Skip to main content

I get it. I see it now. I am shaking my head at my previous obtuseness. The brush has been cleared for the path ahead. The path that leads to the sunlit clearing where we join hands and I'd Like To Buy The World A Coke unironically.

Please follow me (and the breadcrumbs) down the path.

Hillary Clinton is unique. It is completely possible that she may become a historical figure of gigantic proportions. She has the potential to permanently alter the American political landscape for generations in one fell swoop.

Hyperbole? I don't think so.

What do we know about Hillary? We know that she has always been brilliant, she went to Yale, became a lawyer, married Bill Clinton, went with him to Arkansas, became First Lady of Arkansas, became First Lady of The United States, survived a barrage of "scandals" involving both herself and her husband, sometimes as individuals, sometimes as a couple, further survived the impeachment attempt against Bill Clinton, went on to become Senator from New York and then became Secretary of State in the Obama Administration. As we speak, she appears to be positioned to become the front running candidate as the Democratic nominee for the President of the United States in 2016.

Incredible story about an amazing woman by anyone's standards. But what if it were about to become even more amazing?

I wrote a fairly inconsequential diary the other day that contained within it the seeds for the thought that has consumed my sub-conscious since, although I didn't recognize it even as I referenced it in regard to something smaller but related.

These two observations are courtesy of Robert Reich in a column he wrote called The Six Principles of the New Populism

Reich Observation number 1:

Even so, the major fault line in American politics seems to be shifting, from Democrat versus Republican, to populist versus establishment -- those who think the game is rigged versus those who do the rigging.
We can see that fault line in society and in our political parties and we can see it right here in the diaries and discussions on this website. The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street are two similar yet diametrically opposite manifestations of frustrations with our current political situation which does not work in any way with average people while it is stuck in partisan gridlock. The major difference being that the Tea Party chose to work within the system while OWS chose to remain outside the system. Both groups and their sympathizers are often considered to be the nuclei of potential Third Party spin-offs to the two major parties.

Even though the Tea Party and OWS are considered "fringe" movements by many, they do reflect the more general anger that is shared by the majority of Americans, Republican and Democrat, left and right, Liberal and Conservative, that our Congress sucks and our system sucks and our Parties pretty much suck. (I should but I won't include poll data substantiating this - I think we've all seen the polls and articles. Someone else can post them in comments if they like)

Reich observation number 2:

Wall Street and big business Republicans are already signaling they'd prefer a Democratic establishment candidate over a Republican populist.
That signalling for a Democratic Establishment figure in context is supposed to be their response if a Tea Party Populist such as Ted Cruz or Rand Paul becomes the nominee of the Republican Party over their first choices Jeb Bush and Chris Christie.

Reich is being coy in not naming the specific "Democratic Establishment Candidate" in this sentence. His essay makes it clear that the establishment candidate is Hillary Clinton. Sorry, Joe Biden and anyone else who might feel they qualify

Let's talk about Chris Christie and Jeb Bush. I think Christie is out for good, not just because of Bridgegate but also because his state is imploding economically as we speak. New Jersey credit has been down-graded, the transportation trust fund is broke, etc. etc. Chris Christie's future will be as a Nutri-system spokesperson.

Jeb Bush seems conflicted about running. Aside from his own ambivalence, in my personal opinion the "Bush" brand is still dead in national politics for at least this generation. I do not think there is a hunger in the citizenry to start reading about another President Bush.

So, if Christie and Bush are out, that pretty well clears the Republican field for a Cruz or a Paul or someone else with "fringey" appeal.

So now we are left with the specter as opined by Reich that "establishment Republicans and Wall Street" will throw their support behind the "Democratic Establishment Candidate" Hillary Clinton.

My friends, this is HUGE.

This is why Hillary Clinton is a unique political figure. She stands alone as the single figure in American politics who could garner not just the majority Democratic vote but a large portion of the "establishment Republican" vote as well and of course we would have to throw in a solid portion of the Independents as well. There is no comparable figure on the right or anywhere else for that matter.

In my diary yesterday I asked the following question in a light hearted and snarky fashion:

What does the coalescing around Hillary Clinton portend for the futures of both the Republican and Democratic parties? Will the Third Way/Republican/Corporate mind meld be complete and will the No Labels Can't We All Just Get Along Party be a reality?
Having had time to consider the question, I now know the answer, it is:

YES

My diary yesterday was focused on the trees and bushes and weeds of the 2016 Presidential election while I ignored the larger forest. Hillary is the forest. She overshadows every single other politician.

Hillary Clinton could be the catalyst for a real new Third Party, not comprised of minority membership malcontents, but one where the establishment majorities of both parties throw off their annoying flanks and come together to push through the agenda they can all get behind. I won't take time in this diary to enumerate what I think those goals might be, I think most of us have a pretty good idea. Since we are talking of a merging of all the Pragmatists, I have to imagine there would be some sops to the 99% while the wealth consolidation and corporate globalization proceeds apace.

Kos himself caused some excitement the other day with his "Would you vote for Hillary if she were the Democratic candidate?" poll

My new poll question is:

Would you vote for Hillary if she were both the Democratic AND the Republican candidate?

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

  •  Tip Jar (25+ / 0-)

    “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

    by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:30:41 AM PDT

  •  Joe Biden is the Walrus (6+ / 0-)

    koo koo ka choo!

    When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

    by Sun dog on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:35:52 AM PDT

  •  The fault line is a construct to keep the (14+ / 0-)

    population divided. If we agreed on everything except I like chicken and you like beef, the political parties would draw the line there just to separate us.

    At this point I don't even care that Hillary is being pushed because its all a false choice anyway and just accepting shes the nominee saves us all fanfare of pretending we have a choice.

    Had Obama lost to her and she was President the last 6 years how much different would it be? Sure the bigots would have a smaller target, but the results would be much the same.

    At this point we should just drop the faux democracy and let 'Money' tell us who they plan on ramming down our throat so we can get on with our lives. The election seasons get longer and longer but offer less and less real choice.

    30 years ago if someone tried to push a candidate over 2 years before the election they would of been ostracized, now if we don't accept that candidate you are on the fringe lol

    Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back. Get the money out of politics with public financed campaigns so 'Of the People, By the People and For the People' rings true again.

    by fToRrEeEsSt on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:46:00 AM PDT

    •  Please understand that I am not "pushing" (9+ / 0-)

      Hillary. I am actually one of the "minority malcontents" who would prefer Elizabeth Warren and her brand of Democracy and the Democratic Party.

      I have just had an epiphany, however, that Hillary Clinton is and will be a juggernaut and that she has support from both sides of the aisle that may be unique in American history.

      I am not saying that resistance is futile but it will be pretty close to futile. I am not sure how Progressives and populists and any other "ists" can counter a Hillary run.

      The other part of the epiphany is that for anyone who has been dreaming of a Third Party - it's here, just not in the form imagined.

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:53:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah I understood that, but I must admit I am (5+ / 0-)

        a little wary of Warren, I can't help feeling the PR people are creating exactly what we are looking for.

        Even if she is everything that she appears to be, the system and the party wouldn't give her the room to do what we would want her to. I personally believe if Obama could he would be a far better president than he is, but is hamstrung by the realities of the system. I honestly believe Obama wanted to be the 'most transparent president' but when he got there they just laughed at him for thinking he had a choice.

        Changing the face at the top doesn't do anything when the entire body of the system has a life of its own. We need to fix the system to allow a well intended leader the ability to lead well.

        Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back. Get the money out of politics with public financed campaigns so 'Of the People, By the People and For the People' rings true again.

        by fToRrEeEsSt on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:00:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think Warrens whole life speaks to her (8+ / 0-)

          authenticity. She's no media creation.

          “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

          by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:08:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I think Warren is authentic (5+ / 0-)

          I don't, however, believe she is at all interested in running for higher office. I don't know why so many people here seem convinced that she has presidential aspirations.

          P.S. I am not a crackpot.

          by BoiseBlue on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:42:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If she is the real deal she probably doesn't (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BoiseBlue

            want the job exactly because she knows she couldn't be herself and do what she wants.

            Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back. Get the money out of politics with public financed campaigns so 'Of the People, By the People and For the People' rings true again.

            by fToRrEeEsSt on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:46:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Warren speaks to issues that affect real people (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lenzy1000, flowerfarmer, thomask, Skyye, Choco8

            that go mostly unaddressed by the majority of politicians who don't seem to know that most Americans struggle to pay their everyday obligations and see a pretty bleak future if things continue down the path we are on.

            Her current effort to rein in student debt is a good example. We have a large portion of our younger generation crushed under their student loan obligations. This has a direct effect on the rest of the economy, in particular housing which is a giant engine for consumer goods.

            “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

            by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:47:46 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  It's her level of dedication. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Skyye

             And she's out there now, talking like a potential candidate.

              I don't think she's someone who has always craved higher office, I see it more of a duty thing for her, as someone who cares too much to turn away from the opportunity to make things better for everyday people.

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

            by elwior on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:50:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  The only sort of person who could counter (4+ / 0-)

        Hillary would a billionaire heretofore considered non-ideological entering the fray under and pounding a populist message. Being a billionaire, it would be a bit of a paradox -- oligarch and all -- but I think that's what it would take.

        Had Steve Jobs lived, he'd have been a perfect candidate -- brilliant marketer and problem solver, stellar at creating movement and ruthless enough for the job.

        Among the living, ideally I'd like to see a female billionaire from Silicon Valley who does not have a empress dowager imperial rep (Meg Whitman) do it. I think that's a leg up from the start and will blunt Hillary's gender advantage. The American public still has a high degree of respect and trust of Silicon Valley CEOs. Yahoo!'s Melissa Mayer comes to mind.

        I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony Everything good a man can be, a dog already is. - pajoly

        by pajoly on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:09:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't know how unique that is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phoebe Loosinhouse, poco

        Reagan had the "Reagan Democrats" after all.

        •  That's a good point. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dr Swig Mcjigger, poco

          This could be a similar moment.

          That is something that set Reagan apart from the garden variety political candidate.

          “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

          by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:34:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If in fact (2+ / 0-)

            There are Hillary Republicans, the GOP could be out of power for a long, long time.

            •  ...and that's all that matters, right? Go Team D! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Phoebe Loosinhouse

              No one asks about the policies supported by the Super Bowl champs. Why should politics be any different?

              Fascism in the mirror is nearer than it appears.

              by PhilJD on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:25:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Uh, no (3+ / 0-)

                I didn't say that anywhere. I simply made an observation about what I think the political ramifications would be if the diarist's theory is correct.

              •  Our party being in charge for a long time (3+ / 0-)

                Means our policies will be implemented. You think they wouldn't pass increased minimum wage, national gay marriage, immigration reform, equal pay, etc, etc? You think they wouldn't go for net neutrality, and possibly even try to strengthen unions? Because those are pretty clear differences in what the Republicans would do if the president was of their party. It may not be everything you want, but you hopefully enjoy those more than letting the poor starve and die without healthcare.

                •  Nope I don't they push a lot of this because (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Phoebe Loosinhouse

                  they have the repubs to blame for it not going through.

                  You have no idea how much I wish for a Democratic super majority, not because we would get the legislation we wanted, but because it would put this illusion to rest.

                  You ever notice when the Repubs are in power they get what they want even without a super majority? But as soon as the dems are in power there is always an excuse.

                  One could say they are just all incompetent, but that is the ruse, to hide the worse fact they are really insincere. Now I believe Dems below the federal level are much better, but the entire party infrastructure at the federal level is corrupted.

                  Bernie Sanders is by far the best Dem we have exactly because hes independent and thus not hamstrung by the party.

                  Think about that...

                  Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back. Get the money out of politics with public financed campaigns so 'Of the People, By the People and For the People' rings true again.

                  by fToRrEeEsSt on Thu May 08, 2014 at 03:20:01 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Shall we pretend (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Dr Swig Mcjigger

                    That Obama didn't sign an executive order shooting the Minimum Wage up for federal contractors?

                    Or maybe that Barack Obama didn't partially campaign on the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act, and then pass it?

                    That the Democrats didn't pass the Affordable Care Act? That they didn't confirm two supreme court justices?

                    Perhaps we'll pretend that national Dems don't actually oppose fuck-tons of money being injected into politics. (Though I suppose you could also argue they only don't want it there because big money isn't on their side as much as the R's side).

                    Or I have an alternate idea. You could step out of your little fantasy world where the National Democratic Party isn't different from the Republicans, into the reality where they are. And the reality where they've actually done quite a few things.

                    •  I never said they weren't different but you (0+ / 0-)

                      probably don't want to believe in the 'good cop bad cop'.

                      They pass what they want and blame the repubs for everything else. If they give you anything you applaud them for not being total asses.

                      You are welcome to be excited for crumbs, but I am going to fight for loafs so we at least get slices. because being happy with crumbs will keep you being fed them.

                      Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back. Get the money out of politics with public financed campaigns so 'Of the People, By the People and For the People' rings true again.

                      by fToRrEeEsSt on Thu May 08, 2014 at 05:22:18 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  A fair number of GOP women will vote for Hillary (5+ / 0-)

              particularly if, as seems likely, the Repubs run some guy who wants forced birth, forced ultrasounds etc.

              Hillary's election will be historic, for the obvious reason: she will be the first woman to be an American president. And sexism still runs very deep in this country despite pretenses that it does not, so that will entail much wailing and knashing of teeth. But otherwise, Hillary will not be extremely different from other Democratic presidents. Nor would any other Democrat who could get elected president (which rules out, e.g., Elizabeth Warren).

              American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

              by atana on Thu May 08, 2014 at 12:15:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  The interesting thing is not how she would win (3+ / 0-)

        The question is how she will govern.

        So much of what will consume the last 2 years of the Obama Administration and, presumably, the next Presidency, are foreign relations questions: Russia, the Middle East, Pakistan, Iran and, above all, CLIMATE CHANGE!!

        Does Hillary have anything to offer here that will bridge the vast divides that seem to be calcifying around us --- running out the clock on the time to take effective actions?

        Then, of course, there's the vast wealth gap -- here and worldwide.

        Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

        by FischFry on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:45:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think the major difference would be that (4+ / 0-)

          she COULD govern if the Republicans have decided they're have to take the government out of "park."

          There're businesses to be de-regulated and trade treaties to approve!

          “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

          by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:51:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think policy is even relevant anymore... (3+ / 0-)

          The Dem machinery is telling us to accept her not convincing us based on the platform. Look at Kos telling us to back her because shes the D not because she will represent us.

          When push come to shove D is better than R, but the point of politics is to push for what you want, but such crazy talk is fringe now.

          I keep trying to explain how politics are nothing but a sport now with everything based on team and little on actual policy. Of course many 'fans' find my analogy offensive, but that just shows how completely inane our system has become.

          Join the DeRevolution: We are not trying to take the country, we are trying to take the country back. Get the money out of politics with public financed campaigns so 'Of the People, By the People and For the People' rings true again.

          by fToRrEeEsSt on Thu May 08, 2014 at 12:39:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It is all (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fToRrEeEsSt, flowerfarmer

            polling and response to polling and no actual discussion about policy anywhere accessible to the American public except possibly on political blogs like this.

            The polling part is ludicrous because often the people being polled have no real idea about the topic they are asked to react positively or negatively to.

            It will be fascinating to see what the Democratic platform turns into. It will have to be reduced to a a bunch of "feel good" bromides about restoring wealth and prosperity to the middle class, a quality education for all,  blah blah blah.

            “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

            by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 12:48:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  LOL (15+ / 0-)

    When I see Amy Klobuchar test marketing "more cops on the streets" for the centrist establishment, I do figure HRC is going to be running as Richard Nixon.

    Only Nixon could go to China!  Only Hillary could cut Social Security with her right hand while waging war with Iran with her left hand (well the left doesn't work there but you get the picture).

    I can hardly wait.  But at least Bill will make it entertaining.  

  •  It's one thing to say Hillary isn't far enough (18+ / 0-)

    to the left. That's an argument that makes sense to me, whether I agree with it or not.

    But seriously suggesting that she might actually join up with the Republicans - you know, the party that spent the 1990s making her life a living hell and which opposed her and her husband's policies at every turn - that doesn't make sense.  

    •  I am not saying she is joining up with the (10+ / 0-)

      Republicans - I am saying that the Republicans are joining up with her - there's a difference.

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:55:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That seems (4+ / 0-)

        even less likely.

      •  I'm not sure you built that case (7+ / 0-)

        I believe that if there is a central, driving motivation for Republicans in the Obama era, it is this: break government from the inside to prove that government is broken. Doing so will weaken (has weakened) the poor and the vulnerable, which in turn allows the unscathed plutocrats to more completely seize control. Those plutocrats in turn will elect the perfectly subservient (i.e., Republicans) to manage an anemic and shrunken government whose purpose is to facilitate the further extraction of wealth.

        That's what is happening now, under the Obama administration. Do you think that this strategy would change under HRC?

        Or do you disagree that this is the game they're playing?

        Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it.

        by The Termite on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:59:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  But it's happening under both parties already (6+ / 0-)

          The government is breaking from within.  The problems with the ACA rollout were symptomatic of that.  The federal government is so fossilized that contracting is pretty much broken.  The VA can't do something relatively simple like qualify veterans for benefits.  Anyone from any agency could probably add a laundry list.

          This is just as much due to centrist "reforms" as to Republican obstruction.  Neither party cares any more about government actually functioning because there is no authentic reform movement. Warren may be one of a handful who think of reform in the original meaning of the term.  

          The rest of them operate out of sheer expediency and nothing as enormous as the US government can be improved with an expedient mindset.  

          Expediency is Hillary's middle name.  We don't even have a clue what her agenda is for 2016.

        •  I think they broke it and then didn't know (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CenPhx, cybrestrike, flowerfarmer, Skyye

          what to do with the pieces.

          Plus they created the Frankenstein monster of the Tea Party which runs amok in their own Party. I think there is a willingness of some establishment R's to get rid of the threat of being primaried and controlled by their own lunatic fringe. I think if they had to desert the Party after letting it self-destruct with a Tea Party candidate, they would be willing to do that.

          They know they need to coalesce and their side doesn't have any figure comparable to Hillary who could get enough votes to create an actual real mandate.

          As a country we HAVE to have a functioning government. Even Republicans recognize that fact now.

          “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

          by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:13:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Every single action they take.... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            poco, Deep Texan

            ....suggests otherwise.

            What are they doing to improve government's function right now?

            Almost everything you do will seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it.

            by The Termite on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:15:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nothing. But I think they feel they have to (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              flowerfarmer, Skyye

              play out the game plan they laid out for this term. They won't work with President Obama, to their eternal shame and disgrace.

              “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

              by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:07:36 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agree with this (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Phoebe Loosinhouse

                I recall some pols actually said if Obama won if he won the 2012, nothing would get done, no one would work with him/his agenda.

                I recall when I heard that for the second time, during campaigning time thinking, oh now I see, they are trying to appeal to the fears of the people who desperately know we need some things actually DONE by those we have to pay to do things.

                So I think they now are backed into a corner and HAVE to run this one out, otherwise they out themselves openly and without question, to be the FACTOR that subdued recovery and took from it's people with less to correct it's negligent failure under the system they themselves created and approved, during the past 30 years or so..

                Work In Progress...Laser Focus on Concepts of Evolving, Expanding Awareness.

                by Skyye on Thu May 08, 2014 at 01:01:34 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I also just realized if they follow the scenario (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Skyye

                  I have laid out, the Repubs get a twofer! Not only do they remove the shackles of the Tea Party, they remove the shackles of Grover Norquist and the whole drown government in a bathtub/no new taxes gameplan.

                  The truth is the corporatists NEED taxes and they need government - they need them almost more than anyone. That's the entire source of plunder in the first place. Grover and his ilk were really dumb to make that a plank of their ideology.

                   If they were honest, they would admit that the gameplan is no taxes for the 1%, but as far as  taxes and payroll taxes and user fees and safety net cuts for the 99%, bring it on!

                  “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

                  by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 03:16:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

    •  As opposed to joining up with the people who (0+ / 0-)

      funded the Republicans...

    •  While in the senate (5+ / 0-)

      Hillary had a very collegiate relationship with her Republican counterparts. I'm not saying that's a bad thing in and of itself (comity should be valued), but she was hardly antagonistic to them. In the interests of power, she had no problem putting Bill's impeachment behind her.

      Her excellent relationship with military leadership was also reported on. They liked her a lot.

      I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. - Susan B. Anthony Everything good a man can be, a dog already is. - pajoly

      by pajoly on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:18:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Just more DK Hillary Derangement Syndrome (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JamieG from Md

      we are going to see more and more of it as we approach her presidency.

      I think it is much more likely the Hillary haters on DK will find common cause with the Republicans than that Hillary will.

      American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

      by atana on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:46:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What specifically do you disagree with (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        poco, flowerfarmer

        in the diary?

        “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

        by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:48:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh great, the dreanged supporters of (3+ / 0-)

        HRC -- who will ONLY serve to help the 1% concentrate income, wealth and power further -- assuming the privilege of calling those who have a problem with that deranged.

        The deranged folks are those who do not recognize and/or appreciate Oligarchy and its globally pernicious effects on 100% of the population.

        It's exactly the same as the science deniers. The facts on Oligarchy and HRC's coziness with it are all on the table. She ain't no effing FDR.

        I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

        Trust, but verify. - Reagan
        Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

        by Words In Action on Thu May 08, 2014 at 12:04:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Science deniers? C'mon. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JamieG from Md, DiesIrae

          It could be said that your side are like science deniers if you truly think that Hillary Clinton will be worse than whatever candidate the Repubs put forth, or that Repubs controlling the Supreme Court would be better than Democratic nominees.

          You're overly idealistic and purist. I feel we should run the most liberal candidate in every race that can win. That means in reliably blue states and districts we run extremely strong progressives, and the less blue it is the less purist we act. The nation as a whole is not exactly a safely blue thing. It's not bad enough to where we have to run straight-up blue dogs and conservadems, but that's not what Hillary is.

          Who do you think, THAT CAN WIN, will run in our primary to the left of Hillary? The "Will run" disqualifies Warren and the "Can win" disqualifies a lot of other people. Let's see if you can come up with someone.

          •  Of course (0+ / 0-)

            being upset with oligarchy and climate change is overly idealistic and purist. We can live with much, much more.

            Since no one but HRC is talking about running yet, I can't answer your questions.

            But I can tell you that we will ALL be much worse off with greater concentration of income, wealth and power, and less able to do anything about it. If you're okay with that under any circumstances then we really have nothing material in common.

            I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

            Trust, but verify. - Reagan
            Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

            by Words In Action on Thu May 08, 2014 at 01:49:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Being upset over those things (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              JamieG from Md, DiesIrae

              Is fine, venting your frustrations in a primary where you can support someone you agree with is fine. Attacking our best candidate and feeding the Right when you aren't even supporting another candidate is a little bit purist and idealistic.

              No, I'm not okay with the concentrations of wealth, income, and power becoming worse under any circumstance but I also don't believe Hillary Clinton will make them worse.

              •  Of course they will get worse. (0+ / 0-)

                Income and wealth have continued to concentrate every day under Obama. They did so under Bill Clinton. They will do so under Hillary. I'd bet everything I have on it.

                HRC will not do anything substantive to disrupt this trend. She will toss the lower and middle classes a bone her or there, but she will give Wall St. and corporate America pretty much free rein to continue to run its scams. Chelsea was a hedge fund manager, for cripe's sake... Derivatives will continue to be unregulated, and Wall St. will rob us blind... just at it continues to do under Obama.

                I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

                Trust, but verify. - Reagan
                Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

                by Words In Action on Thu May 08, 2014 at 02:19:00 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  it isn‘t good enuf (0+ / 0-)

                To just not let things get worse.

                we gottta work on improving them.

                HRC is not our best candidate.

                I am an Elizabeth Warren Democrat. Hillary is Third way, and it sure as hell ain't MY way

                by karma13612 on Thu May 08, 2014 at 04:15:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  Dunno, 45 Years of Governing for the 1% at (8+ / 0-)

    the expense of the 99% looks like a lot of forest to me.

    As a tradition as old as agriculture, it's damned near old growth.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:50:14 AM PDT

  •  In my not quite humble opinion (7+ / 0-)

    Dems mostly play good cop (with social issues) and Reps play bad cop. But when it comes to real economic and military/industrial complex issues, they're both pretty much the same.

    •  Well as Reich and many others have (6+ / 0-)

      pointed out, the fault line is Class not Party and if we are honest, we know it's been that way for a long time.

      Now that the public is so informed, annoyed and disgusted with gridlock, it may be that the "good cop bad cop" kabuki has pretty much played itself out and now we'll just have One Cop.

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:59:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Minimum wage (0+ / 0-)

      Equal pay for women, food stamps, social security (Some Dems stray on this though). Are Dems and Repubs "Pretty much the same" on those? How about on Healthcare reform? Raising taxes on the 1% instead of letting everyone else crash?

  •  We have serious cause for concern. (6+ / 0-)

    If the Republicans can't field someone sane--because their fringe has taken over the reins--and if the Democratic choice is pre-ordained to the extent that HRC doesn't have to make any adjustments to the populist Left in order to be the candidate and the winner, it's a worrisome prospect.  Big money, given even further license by the recent SCOTUS rulings, is now poised to be the uncontested American ruler.

    One quibble about the diary: since you're writing something serious, can you dispense with "sing Kumbaya" in your intro?  That phrase, along with "Lucy and the football", "Kabuki", "want a pony" and other digs meant to disparage people who somehow fail to meet your progressive benchmarks, should be retired permanently.  We need one another if we're to force HRC to recognize and whole-heartedly embrace the anti-Corporate policies this country desperately needs.

    "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

    by SottoVoce on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:56:38 AM PDT

    •  I understand your point but (6+ / 0-)

      I was referencing the new co-operation between Democrats and Republicans under a Hillary candidacy and the death of partisanship,  not trying to make any digs at Progressive goals.

      We do need one another. I think the entire political system has been co-opted as a tool of the 1% and it is going to become overt as opposed to covert.

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:04:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with your point. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Phoebe Loosinhouse, CenPhx

        You should be mindful, though, of the way that oft-repeated phase is used here as a cudgel to smack fellow Dems as stupid, blind followers who will eagerly accept policy--no matter how terrible--if it is put forward by the adored Obama (or HRC).  It's such a turn-off that when I saw it in the intro I almost didn't finish your worthwhile diary.

        "It ain't right, Atticus," said Jem. "No, son, it ain't right." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

        by SottoVoce on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:14:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Nah! (8+ / 0-)

    I agree with the notion that there is no real difference between the centrist in both parties on major policy issues. Hillary Clinton is solidly in the middle of that consensus. However, a public merger of all those people would ruin the video game of American politics. The Republicans will continue to paint Clinton as a radical feminist, which she is most definitely not. The Democrats will rise to that bait and the public attention will be focused there while the control of the economic elite gets tighter and tighter.  

  •  Eh, I remember the same thing being said about (4+ / 0-)

    Obama.

    No single candidate can make the republicans work with the democrats. All the rest is just noise, more pushing to the right of  the Overton window.

    P.S. I am not a crackpot.

    by BoiseBlue on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:59:00 AM PDT

  •  This makes no sense. (4+ / 0-)

    Whatsoever.

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:04:52 AM PDT

  •  stop - you're giving me nightmares! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoebe Loosinhouse
  •  Points for the heads up on the Reich column (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoebe Loosinhouse, shaharazade

    It's kind of interesting. I put him on my ignore list after he folded on Tweety one night when asked about free trade. He's either a coward or a stooge. But this column was interesting for multiple reasons.

    Points taken away though for linking to the fucking Huffington Post. I need a fucking shower now.

    Here's the same column from Reich's own site. I strongly implore you to edit the link.

    http://robertreich.org/...

    You know, you CAN get an STD from the internet. But only at the Huffington Post.

    As for Hillary, I think the Plutocrats have probably decided that backing Republicans who run as Democrats, like Barack Obama, while super clever and all, has played. Another Wall Street Dem may cause an end to the Democratic party. And the Plutocrats very much need the Democratic party to get their right wing agenda past the liberals who don't care what the policy is as long as a Dem is in the WH. And gay marriage.

    My prediction: A vote for Hillary in the primary is a vote for Jeb Bush in the general. So, Yay! Bush/Clinton 2016!!!

    Or something.

  •  Not sure what to make of all of this, but I (4+ / 0-)

    LOL'd and had to tip & rec for this line:

    Chris Christie's future will be as a Nutri-system spokesperson.
    Good writing.
  •  No, I don't think so (3+ / 0-)

    the woman who is easily irritated

    by chicago minx on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:11:09 AM PDT

  •  You underestimate the Repubs. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoebe Loosinhouse, Deep Texan

    They have shown a great ability to move ever further to the right.

    If Hillary came out with debtor's prisons, repubs would be up in arms that it wasn't debtor's guillotines.

  •  i fail to see her cross-over appeal as a negative (8+ / 0-)

    all the notion that she would get some wall street support tells me is (a) some of them (not all) are social liberals, and (b) the notion of "republican populism" rightly scares the shit out of anyone who isn't stupid.  

    What's worse for the anti-Hillary liberal contingent?  Siding with HRC or with goldbugs, racists, and cranks?  

    That's even crediting the premise of the diary that Hillary's economic positions are indistinguishable from her most conservative supporters.  When Elizabeth Warren says Hillary's "fantastic," does that not count?

    Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

    by Loge on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:19:18 AM PDT

    •  I think they choose the goldbugs.......etc. (3+ / 0-)

      Another website named after a fireplace and dog and a basketball team tried that once.

    •  The major point of my diary is that there (4+ / 0-)

      has not been a figure in modern memory with crossover appeal and that it makes Hillary a unique and powerful and almost unstoppable political power.

      Maybe others already knew that. I was making the mistake of thinking she's just another candidate, and in truth, she is anything but.

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:24:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Reagan made major inroads (5+ / 0-)

        among what had been traditionally Democratic voters.  

        I'm also not sure HRC will sustain her rates of popularity in places like Appalachia once the race begins for real.  The other possibility with Wall St. is they just like to back winners, regardless of ideology.  

        I do think a lot of talk about Establishment / Populism is about style rather than ideology.  Obama and Romney may be more alike in presentation than to Kucinich or Steve King, but the way they line up on most issues is pretty much along party lines.   A fringe idea is almost by definition not populist (as not popular), but the term is often used that way.  If it's some combination of emotional appeals or explicit class interests, that doesn't really address the question of what's a good policy.  Many policies that go under the banner of populism are good, others are short-sighted and possibly self-defeating.

        Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

        by Loge on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:32:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, I realize now that there are (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          shaharazade, poco, flowerfarmer, Skyye

          similarities to the inroads Reagan made with Democrats.

          I think there is a LOT more substance than style in the differences between establishment and populism.

          Populism can be negative as well as positive and we are currently experiencing both varieties. I see OWS positively in their battle against wealth inequality while I see the Tea Party very negatively in their efforts to dismantle government and promote anarchy.

          “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

          by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:42:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  well, Reich proposes two examples (3+ / 0-)

            of populism that are total opposites on these issues.  I think as between Obama and people to his left (or HRC), it's mostly a matter of disagreement on means of achieving goals, rather than policy ends themselves.  There is also the issue that the "establishment" policies are more moderate by virtue of taking into account competing interests, but that's essential to governing.  There's an inherent anti-intellectualism and emphasis on large-bore, simplistic solutions that makes for bad policy, even as many so-called populist policies are very intellectually defensible.   Tremendous variability in the regulatory approaches to big banks between the parties over reserve requirements and so forth - just not quite "break them up" and let the chips fall where they may.

            I think HRC will wind up being more liberal than her husband's administration, though, because i think there's a more mainstream opposition to some of the dereg stuff he did, in large part because of the success of ACA enrollment.  So, i'm not knocking the ideas that fall under the banner of populsim.  I think it's not a very illuminating concept, and i don't think it's a very good criticism of a President that he's not as good of a labor leader than Richard Trumka.    

            Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

            by Loge on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:10:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  But does the appeal have an expiration date? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        flowerfarmer, Skyye

        It's an open question for me whether she's going to wear well.  She obviously wants no competition whatever in primaries so she'll be going into the general with whatever campaign her machine test markets.  Will she and they be flexible enough to change if conditions change?

        Still not sure if she's going to come across as wise and experienced or old and arrogant.  It's like Oprah.  Everyone loves Oprah but one day you wake up and say to yourself, "you know, I think I've seen enough Oprah" or whoever.  

        It's all too royal for me.  I have no clue where she wants to lead the country except possibly into Iran.  It all seems to be all about Hillary all the time and Clinton this and that and I'm personally tired of it and was tired of it when Bill left office.

        •  No one has even begun discussing this (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          flowerfarmer

          but primaries are at the option of the Party. It is completely possible, AFAIK to have a nominating convention instead of primaries.

          The major issue with this is probably not the Presidential candidate, but the Vice-Presidential slot.

          Let's say Hillary is nominate by acclaim - who gets to be VP? Often VP is the Miss Congeniality Award of the primaries. Of course you can bypass that, like McCain did with Palin.

          “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

          by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:57:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Whhhhatttt? (2+ / 0-)

    I dream of Hillary getting in touch with her inner hippie chick.  Do I post a diary speculating it will happen?  No.

    "You cannot win improv." Stephen Colbert (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6tiaooiIo0 at 16:24).

    by Publius2008 on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:24:45 AM PDT

  •  Well then: Run Forest, Run! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell

    Take the fight to them. Don't let them bring it to you. - Harry S Truman

    by jgoodfri on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:33:16 AM PDT

  •  Can we stop with the grooming stuff? (0+ / 0-)

    Not enough there will be a Bush. We gotta have a gal with a forest?

    Sorry. Couldn't resist.

    Coming Soon -- to an Internet connection near you: Armisticeproject.org

    by FischFry on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:47:40 AM PDT

  •  2016 with Hilary vs. 2016 without her (5+ / 0-)

    Andrew Cuomo and Hilary Clinton.

    They are both cut from the same ideological cloth.

    Right down to the areas where they are tone deaf and out-of-touch.

    They would both very likely be putting the same sort of people in charge in each of their respective hypothetical administrations. Maybe even the exact same people. Arne Duncan, for example.  I'm sure the same Wall Street and Big Bank Big Money types. Michelle Rhee might be lurking as a dark horse candidate for Secretary of Ed in either White House. The Chained CPI nonsense could pop right back up like Jason Vorhees. Both administrations would be filled with those agonizing fights that many feel you shouldn't have to be worrying about fighting with a Democrat in the White House, and more moments of those 'I'm in!' types whose pushback is centered around 'shut the fuck up, you want a unicorn that farts glitter, or shut the fuck up, the GOP is worse and you are lucky to have only these headaches to worry about'.

    To those with Obama Fatigue, or who want the future to be now, in terms of the direction of the party post-neoliberalism, this is wash-rinse-repeat of everything they have agonized over during the Obama years.

    The difference between the two is that Andrew Cuomo is the same 90's era economic policy playbook candidate, without the historical transformational significance and without the hypothetical 'I don't care what you say, I'm voting for her' factor that will, in theory, flummox the Right and the Village so badly.

    You give Andrew Cuomo the Democratic nomination, with the same views and the same blindspots, without the power of being the first Woman to be President of the United States, and I believe he gets his ass demolished. That's how you end up with President Scott Walker. Or President Jeb Bush.  

    The Hilary Dissenters, near as I can tell, see that as a profoundly mistaken or misguided distinction, and that both are vulnerable to an ass-kicking due to that same 'same baggage' factor. I think where I am, vs. where landslide fever is taking some, is that I am open to the idea that I might be 100% dead wrong, 'holy-shit was I wrong' wrong, and I'm open to the possibility that the Hilary Dissenters could be dead on.

    I think Hilary beats Walker in the same race, or anyone else, because of the historic change trumping all other factors that usually help the GOP beat Democrats by a hair. The historic achievement trumping any hiccups or faux scandals or Village useful idioting of the race. The bigger than the bullshit factor, along with being bigger than the problem of having a real risk of finding herself with the inability to make the most effective contrast with a Jeb Bush or a Scott Walker.

    A 2016 with Hilary Clinton is not about policy, it's about history. Especially to those who want the tease of the early polls to transition into political prophecy tomorrow. To the detriment of those who want to have a more policy-based debate about the future of the Democratic Party, about progressive populism rising, and more specifically want the 90s era Neoliberalism to finally die off and be done with.

    I'm seeing "Hey, this is not a good thing, for a variety of reasons, and I think we need to talk about other options" ramming into the shoals of "Not now, what I want is to run up the score."

    I think when Kos posted his diary with the poll, and then ended up being dismissive of the Hilary Dissenters as "Haters", it was from the place of an activist looking for that great pile-on. Not now, I'm gunning for a rout, and your Charlie Brown's mother-like hippy mouth-sounds do not help me epic win like a boss in that endevor'. When Republican win, they win by squeakers that allow them to cheat and abuse state level power to deny Democrats the vote in enough numbers to run to the wingnuts in robes if they cannot win by a grain of sand outright. I see his kind of not wanting to have his daydreaming of the landslide and the coattails to be Democratic mellow harshed as being all about running up the score in this cycle and all other objections and concerns are kind of like selfish noise and turd-in-the-punchbowlism.

    I don't care for the Clintons.

    As much as there is nostalgia for the Big Dog, it also came with current-day apology tours, post-partisanship in the face of the most partisan GOP in our history, and the rise of Movement Conservatism as the jumping off point for policy discussions instead of what was advertised back then. Which was being Very Serious Centrist with the idea that being VSC was making Movement Conservatism irrelevant in America. Instead, the Right moved further Right and the Center shifted Rightward with it.

    I would much prefer Elizabeth Warren, who won't, I believe, ever have to go on an apology tour decades later on for the more embarrassing bits of being a 90s New Democrat.

    But then I run into my mother. The older lady who is the neighbor upstairs. the younger lady who lives across the hall from her in the other front apartment. They do not give a shit what anybody says about Hilary Clinton, they want to vote for the first Woman President of the United States. Period. They might get hoodwinked by the GOP with the same slate and campaign from Cuomo, but they don't give a shit with Hilary. They might be angry when the facepalm moments from a Hilary White House mirror those moments from the Obama years, but they don't seem to give a shit if they can get that vote in first, and then have the hypothetical headaches and possible disappointments later. I see it too. Not in polls, but in conversations with people I know who tell me that I'm not wrong about the historic change of a second transformational figure in a row being hard for a white male wingnut who has to run to the Right even farther to even get the job of trying to beat that phenomena in the first place.

    But I could be wrong.

    I've been seduced by the dream of the rout. My heart clearly wants something, and someone else, and others clearly have stronger hearts in the head vs. heart debate. Not being seduced by what could turn out to be a mirage when shit gets real could be the smarter place to be. Considering how often the conventional wisdom has been laughably wrong, and the Very Serious People have ended up with the exploding cigar in their mouths, I'm certainly not going to jeer at those who are resisting that in favor of other arguments and ideas.

    "Real journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed. Everything else is public relations." -George Orwell

    by LeftHandedMan on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:48:49 AM PDT

  •  The Tea Party is not what you describe it as here. (4+ / 0-)

    The Tea Party is not a genuine populist movement.

    It's bizarre, and quite frankly suspicious, to me that you bend over backwards so far to give the Koch Brothers/Dick Armey astroturf movement the benefit of the populist doubt, and then turn around read Hillary Clinton in the absolute worst light you can.

    It suggests to me that your perceptions about politics are pretty superficial, and based on the aesthetics of protest culture.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Thu May 08, 2014 at 10:48:55 AM PDT

    •  I know that and I knew that would come up (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      poco, flowerfarmer, Skyye

      The Tea Party's origins are astro-turf and not organic, and I think it's goals are suspect and detrimental to society. But, regardless of it's origins it is seen as the populist and out-of-control flank of the Republican Party.

      I don't think I am portraying Hillary in the absolute worst light that I can. If I wanted to be negative I would have written a completely different diary.

      I wrote about what I think is a very very unusual situation in American politics. I don't know about the "aesthetics of protest culture". That just makes me think of Birkenstocks and brown rice.

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:04:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary for eight (3+ / 0-)

    In thinking through the long-game of US politics here's something to chew on: Hillary wouldn't be the first choice for a lot of highly informed Dems like the Kos tribe because she's a bit too far to the right on some pet issues. But she's far to the left of what the GOP has on their clown bench and has stellar electability numbers--even beyond the Dem base. Combine this with this country's evolving demographic trends and creeping populism and here's a solid formula:

    Dem primary choice: Biden (?)
    National election choice: Hillary
    POTUS for 8 years: Hillary

    Results: Moderate policy wins on environmental, economic and foreign policy plus getting the Supremes to a likely 6-3 liberal advantage. Meanwhile the GOP continues to self destruct until they reach the point of clarity that The Crazy just won't enable electoral relevance and they choose to evolve--which causes the loss of the one solid and motivated block that they firmly control: The old, white, evangelical conservative males.

    Then, after eight years, when the Dems should control the three branches plus have support from the Supremes, we'll then be ready for a truly progressive candidate like a Sanders or a Warren type. That could indeed be the beginning of a golden era of progressiveness for the US. We just gotta get there with a sane strategy.

    Oh hell, if this does happen then the Dems just might get corrupted by their near-monopoly and go down the corporatist rabbit hole completely and the GOP will become the true populist party. Then, I guess I'll just become a Republican.

    •  'a bit too far to the right on some pet issues' (4+ / 0-)

      like the economy, the concentration of wealth, the fierce urgency of climate change, military adventures, the security state, surveillance...

      Yes, pet issues.

      You can GUARANTEE that wealth and income will continue to concentrate to historic levels under HRC. Wall St., particularly Hedge Fund managers and the $800 trillion derivatives casino, will continue degrading the real economy for the benefit of a few...

      And all of this will have serious impacts on our ability to deal with Climate Change.

      And the Security State will only increase its effectiveness as a weapon to protect the oligarchy.

      Any progress we make on the Class and Climate War that is greater than the losses coming from other "compromises" will be IN SPITE of Democrats not because of them if people like HRC consider to lead us.

      Read my sig. I not only will not be voting for her, I will be actively working with every resource at my disposal to prevent her nomination.

      I've never left a blank space on a ballot... but I will not vote for someone [who vows] to spy on me. I will not do it. - dclawyer06

      Trust, but verify. - Reagan
      Vote, but Occupy. - commonmass

      by Words In Action on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:52:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You're are spot on about Reich as he knows the (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoebe Loosinhouse

    Clinton's very well.....  To well in fact.

    “My soul is from elsewhere, I'm sure of that, and I intend to end up there." - Rumi

    by LamontCranston on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:06:14 AM PDT

  •  Provocative and well-argued. But I see no sign (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoebe Loosinhouse

    that Republicans are any less rabidly anti-Clinton. I chalk Rubin's pronouncements up to wishful thinking.

    •  John Huntsman just fell all over himself (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      flowerfarmer

      saying nice things about her. I think it's uncontested that Wall Street loves her.

      It may not be as important that Republicans like her and back her as much as it is important that MONEY (i.e. Speech) likes her

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:23:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Several problems with your analysis (3+ / 0-)

    The first is that the tea party and Occupy are not equivalent entities, except that each is outside the established party. You say that the left is potentially running third party candidates, but I sure don't see any out there. You call them both grass roots, when the TP is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Koch brothers.  There is no fear of the left primarying the Dem candidates because there is no money on the left to pay for it. You also assume that Hillary will be one with the corporate world.  I agree that she is a lot closer to them than any Dem should be, but consider this: she doesn't have to cave to anyone.

    It appears that Hillary is the only one standing in the field who is not a rwnj, except maybe Jeb, who probably can't get the nomination. She is head and shoulders above anyone in the polls. If this continues, she doesn't have to make the compromises most have to make to get the Job. She has to be careful about it, but she, more than anyone else since Roosevelt, can probably operate independently and represent her  own ideas rather than her corporate backers. Because even if she doesn't kowtow, she is far more acceptable to the money people than Cruz. So it may be that she is able to become the candidate she has the potential to be.  I think that's part of the reason she is being so coy at this point.

    Yeah, I know, she is not sounding that way, so I am probably dreaming. But if she recognizes her power, it could get interesting.  

    Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you. Gabby Giffords.

    by Leftleaner on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:19:10 AM PDT

    •  I don't think I even really had to throw the (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Skyye, flowerfarmer

      Tea Party and OWS into the equation at all, I only did it to show that there is some dissension within the ranks of both parties, which is not news to anyone. In fact, it's sad that I had to use OWS as the example of left wing populism because it doesn't really exist within the Democratic Party as it does within larger society except as personified by Elizabeth Warren and Bill De Blasio.

      The larger point is that the Republican Party in particular is in a fix because they are controlled by their populist fringe, regardless of how that fringe came into being. The sane Republicans will pretty much have to jump ship at this point unless they want to continue to have to appear at debates when they raise their hands to say that the Earth is six thousand years old and that climate change is a myth. How long can that continue?

      So, if they're out, they might as well be part of Hillary's victory as opposed to being on the outside looking in with their own loosing candidate. That's how I think a Republican "pragmatist" might look at it.

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:32:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If they have to jump on Hillary's wagon, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JamieG from Md

        Then she has control of the reins, instead of her sitting inside obeying orders, as is usual in the presidential race. If she takes that challenge, it could be a whole new trail.

        Assuming that Occupy and the TP are equivalent is one of my pet peeves because it is so inaccurate.

        Be bold. Be courageous. Americans are counting on you. Gabby Giffords.

        by Leftleaner on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:38:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's a very unusual situation. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Leftleaner, chuck utzman

          Also, I hope I can say for the last time that I know that Occupy and TP are not equivalent for many reasons.

          I almost wish I could go back and rewrite my diary because the point I made that is getting completely lost is that the populist urge from both the right and the left may be submerged in a unification of the "haves" from both parties merging.

          “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

          by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:44:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  But does she have her own ideas? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Words In Action, Skyye, Choco8

      Or are they just neoliberalism?  Is she really in fact a creature of the lobbies?  

      I agree she could amass the power but how will she use it?  So far the machine seems to be using it to stifle debate particularly on the left.  

      Oh, you are right there may be no compromises but what terrifies me is all that may mean is the complete triumph of Simpson and Bowles united as one in bipartisan enactment of the Great Bargain to end the New Deal.

      I mean I you want to go down in the record book with FDR - repeal his legacy.

  •  Hillary lost to Obama in 2008 because the PTB (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JamieG from Md

    showered Obama with money. Why? Because they were more afraid of Hillary than Obama.

    Obama went and talked to them and was reassuring and conciliatory. Hillary, who thought she had the nomination in the bag, did not. Hillary was considered "divisive" and "confrontational" by the money men.

    So Hillary is now courting the PWB on a scale that dwarfs Obama's charm offensive to them in 2008. She is convincing them that she is not scary, and not secretly out to destroy them.

    This is the Clinton pattern: if you lose, you learn from your defeat, befriend those who didn't trust you, and come back for a win. And in 2016, Hillary will win -- the nomination and the presidency.

    American Presidents: 43 men, 0 women. Ready for Hillary

    by atana on Thu May 08, 2014 at 11:59:01 AM PDT

    •  Makes sense. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Choco8

      Anyone anywhere could have figured out that a Dem would win the 2008 election since Bush/Cheney fatigue stalked the land and everyone was over the Iraq War which explains why the default to Obama.

      And the Invasion of the Tea Party Monster wasn't at critical levels then for the Republicans since it hadn't had the Palin infusion.

      And Bill wasn't the third Bush son then.

      And Hillary didn't have her Secretary of State chops then.

      Much has changed.

      The only lingering problem I see is that the Repubs have gone so overboard on Benghazi!!!! that it's going to be a delicate u-turn. They could just abandon that as a Tea Party issue, although some of their mainstreamers have tea stains all over themselves.

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 12:25:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Here's Lindsey Graham attempting to jump (0+ / 0-)

        out of the Benghazi clown car!

        Republicans risk getting 'burned' on Benghazi issue

        Although the issue may resonate with some voters, pushing it too hard is politically risky for Republicans, said Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who is running for re-election this year.

        "If we're playing politics with Benghazi, we'll get burned," Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

        Hahahahaha! And he's been at the wheel! He's doing a tuck and roll and leaving the car filled with the TPers and saying "you guys stay here, I'm going for help,".

        When has pushing an anti-Hillary maneuver EVER been 'too risky' for the Republicans?

        Is this part of the preliminary Clinton grovelling for Graham and an attempt for him to stay with the 'sane' wing before the merger?

        Folks, this almost makes me rest my case.

        “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

        by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 03:06:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Totally agree but what I can't figure out (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Choco8, Skyye

      is why you think her election has anything whatever to do with women?  Seems to me it's got nothing whatever to do with anything but lobbies and special interests and the good old boys among the PTB.   You want me to be a hawk, I'm a hawk.  You want me to back Wall Street, I back Wall Street.  

      Tell me where the little old ladies on Social Security come into the picture or their daughters caring for them or their daughters raising kids or their daughters trying to afford college?  

    •  Baaaloney (0+ / 0-)

      As long as it's cynical enough people will just pull conventional 'wisdom' out of their butts and other people will say, "Makes sense!"  

      You flopped in baloney pie right at "Hillary lost to Obama in 2008 because..."  

      When truth is only a matter of opinion, advantage goes to the liars.

      by Sun dog on Thu May 08, 2014 at 09:35:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  it's too early to know (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoebe Loosinhouse, Skyye

    kind of depends on the republican candidate a bunch too.

    but the possibility is there.

    we need to focus on congress and beating republicans. if we can give her a filibuster proof senate then the republicans won't matter anyways.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Thu May 08, 2014 at 12:27:51 PM PDT

  •  Other Republican names being floated (0+ / 0-)

    There are plenty for them to choose from before they have to settle on Hillary Clinton.

    Potential 2016 beneficiaries: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Rep. Paul Ryan, or South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune.
    http://www.dallasnews.com/...
    Two swing state governors, John Kasich from Ohio and Scott Walker of Wisconsin, are believed to be seriously considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
    U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, former Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal addressed the NRA's annual leadership forum, a kind of political pep rally the organization considers one of its premier events. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and U.S. Sens. Ted Cruz of Texas and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire also recorded brief videos
    http://abcnews.go.com/...

    Instead of worrying whether Clinton will be the Next "Republican", we have a lot to do to prepare for one of those other names. You might note, that one seems to appear on every list, so I'm guessing he might be the "new" Christie or Bush.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Thu May 08, 2014 at 12:41:36 PM PDT

    •  I think their Tea Party problem is (0+ / 0-)

      insurmountable. I really do. Either they run a Tea Partyer who will repel most voters and get crushed in the general or they run a main streamer who gets irrevocably sullied in the primaries trying to survive. There is no middle of the road in the Republican Party anymore.

      In my opinion, they would be smart to get behind Hillary.

      “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

      by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Thu May 08, 2014 at 01:32:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My thinking is very much like yours (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoebe Loosinhouse, Skyye

    though my assumption has always been that the Re... fascists will nominate someone the general public (and even we) have no formed knowledge of to run against Hillary, planning a remake of the 2000 election, or the Wilson/Kathleen Brown CA Gov race. The idea that the Rs would accept a Hillary Presidency (though they would more likely run a sacrificial lamb than a wingnut, I can't imagine they would endorse Hillary) is even more cynical, but surprisingly believable.
    However, we can also hope for a surprise in the Dem primaries. Hillary will turn 69 in 2016; though not prohibitive it may turn out to be a factor. Besides, a charismatic unknown wiped the floor with her in 2008, so it's not impossible for someone like a Warren or a Sanders to come out of nowhere with a populist message - Obama didn't even really give that message, we just assumed he did because we wanted it.

  •  I don't give a damn who votes for her or (4+ / 0-)

    how smart she is, its her positions on everything from the economy to foreign policy that scares the shit out of me. As for the the poll by KOS, its a website made up almost entirely of democrats, what the hell would you expect that poll to say.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site