Hillary Clinton’s Progressive Problem

[LovingA2andMI]

"Now that it is official that Hillary Clinton is running for President, it is time to ask piercing questions. This announcement came as expected, so there is not much in the way of excitement around it. Democrats for the most part are expected to fall in line.

Already, this early the browbeating has begun, at least directed at the progressives that still orbit around the Democratic Party. Instead of focusing on continuing to apply pressure on varying progressive causes, the emerging narrative is to focus on who is most electable.

There are a few problems with that strategy. It subverts the nascent progressive strides that are being made, particularly when it comes to the living wage movement.

The Clinton’s who are neoliberals, here and abroad, are fundamentally at odds with the emerging voices around labor issues and standard of living for working people. TPP ring a bell to anyone?

Furthermore, as the establishment candidate, Hilary Clinton has little to say about the aftermath of Ferguson and the issue of police brutality. How she will get that base of support behind her, should be a cause of concern for Democratic strategists. But, that is their concern, not that of the movements.

For example, the Black Lives Matter movement which has sprung up in the second term of President Obama. It’s not up to the movement or its supporters to figure out a way for the Clinton candidacy the capture their thunder, so to speak."

#Perfection!!!!

From Writer and Monthly Commentator on Independent Underground News & Talk​/IU Radio LIVE Program - M. Polite at Polite On Society​!

Read More Here: http://www.politeonsociety.com/2015/04/13/hillary-clintons-progressive-problem/

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Come the general election, if Hillary Clinton is the nominee they will decide whether to protect

every liberal and progressive achievement since FDR, or allow a Republican House, Senate, and Executive Branch to have their way with those programs.

Liberals will not allow Republicans to take it all without a fight.

Progressives will have to decide if they want to protect everything we have achieved or say fuck it, that's not my candidate.

[LovingA2andMI]

2. Amazing....

Who one can Predict like a Psychic of sorts how said candidate will win the Primary and all True Progressives will have to "fall in line" when all Democratic Candidates with the exception of Hillary have yet to declare their candidacy yet.

Equally amazing how will the prediction of inevitability for a certain candidate, worked out so well the last time around....

[Agnosticsherbet]

3. Look up the definion of the word, "if." I wrote "If Hillary Clinton..."

All the words in that sentence were necessary for its meaning.

[LovingA2andMI]

4. The POINT IS....

There is no need to "look up the definition of IF" WHEN other Democratic Candidates have not declared their candidacy yet in April 2015. Last time we checked, the Primary Nominee is not decided upon the April before the election year itself. Correct?

[Agnosticsherbet]

5. If (conjunction) used to talk about the result or effect of something that may happen or be true; or

used to discuss the imaginary result or effect of something that did not happen or that is or was not true

I felt this was necessary, since you did not look up "if," to see how that conjunction affected the meaning of my post.

Clearly, you missed the "if" and misread my post <b>IF</b> you think that it in any way said Hillary Clinton was inevitable or going to run in the primary unchallenged.

[LovingA2andMI]

9. If, If was a Fifth...

But the point is WHEN not IF. When the other Democratic Primary Challengers declare their intent to win the nomination, and to date Hillary is the first --- but definitely will not be the ONLY one. So again, the question is WHEN not IF as IF was answered on Sunday for Hillary, yet it remains WHEN for the rest. Got it? Good!

[Agnosticsherbet]

39. "If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination" It is necessary to agree on the meaing of a post before we

discuss it. Please reread it.

I never said she was, only "IF."

Got it? Good!

[daredtowork]

8. It's not a matter of "protecting everything" anymore

It's a matter of realizing how much has been chipped away since the FIRST Clinton engaged in his strategy of Triangulation.

We can't blame Republicans for the entire dismantling of the Progressive vision. The Clintons have, personally, a lot to answer for, too.

[LovingA2andMI]

10. Agreed!

Thanks for making this valid point.

[Agnosticsherbet]

40. No, itis protecting what we've won.

Check out what Republicans are promising.

[peacebird]

51. Protecting what we have won means keeping another Corporatist DLC dino out of the White House

NAFTA was a complete cluster for the Ameican workforce. Hillary has repeatedly said she supports H1B visas and outsourcing, both of which hurt the American workers. Hillary supports TPP which has been described as NAFTA on steroids.
Hillary is for big businesses, pro-war, and is now parroting Elizabeth Warren in a craven attempt to sound like a populist.

[99Forever]

12. I see.

Kind of saying "Those are some mighty pretty rights you've got there, be shame if something were to happen to them."???

Nice.

[marym625]

26. hmm.

I didn't take it that way. But I can be overly optimistic sometimes.

Still, the caveat "if then I will" means zilch to some people. If you aren't backing their candidate, you are not doing the right thing. Sad.

[Agnosticsherbet]

41. Republicans are threatening to revoke the ACA and change Social Security to a voucher.

Try to be clear on where the threat comes from.

[99Forever]

42. Ahhh yes...

... and the fear those evil Republicans campaign strategy worked so well for the Democrats in 2014!

[dsc]

44. actually it did work fairly well in 2012

Obama won reelection, we gained seats in the House and in the Senate. That is a fair definition of working well.

[99Forever]

46. Pardon me, my mistake.

I meant 2014. I really shouldn't post at work.

[marym625]

23. Although I completely understand your saying "if"

Never mind. I read your meaning incorrectly

[99Forever]

43. It was actually a bit tounge in cheek.

A rather lame satirical attempt, I'm afraid.

I was trying to get across that the "fear what will happen if you don't vote for the candidate we tell you to" is a losing strategy.

Sorry for any confusion.

[marym625]

45. No no. not you

I misunderstood the person you replied to. Your post made me realize that!

[qwlauren35]

6. I have noticed her silence.

On police brutality. And I am not happy about it.

I expect her to say something about it, or she will lose us to someone who will. Not sure who that someone will be, but I'm waiting.

[LovingA2andMI]

13. Her Silence is Deafening

Indeed. Makes one wonder why....

[hifiguy]

20. Her tenth-percenter owners

are perfectly fine with police brutality. It's the preferred way to keep the peons in line and make damn sure they don't really challenge the banksters. Remember what happend to the OWS protesters?

HRC is perfectly fine with it because her owners are and not one word she says is not pre-approved by Goldman and the MIC.

[marym625]

27. The objective is to control those they can

Beat, incarcerate, kill.

[RobinA]

53. As a Would-Be

candidate and now an actual candidate, we can expect her to say nothing at all that could be remotely controversial or alienate one possible voter. And this doesn't just apply to Hillary. Politicians say less and less of substance every year. I just watched a portion of a Reagan speech during which he described the fact that SS does not come out of the budget. This was REAGAN - superficial, somewhat of a dimbulb, Republican... He said more of substance in the two minutes I watched him than any President in the past 20 years. (Although I admit, I dove for the off button every time Bush Jr. opened his mouth, so I can't say from actual experience that he never said anything of substance, I'm just assuming based on other available evidence )

[daredtowork]

7. Yes, the browbeating

Literally minutes after the candidacy was announced, the rah rah squad came out playing defense against "Purity Trolls" and the "Loony Left" and anyone else that might create a glitch in the Inevitable Hillary narrative. The tactics of Hillary's supporters just make me dislike her all the more because it shows what kind of people she attracts: the kind of people who put winning over telling the truth or doing the right thing.

[LovingA2andMI]

11. So agree!!!

Winning for Hillary is Everything in the eyes of her supporters, yet.....she lost to an at first little known Senator from Illinois with a clear vision and willingness to stand on Progressive Principles the last time.

Here's the open question. Does another candidate similar to Barack Obama exist willing to take Hillary on from the left and if so, how will her and her "Purity Trolls" supporters handle it this time. Especially, if she loses the nomination -- twice over?

[Fuddnik]

14. Calling Russ Feingold!

Your country needs you!

[marym625]

19. +a kazillion!

[hifiguy]

29. Yes. This. Very much this.

[Scuba]

50. !

[deutsey]

55. That would be nice

[marym625]

28. +1000

[arcane1]

36. Yep, every skeptic immediately became a hater, right-winger, sexist, or paid troll

It sucks.

[daredtowork]

38. Don't forget your diagnosis of mental illness

You must be suffering from "Hillary Derangement Syndrome!"

[JDPriestly]

37. You said it. I do not like being browbeaten into agreement with others.

I was raised to think things through and make up my own mind.

The argument that if I don't vote for Hillary, a Republican might win just annoys me more than any other argument. It really isn't an argument at all. It's just a technique to instill fear. Might as well have a fundamentalist preacher tell me I had better agree with his interpretation of the Bible or I will go to Hell.

Everybody says we should vote for Hillary based on the "fact" that she is a liberal and the idea that she stands for women and children. Beyond that, I don't know much about what she is standing for. Some claim that she wants higher wages. I'm waiting to see her speak about what she wants to do if elected.

Seems to me we have a lot of band-wagon jumper-onners on DU. People who are "for" Hillary just because they think that is the in thing this year. I'm waiting to read some really good arguments for voting for Hillary.

One of the things that turned me off to Hillary was this video.

Another was a discussion with a very active member of the Democratic Party in my area who responded to my question about why she supported Clinton way back when that, "Clinton is the only one with the money to run." That is just not a good reason to support a candidate from my point of view.

I am waiting to hear a reason that I think is good.

I have one vote and only one. So I don't really make any difference to Hillary's chance of winning except that when I back a candidate, I register and talk to voters, and I am good at that. I'm waiting to hear from one rational Hillary supporter with a solid argument that could persuade me to vote for her.

I want to know where Hillary stands on the TPP.

[fbc]

15. Voting Bernie Sanders

[marym625]

18. I may write him in if he doesn't run

[peacebird]

52. Me too

[hifiguy]

21. Yep.

[LovingA2andMI]

32. For Sure...

[Jester Messiah]

35. +1.

Might write him in if he doesn't win. We'll see.

[krishnarama]

49. I'm in for Bernie Sanders.

He'll announce before the 30th if no other viable Democrat will challenge Clinton from the left.

[MissDeeds]

54. Same here

[Cryptoad]

16. There is a reason there is no Progressive running,,,,,,,,, nt

[KamaAina]

24. And that is?

[Cryptoad]

48. see reply 47

[LovingA2andMI]

31. Please do detail.....

Considering all potential candidates for the Democratic Nomination have NOT formally announced their intentions yet....

[Cryptoad]

47. I hope you right and there are many declare,,,,,,,

but the reason no Progressive Dem who is viable like Warren has declared is they realize that it takes many fat-cats to become Prez,,(thanks to the GOP SCOTUS) ,,,,, and progressives' job is to skin fat-cats.....so not enough fat cats are going to support Progressives. Progressives are going to have to figure out a way to influence policy without having a policy maker of their own in the White House....

[marym625]

17. K&R

It seems to be notable here. When one of the site owners is suddenly posting often and every post is pro-HC, and when hardly ever seen prior (for quite a while), especially during the height of the #BlackLivesMatter posts; when almost every progressive has to add to a post "if, then, but" and is still jumped on; when legitimate concerns are noted and given a response, "take a walk," there are serious problems with the party and democracy itself.

Great OP. Thank you

[LovingA2andMI]

33. No Problem....

Thanks for the support of the post.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. I'm a Democrat and I'm not "falling in line" for Hillary.

The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same. Marie Beyle (Stendahl)

[polichick]

25. HRC just started her campaign by channeling EW and Bernie...

...in her opening words at an Iowa roundtable.

Wonder how EW and Bernie will feel about it - guess we'll find out in the coming days.

[erronis]

30. Yes, I wish she had started to channel more progressive ideas

Many years ago and had been vocal about them. I hope we're not just getting vaporous campaign promises, again.

[polichick]

34. Could be a preemptive strike...

Perhaps discouraging more liberal Dems from getting in the race.

[NYC_SKP]

56. kickity!

[LovingA2andMI]

57. Thank you!