 0-)

      If she is elected and serves two terms, there might be an actual, functional left in this country by the time she steps down.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

      by sidnora on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:53:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Our best bet is a landslide. (14+ / 0-)

    Hillary or anyone else.  If we feel we have a candidate who can win by very significant numbers and carry coattails, especially in the senate, that's what matters.  It matters more then anything else, as the next eight years will likely see the Supreme Court lose the justices we want to replace.

    The shot to replace a Scalia with a justice - even a semi-centrist - would be excellent.   The chance to replace them with someone with a more left ideology would be phenomenal.

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle

    by Chris Reeves on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:16:58 AM PST

  •  All of this talk (15+ / 0-)

    about Hillary, we as a group better be more worried about getting the mid-term vote out, before worrying about somebody that hasn't even announced yet. Just my opinion.

    If you are not the lead dog, the view never changes.

    by RepresentUsPlease on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:17:48 AM PST

  •  Agree (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunbro, on the cusp

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:19:16 AM PST

  •  Slightly O/T, but if for any reason (3+ / 0-)

    Hillary Clinton doesn't run -- due to a severe health problem or anything else -- who is the Democratic Party's next best candidate for defeating the Republican nominee?

    I don't think it would be Joe Biden.  I like him, but public speaking isn't his strong suit.  (Although, I must concede, GWB was even more prone to inartful statements, and didn't have Biden's intelligence, yet still managed to get elected president twice.)

    I also like Elizabeth Warren, but I don't see her mounting a successful presidential campaign so soon in her political career.

    Who do you think would have the best chance?

    I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

    by VirginiaJeff on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:19:37 AM PST

  •  If Hillary's picture is on the first page every (13+ / 0-)

    day for the next 2 1/2 years I'm thinking I'm going to be singing that Lorde song "I'm kind of over getting told to throw my hand ups in the air."

    As for this:

    There will be more room for independence, initiatives and influence.
    Hello?!  You don't have the kind of ambition for having it all that Hillary has without wanting to control it all.  Her machine is going to want no tarnish on the legacy she wants to create and anything and anyone standing in its way is going to get mowed down if she has anything to say about it.  

    Just saying if we elect Clinton we get the House of Clinton.  They rule.

  •  Progressives have ignored Congress for 5 years. (9+ / 0-)

    Why would it be different under Clinton? And why not start right now under Obama?

    Obama has been to the left of Congress during his entire time in office. The progressive netroots have mostly obsessed over nothing but Obama, blaming him for every setback and roadblock forced by Congress. There's a pathological inability to put focus on anything but Obama.

    Congress kills the public option. Blame Obama.
    Congress keeps Gitmo open. Blame Obama.
    Congress forces bad budget cuts, shuts down government, won't pass another budget bill, won't cut oil subsidies, won't pass another jobs stimulus bill, or do anything else progressive Obama asks for. Blame Obama. The failure to hold Congress accountable for anything at all has been pathetic.

    I don't see the press or netroots being any less singular in their focus under Clinton. Unless, the focus on Obama really is about ODS and the haters will get over it when someone else is President. I don't think that's what it's about for most though.

    Another point:

    “Made for tough debates, by the way,” Mr. Obama added, “because we could never figure out what we were different on.”

    “Yeah, we worked at that pretty hard,” she said. [Emphasis supplied.]

    It's pretty clear from that quote that making them seem the same was a campaign tactic Clinton worked on. Believing that means she would have governed the same as Obama once in office is outrageously naive and foolish.
    •  Willinois is an example of the advantages (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sidnora, Lysis

      of a Clinton Presidency - he will rediscover his progressive views, and realize those policies he supported under Obama are not so progressive under Clinton.

      He will not be unique.

      •  Another personal attack. (0+ / 0-)

        Are you even capable of responding to me with anything but a personal attack? It doesn't seem so.

        Despite your lie, I continue to fight for the same progressive views I always have. You'll find most of my diaries have been about fracking lately, which is at odds with Obama.

        I'm also capable of rationally recognizing when Obama pushes for progressive issues I support, such as the ones I mentioned. Try it sometime. There's really no rule against admitting when Obama pushes for something good. It won't hurt too bad.

  •  if Hillary is the nominee... (10+ / 0-)

    ...I'll spend all my time in local races.

    My dream come true is an Elizabeth Warren candidacy.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:22:36 AM PST

  •  If Clinton really has a lock on the nomination (4+ / 0-)

    (and I'm not 100% sure she does, although Kos makes a pretty good argument and I don't see anyone else who can seriously challenge her on the horizon) the best strategy going forward is to start pushing her to the left as hard as we can, and never let up, even after the election. I'm sure there are several ways to do this. Two I can think of right off the top of my head are (1) surround her with people who will necessarily draw her to the left because of their policies (i.e. elect a progressive Congerss), and (2) to work together to combine what little influence we have to make certain she knows who she is working for and what they want.

    How to do that and how to counteract the big money who are going to want her to put together policies the big money wants? Aye, there's the rub. I don't know. I just know that if she surrounds herself with ex-DLC/Third Way types, penetrating the bubble they will create around her will be next to impossible.

    So this West Virginian walks into a bar and says, "Fix me a Green River."

    by Omir the Storyteller on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:26:21 AM PST

    •  Let's See If I Understand This (0+ / 0-)

      HRC having "a lock" on the dem candidacy... the calculus to figure that has NOTHING to do with who the GOP candidate is??

      really?

      LOL... you've got to be kidding me.

      "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

      by Superpole on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:35:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No one is pushing HRC anywhere (9+ / 0-)

      and if they are that only means her Presidency is a total failure because no way is she going to allow herself to be pushed.

      I'm repeating myself but please consider the kind of ambition it takes to be first lady of Arkansas, spend 8 years as first lady of the US including trying to create a unique role by pushing major legislation in Congress, run and serve as Senator in New York, run for the Presidency, serve as Secretary of State, and then run for President again.  And I'm sure her worshipers can add a ton of other stuff.  But I mean, if there is anyone more ambitious than HRC, it's probably Bill.  

      You are not going to push the Clintons anywhere.  Oh, no!!  They're going to do the pushing.  

      If that's what you want, vote for it.  But don't delude yourself or let them run this variation of spin at you.

      If you vote for HRC you are voting to put the Clintons on Mt. Rushmore.   It's all about them and their legacy.  That's what you are going to vote for and that is what you are going to get.

      •  Bill certainly allowed conservatives (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bluebrain, eagleray, brae70

        to push him during his presidency.  Remember his full about-face on ending discrimination against gays in the military?  Healthcare reform?  Etc.

        I think you're forgetting that Bill and Hillary are politically successful because they do respond to political pressure.  We have to make sure we're the ones who provide it.

        I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

        by VirginiaJeff on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:54:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I actually agree with this (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Lysis

        Nobody is going to push President Hillary Clinton to do anything she thinks is wrong.

        And I do think Bill is motivated by an intense desire to leave an unmatched legacy: he wants, more than anything in the world, to have made it possible for the first woman to be elected president of the US. I think that is what he wants to be remembered for.

  •  I certainly won't work for, (8+ / 0-)

    and might not vote for, a candidate to threatens to obliterate Iran.

    Play chess for the Kossacks on Chess.com. Join the site, then the group at http://www.chess.com/groups/view/kossacks.

    by rhutcheson on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:28:44 AM PST

    •  Context matters. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TomP, DiesIrae, sunbro, Cadillac64, eagleray, Lysis

      She was asked about how the U.S. would respond if Iran launched a nuclear attack against Israel.  

      I'm a Christian, therefore I'm a liberal.

      by VirginiaJeff on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:43:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  At the end of the day, you and Kossacks such (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eagleray

      as DKMich will vote for her when presented with the GOP alternative.

      New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

      by AlexDrew on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:50:25 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd vote for a third party candidate. (0+ / 0-)

        Play chess for the Kossacks on Chess.com. Join the site, then the group at http://www.chess.com/groups/view/kossacks.

        by rhutcheson on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:18:28 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't know you, but I have to say that I (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          eagleray

          don't believe you. The fact that you are on DKos means you are informed; that means you understand what's at stake. I am not excited about HRC, but I will vote for her because of the courts. Is that really not enough for you?

          New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

          by AlexDrew on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:46:07 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've voted for other parties in the past (0+ / 0-)

            - obviously never for Republicans or other right-wingers - when the Democrats were especially bad.  1968 was an example.  I might do so again, maybe for the Justice party or some other meaningful alternative, unless Hillary takes a much better stance on Iran/Israel and the rest of the Middle East as well as other war and peace topics.

            Play chess for the Kossacks on Chess.com. Join the site, then the group at http://www.chess.com/groups/view/kossacks.

            by rhutcheson on Mon Feb 24, 2014 at 11:46:42 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  WEAK Premises Right off the Bat (12+ / 0-)

    I mean, I get the bar has been set very lowwwww, but the problem here is HRC is NOT much of a progressive; and I'm being generous with that phrasing.

    as I stated the other day, show me FIVE bold, progressive policies/policy changes she has in mind-- and one of them can't be the feeble $10.10 an hour min wage "raise".

    that's not bold. stating it needs to be $15.00 per hour is bold-- but she and NO democrat other than Sanders and Warren are willing to make that sort of claim.

    if you want to get an idea of how HRC is going to govern, simply look at the lackluster Obama. you really think people want four more years of that?

    "We are beyond law, which is not unusual for an empire; unfortunately, we are also beyond common sense." Gore Vidal

    by Superpole on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:33:02 AM PST

  •  It's not about the President (4+ / 0-)

    It's about Congress and state politics. Progressive change like marriage equality, marijuana legalization, single player health care, is always going to come from the state level first. This article is spot on when it says the left influences the President based on the climate in Congress. Elect better Senators and Representatives and they will pull the President left.

    Until we get big money out of politics and people start getting their news somewhere besides corporate media we will always have an Establishment President.

    There's a difference between a responsible gun owner and one that's been lucky so far.

    by BeerNotWar on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:38:36 AM PST

    •  Our best bet is to strengthen our position (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cadillac64, Eric Nelson

      in congress and the states. If the progressive voices keep getting stronger at the local and state levels, whoever sits in the oval will have to respond.

      We all find the gerrymander issue painful, and the voting rights, and the women's access issues, and the immigration issues, and climate, and corporate abuse, etc.

      It's at the state level where these have to be changed. Whatever we can do to shift the media's obsession with the presidential races enough to bring light to the states can only help to bring more energy to what's happening locally.

      That's where all political action begins.

      Mistakes are the portals of discovery. - James Joyce

      by Beastly Fool on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:44:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is smart. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, Cadillac64

    As progressives we have to also realize unity, visible and apparent, means far more leverage and influence. Unity only comes by actively engaging with respect for each other despite the fact that we span different values. Some of us are far more self  identified with our sense of justice. Some of us are far more self identified with our sense of loyalty and history. These create tensions that can more be easily handled with the leverage and influence of unity. Mutual respect. Not merely walking away from repetitions arguments, not tolerating our differences after continuous thorough rehashings, but embracing the diversity, finding extra room for them. Both priorities for justice and loyalty are good traits and both together armor unity. Unity first, then there is the room for more attention to the margins.

    Also, I don't even want a hero or a saint in elective office. Miscasting. So that means I will mindfully and energetically support someone without losing hold of our differences as long as I and that person/team both know there will be a time and a purpose to use the difference to push hard. Elections and governing are different and to me the goal is relentlessly demanding good progressive governing.

    Very good diary! Thanks.

  •  Two points (6+ / 0-)

    You assert that Clinton won't be perceived as the left flank of the Democratic Party the way Obama is, but I don't see your argument for this. What makes you think she won't be portrayed as just as much of a raging socialist as Obama is?

    Also, I appreciate the argument for not fighting a HRC nomination if she decides to run and focusing instead down ballot and trying to get more progressives elected to keep pressing her left.

    However, I keep coming back to the  appalling strategic and organizational shortcomings she showed in 2008. Thinking the primaries were winner-take-all instead of proportional. Writing off the caucuses. Not pacing her expenditures and running out of money. Picking Mark Penn. While she got into the populist groove through the campaign, and presented herself well, I think her political judgment is questionable.

    It may well be she's the best Dems can do right now, but I'd just as soon wait and see who else decides to throw their hat in the ring.

    •  yes to all of your points, T (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dallasdoc

      good to bring them up

      "The corporate state’s repression, now on the brink of totalitarianism, would with the help of Christie, his corporate backers ... become a full-blown corporate fascism.' http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_trouble_with_chris_christie_20140112

      by SeaTurtle on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:24:01 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great diary. I agree with you mostly. (4+ / 0-)

    One of the points I was trying to make I think remains. If I was absolutely sure Hillary Clinton was a shoe-in, I would have no concerns.  

    However, our citizens can sometimes have very short memories. They are not as informed as DailyKOS readers and posters. That GOP candidate I spoke about was not necessarily Ron Paul though I was inferring that it was simply because of his current machinations on some specific policies for specific demographics. While he may be the wrong one to give the semblance of sufficient progressiveness for the country at this time, I could see a Huntsman morph into said candidate and pull the rug from under Hillary specifically for some of the points Krystal Ball made from the Politico story. It's not about what the candidate is, but what he is perceived to be.

    Again, I like Hillary Clinton. I would support her fully as the Democratic candidate. I am very very concerned that our eggs are being tied completely to that inevitable basket.

    •  20% shift in 2 primary states and Clinton is done (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      greenbell, ssgbryan, chuckvw

      Clinton is polling at 65%-70% in early primary states with no real opposition. That means around 30-35% of Democratic primary voters are looking for anyone else at all.

      In a two-way race a primary challenger starts with roughly 1/3 of the vote. All it takes is convincing another 20% of Democrats in two early states to support someone else. A challenger getting even close to winning two early primaries will knock the wheels off the inevitability wagon. Then the new narrative is how unelectable Clinton is and she's going to be rejected a second time.

      It's really not as unlikely as people make it out to be. We don't have a national primary.

    •  Hunstman? I think 2012 proved that's a no-go (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ga6thDem

      Huntsman is not viable in the current GOP.

      The Republican you seem to think could emerge and win is not viable in the current GOP. I think you need to drop that particular fantasy.

    •  How is (0+ / 0-)

      a Huntsman like candidate going to make it out of the GOP primary? You can posit about this happening but the reality of the situation makes it very unlikely.

      It's the policy stupid

      by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:30:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I like Clinton for 2016 (0+ / 0-)

    The next question is will she run in 2020. If not, then there a lot of good progressives waiting with some experience. If so, then there are a more with more experience ready to go in 2024.

    I like Jeff Merkley for President in 2024.

  •  Guessing Hillary was and is the progressive (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    atana, Cadillac64, Lysis

    side of the Clinton duo. That said, without a strong progressive Congress, nothing will happen. We are nearing an end game for American democracy. She would have to lead or ride a strong movement against the status quo, and I don't see that happening.

    Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

    by the fan man on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:50:15 AM PST

  •  What this analysis is missing, (5+ / 0-)

    and it seems like a fatal missing piece to me, is a historical perspective on just what happens when a Democratic President is to the right of Democratic majorities in both chambers.

    I think that was true in 1976-1980.  It wasn't helpful to progressives.

  •  Thank you for this, Armando. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tomwatson, Beastly Fool

    As chair of the Alaska Democratic Party Progressive Caucus in Alaska, I totally share your views.

    Looking at the elections in VA, the progressive talk gave strength to the party.

    •  articulating the progressive issues is articulatin (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cadillac64, greenbell, akmk, Dallasdoc

      articulating mostly populist issues.  The more the voting public understands the depths and nuance of most progressive issues, the more they get on board.

      Why do you suppose the right wing works so hard to distort everything we do?

      Mistakes are the portals of discovery. - James Joyce

      by Beastly Fool on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:50:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  bits n' pieces (0+ / 0-)

    1.)  2016 is a long long way off in "whot will hoppen next tyme."  Who the fuck knows despite the best prognostications by experts such as Kos?

    2.)  Rand Paul is a wild card.  That is the name you were missing.  When guys like Juan Cole connect with him around his criticism of "nazi" comments of Little Teddy Nugent you know he is sharpening his skill set and will become more of a problem as time goes forward.  He will connect with younger folk.  Look for a female VP that he could hook up with to form a Republican dream team.  At the very least he will push many of these issues both to the right and to the left.

    3.)  Kevin Spacey will run in 2016 as Francis Underwood and sweep the board.

    4.)  Jesus will return with a sword to smite the evil and the wicked and the sword will be shaped like a AR15.

  •  This idea essentially was the result of a voice (6+ / 0-)

    vote in the initial Seattle and Puget Sound Kossack meet up.

    More progressives, and better ones. Lots of local Kossacks working on local races. This is a good thing.

    Coalitions of progressives who advocate on different issues: environment (tons of groups here); education; financial policy; government transparency; internet freedom without corporate and government snooping; regulation of markets - banking, consumer protection, FDA, EPA, big business, etc.

    It seems we each pick our favorite issue and stay in our niche. We can't afford to do that anymore. Those concerned about the environment (raise your hands you all) should be enough right there. And the links to economy, health, middle class strength can be linked to successful united fronts on progressive issues and especially local races, Senate and House.

    Oh, look no further than Jeb Bush. He's being groomed. Just because it's a dynasty doesn't mean it won't fly. Ahem, we've just made that case here. He'll come across not as a NE elite but a moderate southern state candidate.

    Science is hell bent on consensus. Dr. Michael Crichton said “Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing to do with consensus... which is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right,”

    by Regina in a Sears Kit House on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:57:01 AM PST

  •  Much as I hate to quote Grover Norquist... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunbro

    I think Norquist was right on the money when he said conservatives don't need the president to be a leader; they just need someone who can hold a pen. Same holds true for progressives. We need progressives in Congress FAR MORE than we need one in the White House. I'm fairly sure than President Hillary Clinton will sign a carbon tax, card check, assault weapons ban, sentencing reform, Medicare expansion, Gitmo closure, or anything else that progressive Democrats in Congress can get through both houses. Without progressive Democrats in control of Congress, we'll get very little done.

    I'm not a Clinton fan. But as long as she isn't vetoing good Democratic legislation, I'd rather have her in the White House and put another couple of dozen Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warrens in Congress.

  •  Nice try. (11+ / 0-)

    but to me it seems obvious that "more and better democrats" is the last delusion. Hillary is the answer because there is a slight chance she MIGHT do something progressive. Is that how pathetic we are?

    I think it is interesting, that candidate Obama was "evolving" on gay rights issues. And it seems that gay rights issues are the salient accomplishment of his administration.

    Yeah, so now straights and gays can be equally fucked over on the income equality thang that dare not speak its name.

    And the MIC. Moyers last show said it all-the Deep State.

  •  our biggest goal needs to be getting a Democrat (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunbro, DiesIrae, on the cusp

    in the White House for 4 more years. As long as its not someone like Joe Manchin who it is matters less. We need to make Kennedy and Scalia see that there's a good chance they will not live to see another Republican president, to encourage them to retire.

    ...better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity, than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference. -FDR, 1936

    by James Allen on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:58:34 AM PST

  •  Watching the usual suspects fawn over (4+ / 0-)

    the Great White Hope who will save us all is getting old. It's like we are on Hillaryis44 or something.

    President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

    by askew on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:58:39 AM PST

  •  What is the big objection (6+ / 0-)

    To primaries?   What are HRc supporters afraid of?  That progressive views actually enter political discourse at national level?   That progressive planks enter the platform?    Really, this is kind of creepy and anti little D democratic

  •  The problem with your theory (11+ / 0-)

    is that progressives haven't thrived under Obama, nor did they under Bill Clinton.  As you noted yourself, there is little difference between Obama and HRC on policy.  We are left with the hope that HRC will "feel" more conservative, thus creating a liberal backlash.  That may indeed happen at dKos, but out in meatspace the rightwing freakshow is going to attack HRC the same as they have Obama and Bill Clinton for being a socialist commie nazi sympathizer who hates America.  The corporate media will continue to present the democratic leadership as "the other side", i.e., the "left".  Short of a change in HRC, there is little reason to think the public will view HRC as occupying a different part of the political spectrum than Obama.

    But suppose for a moment that president HRC is widely viewed as a conservative.  She will control all the levers of power in the party apparatus.  After election, Obama quickly moved to dam any potential flood of progressive candidates by replacing DNC chair Dean with a coporatist toady.  Through his Chief of Staff, he locked progressive voices out of the administration, retorting with "You're fucking retarded" when they dared speak up.  Is there any reason to believe HRC will be more, rather than less, receptive to progressives?

    Finally, there is no historical precedent for a conservative democratic president generating a successful progressive movement backlash that forces him to the left.  FDR was pushed to the left by a progressive movement, but that movement was broad and deep prior to FDR's election.  Had a more conservative democrat been elected instead of FDR, would that president have let himself be pushed as far to the left?  Would he have given a progressive champion like Frances Perkins a seat in his cabinet?  Will HRC?  

    In recent history the progressive movement has repeatedly deflated with the election of each conservative democratic president.  The low water mark came at the end of Clinton's tenure, when the left responded not by pushing democrats to the left, but by leaving the democratic party.  The Clinton Machine ensured that liberals had no avenue of dissent within their party and we ended up with Nader and Dubya out of that debacle.  So there is a recent precedent suggesting that in response to being shut out of the party by a conservative democratic president, progressives will -surprise!- leave the party.

    With today's Teabaggers, the Greens aren't the only populist alternative.  Another president beholden to Wall Street will only swell their ranks.  Contrary to the wealthy Teabagger donors, their ranks bear animosity to Wall Street, to the IMF and World Bank, to TPP and to NAFTA.  What if there is another bank collapse under HRC, and she puts the Goldman Sachs alumni in her cabinet to work injecting taxpayer money into the behemoths?  Do voters respond by electing more democrats?  Do progressives vote for more democrats?  Do centrists decide to "push" HRC to the left by electing more democrats?  Or do they all turn to the only party seemingly opposed to the runaway financial sector?  

    Sorry for the rambling comment, but I find the diarist's argument severely lacking in historical context.  There is simply no reason to believe progressivism will not flourish under an HRC presidency any more than it has under Obama.

    "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

    by Subterranean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 10:59:45 AM PST

    •  The difference is NO ONE (0+ / 0-)

      will be arguing Clinton is a progressive.

      Right here IN THIS THREAD there are people arguing Obama IS and has governed as one.

      •  No one? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tardis10, greenbell, fenway49, dclawyer06

        Really?  You think the right wing media are going to roll over for Hillary?  Or that the MSM won't present HRC as a loyal democrat?  Or that democrats won't view her as a, well....Democrat?  Judging by the views of UAW members I've spoken with in southeast MI, HRC has charmed them into submission.  Many view her as a staunch union supporter and say "well the 90s were good" anytime someone points out HRC positions or appointments  that are unfavorable to unions.  Many of them also view an HRC presidency as Bill Clinton's third term, which IMO is rather sexist but what do I know, I'm just a dude.  Repeal of Glass Steagal?  Nobody outside of political junkies like us knows or cares what the fuck Glass Steagal is.  HRC is a democrat like Bill Clinton and times were good under Bill.  End of argument.

        Even here at dKos, plenty of progressives view HRC as a leal progressive.  Alternatively, there is a large faction who views Obama as a staunch conservative.  

        So yeah, if your theory depends on "NO ONE" arguing that HRC is a progressive, then it's not going to be pretty when it collides with reality.

        "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

        by Subterranean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:40:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Roll over meaning what? (0+ / 0-)

          Have you seen what they are rolling out now? Nothing about her being a progressive.

        •  Having been affiliated with a federal employee's (0+ / 0-)

          union (AFGE) when "unions had some gumption," I can attest to the fact that many rank-and-file unionists TODAY don't realize that their leaders sold them out during the 1990's.

          So, Subterranean, the next time you run across one of these misguided union members, please direct them to the now defunct, but still relevant, DLC website--that should cure them!!!

          ;-)

          Mollie

          "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


          hiddennplainsight--Relaunched 2014!

          by musiccitymollie on Tue Feb 25, 2014 at 09:27:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lysis

      I know back in 2008 she listened to the concerns of a lot of people. Go to one of her town halls and ask her those exact questions.

      I'm with Armando on this. Hillary has a voting record. She has a lot of things that Obama did not have and people projected their views onto. Thankfully there will be NONE of that this time.

      It's the policy stupid

      by Ga6thDem on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:59:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You wrote the comment (0+ / 0-)

      I would have written. A little longer, but probably better-written, too.

      "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."........ "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." (yeah, same guy.)

      by sidnora on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:13:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  What song (7+ / 0-)

    is the band playing on that wagon?

    Victim of the system~Bob Marley

    by LaEscapee on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:01:31 AM PST

  •  I did not leave the Democratic Party, (19+ / 0-)

    the Democratic Party left me.

    Money is the bottom line here and, unfortunately, I do not see the Democratic Party platform as being anything right now other than lip service. Whoever controls the purse strings determines the "issues" you speak of, so the platform itself doesn't really mean shit.

    Hillary Clinton is a corporatist, which is why I didn't want her as POTUS in '08, and I certainly don't want her now.

    The divide in the Democratic Party presently is wide and vast, and I don't see that changing anytime soon because we're in for a world of fuck all with the upcoming "shut the hell up and stop complaining and be a good little Democratic and vote for Clinton" diaries like this we are going to see in the run up to 2016.

    Fabulous. When the Democratic Party stops taking a giant dump on half their base, things may start to change a bit.

    If I turn into another, dig me up from under what is covering the better part of me. -- Incubus

    by Colorado is the Shiznit on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:06:51 AM PST

    •  Well said. (10+ / 0-)

      The divide in the Democratic party is no different than the rest of the country.   The 1%ers control the party, and have gotten everything they want, at the expense of everyone else.

      That's why the Democrats gave us a "jobless recovery".   They made sure Wall Street was humming right along.  The rest of us?   Not so much.  

      I'm already sick of the campaign and it hasn't even started yet.  I eagerly await a fresh round of "hope and change" style bullshit that really doesn't amount to a whole hell of a lot.  

      The tent got so big it now stands for nothing.

      by Beelzebud on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:23:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Honestly, the Clintons try to mirror the general (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Cadillac64

      electorate and the Dems follow.  See here from Gallop (if you trust them).  Notice that only 23% self identify as liberal of all Americans, while 43% of Democrats do.  While the Dem liberal self-ID has grown since '08, the overall electorate is still not in the same place as the liberals.   That was the point of the triangulation in the first place.  

      The end result from a Clinton point of view is that to in elections, you pick up the moderates and conservatives within the Dem party, hope for most of the liberals to keep party loyalty and then get as many liberals and moderates from the independents.

      Until this calculus changes, expect Democratic candidates at the national level to be "center-left".

      To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

      by dizzydean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:30:30 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And to follow, the reason Democrats can't act like (0+ / 0-)

        the GOP in reverse is that the GOP has 70% self-identifying as conservative.  They win their base through being very conservative and then pick up as many independent conservatives and moderates as possible.  

        Until the Dems have 60+ percent self-identifying as liberals, we can't really do base elections.....

        To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

        by dizzydean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:46:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  mirroring the general electorate? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CenPhx

        Wasn't the original idea that our is to be a representative democracy? If our elected pols actually represented their respective populations, rather than representing their favored donors and ideological friends, then we might actually have a democratic system.

        To view a president as mirroring the electorate might be good when appearance is paramount, but on most decisions, the electorate has not been polled, and is not 'in the room' when decisions are made.

        To assume the responsibility of mirroring or representing the general electorate, without parsing the meaning whenever it's convenient, this implies a kind of idealism and reverence for actual democracy that's rare.

        Oddly, even though this IS a discussion largely about and by progressives, it seems that many progressives fit this model about as well as anybody out there...

        Mistakes are the portals of discovery. - James Joyce

        by Beastly Fool on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:03:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, if you take Gallop's numbers for truth (0+ / 0-)

          and put them in a parliamentarian system, you have a liberal party with 23% of the legislative body, a centrist party with 34%, and a conservative party with 38%.  In order to govern, the liberal party would have to form a coalition government with the centrists.

          What the Dems do by being "big tent" is to form that coalition ahead of time....

          To be free and just depends on us. Victor Hugo.

          by dizzydean on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 12:52:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm starting to think that the Democratic party (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CenPhx

      is simply a machine for consuming populist and progressive and liberal people's time, energy and money, while containing and watering down their efforts.

      This state of mind is a bad place to be.

      "This machine can only swallow money..."

      I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:01:09 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This narrow bandwidth of relevance (7+ / 0-)

    Does it matter who is President? Yes it does, more than it matters who wins hockey at the Olympics. But when you play out the "inevitability of Hillary" or whichever machine candidate is put forth as the Democratic standard bearer, and stack it against the very real national and world problems that this democratic president has IGNORED OR MADE WORSE, then you have to conclude that it really doesn't matter all that much.

    Pick your poison; a radioactive Pacific Ocean (already begun); climate upheaval (already underway); rogue banking and incipient currency collapse (round two on its way); corporate usurpation of individual liberties & privacy; plummeting standards of living and  the third-worldification of the west.

     When you actually look at what our Democrat government officials actually do about any of these, and leaving aside the old-style rhetoric, we must face it folks, there is NEAR PERFECT BI-PARTISAN CONSENSUS on how to handle these poisons. Just ignore them. Yeah, some rhetoric and lip service at election time, and maybe a few token initiatives just to have something to point to. But the big issues? Ignore them.

    So the choice is this - you either take these major issues seriously, or you take candidates like Hillary seriously. You cannot do both.    

  •  cocentrate on 2014 & get Out & Vote! (4+ / 0-)

    No progressive programs will happen if we do not get more moderates republicans and more Democrats in the Congress.

    No president can get any progressive programs passed without congress. The House and Senate races in 2014 are as important or more important right now than 2016. It is very critical for Democrats to keep the Senate.

    Obama has been the most progressive Democrat in decades, but he can not get his ideas passed because of the right wing obstruction in Congress. If Hillary runs she will also face this, if the 2014 elections do not turn out for Democrats. A strong Democrat candidate can change the House in 2016 because those races a occur every 2 years, but the Senate terms are 6 years, and there are a lot of  critical Senate seats up for grabs in 2014.

    Have we not learned our lessons from 2010 when young Democrats and leftists did not get out and vote and we lost the House?

  •  Here's a serious question, Armando: (12+ / 0-)

    If our Democratic leaders do not fight for the issues we believe in, THEN what the fuck do we do? Has Obama been pressured by anything the "left flank" of the party has thrown his way over the past 6 years?

    If I turn into another, dig me up from under what is covering the better part of me. -- Incubus

    by Colorado is the Shiznit on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:15:32 AM PST

  •  A candidate Clinton... (4+ / 0-)

    ...will be perceived as a lefty, and a perpetuation of what conservatives hate most, authority residing in the hands of women or black people.  We are adding the baggage of the left to the baggage of another Clinton.  She's got the seniority and the position to run and, as you say, likely take the nomination.  What she does not have, and has never had, is a millimeter of freedom from expediency.  

    When I listen to her speak, as a middle aged professional woman (albeit a trans one), is someone making the same kinds of calculation and choices that go into my daily workplace reality.  She is "well spoken" -- her words are measured against reality and power, modulated by careful intelligence.  That's actually something that everyone who has or uses power learns to do.  But to this listener, as she practices it -- it does not speak to heart or have the sharp edge of what is true in it.  Obama, while he has been more interested in running the empire than changing it, could at least find words that reflected what you knew, as you heard them -- yes, that is deeply true.  I do not think Clinton has that as part of her public persona.  I do not know if she would recognize it if it bit her.

    The right has the advantage of speaking to hate and authoritarian tropes, which have their own authenticity and power, even when every word is smarm -- a lower bar to meet, to engage people, get them to the polls.  Making jokes about welfare and birth certificates at least meets a real emotion in the racist listener.  

    I think you are right about who our candidate will be, if she runs.  You might or might not be right about the ability to pressure her (a model built on hard to verify assumptions :}).  My concern is that she is not electable on the national stage, in an era when people long to hear the truth and are given only the consensus views of the powerful.

    ...j'ai découvert que tout le malheur des hommes vient d'une seule chose, qui est de ne savoir pas demeurer en repos dans une chambre.

    by jessical on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:17:27 AM PST

  •  Another benefit of Hillary running (5+ / 0-)

    is that the Repubs hate her so much that they simply won't be able to contain themselves from injecting Benghazi, Whitewater, Lewinsky and any number of other ridiculous conspiracy fuelled accusations into the campaign and swingable voters will see how crazed and hate filled a lot of this will be and I think it will rebound badly on them.

    Remember to kick it over.

    by sprogga on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:17:44 AM PST

  •  No media outlet likes a shoe-in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunbro

    That's the force behind about 99.9% of the "other candidate" stories

  •  Good Commentary on Truthisms (0+ / 0-)

    We can all agree on many things. Building the left flank has got to be the most important thing we do. Coming from a Rural Southern Progressive type of view, we will get more mileage if Hillary is elected. In the south there are rumblings underground about a "Confederacy" of our own away from the Democratic Party as Progressives. Having a southerner as a President and a woman at that; we can leverage southern etiquette on any legislative issue that will broaden our base (or finally build one in the south). All we will have to do is say "Shame on you Hillary" and she will come back to her raising. Then the flank can make great strides if we are prepared to win the local and state seats along with the federal races necessary to flex a little muscle. It can be done!

  •  I agree, completely (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunbro

    We see this every election cycle, the notion that there is some perfect candidate who will never disappoint us (see John Edwards/DKos 2007).  We are seeing rumblings of that with Elizabeth Warren, less so because she seems unlikely to run.  If she did run and win she would undoubtedly disappoint some people;  politicians always do. They just do.

     

  •  The Naderites are back. God help us. (0+ / 0-)

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

    by illinifan17 on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:22:54 AM PST

    •  I like them. They have their place. (0+ / 0-)

      Purity sets the parameters of the discussion, and it should be what we all aspire to as much as possible.  We just need to be more consistent and less antsy about calling out the practical problems of being pure without regard to what's possible.

      It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

      by Rich in PA on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:08:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The ones demanding purity are those who (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Patango, CenPhx, dclawyer06, aliasalias

        have informed us in 2014 that there will be no primary challengers in 2016, STFU, there will be ONE message and ONE messenger and when we're ready to give it you, you will get it, campaign for it, and vote for it and whether you believe in it, like it or need it is irrelevant.

        •  For people supposedly being told to stfu... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Swig Mcjigger

          Y'all sure are talking a lot.

          Every Hillary thread here has been a conversation starter and that conversation has been allowed to flourish (or fester, depending on your view.)

          The idea that you're being silenced or pressured is kinda confusing to me.  

          •  Apparently (0+ / 0-)

            You think commenter was describing a phenomenon that's occurring at the individual comment level.

            It's a bit more subtle than posting a comment to someone telling them to literally "shut up."

            In general, the inevitability meme has a stifling effect.




            Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly pathetic that it has to be us. ~ Garcia

            by DeadHead on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 08:12:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I bet most of us voted for Gore. I did. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Patango

      Not that it mattered since the Republicans stole the election and the Democrats in the Senate, White House, and Justice Department sat there and let them do it.

      Anyway, if you don't want us around, we could leave, but that seems to be what gets y'alls dander up.

      I tried to go online to find a similar bear head...but when I searched “Big Bear Head” it gave me a San Diego craigslist ad entitled “Big Bear needs some quick head now” and then I just decided to never go on the internet again.--Jenny Lawson

      by SouthernLiberalinMD on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 02:08:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  "The Naderites are back" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CenPhx, aliasalias

      As if the Liebermanites should not be ashamed of their wanting turn the dem party into a republicanism

      Beer Drinkers & Hell Raisers

      by Patango on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:06:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I Would Just Like To Recognize (6+ / 0-)

    Kos and this site generally for: 1) Knowing the future and 2) Selecting the Democratic presidential candidate for us.

    You only have to read quotes from Sec. Clinton's recent speeches to know how she'll treat financial capitalists.  You can forget about any financial transaction tax.  

    Sec. Clinton's coronation isn't written in stone.  This is how working class supporters end up with watered down, mealy-mouthed, half stepping, gruel thin "Democrats" who are only slightly better than Republicans.

    The lesser of two evils is still evil.  

    It's enlightening that many people around here would rather be a winner than do what's right.

    If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

    by stewarjt on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 11:24:44 AM PST

    •  he just read your comment... (0+ / 0-)

      'Two Shits'...

      i'm so sorry..

      shake well

      by