Looks to me like Hillary Clinton's campaign is shaping up to

[MineralMan]

be a populist campaign. She's hitting the small towns, small businesses and generally talking to ordinary people. If she can pull off the populist meme, she'll go a long way toward enlisting the support of ordinary Americans.

I think it's a good move on her part. The substantive policy statements are never read by most people, but they remember those local campaign efforts. Smart candidate, I think. Populism is the way to go in 2016, with policy statements to reinforce it. Good start for Clinton.

[still_one]

1. It seems that way, and I think it is a good stratagy

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. Well she does have.....the greatest political strategist on her team...

one Bill Clinton....her secret weapon!

[MineralMan]

4. That's true. I'm sure he'll be contributing ideas

for the campaign all along. Bill Clinton's a winner. His advice will be very valuable, as will his campaigning for her.

[Proud Public Servant]

3. You accidentally spoke the truth

"If she can pull off the populist meme..."

Suggesting that populism isn't an actual set of heartfelt beliefs for Hillary, but just a "meme" -- viral today, forgotten tomorrow -- seems about right to me. So does the notion that it's something she has to "pull off," a term usually reserved for stunts, magic tricks, and con jobs.

[MineralMan]

5. I used that term deliberately.

I rarely make mistakes in my word choices. Hillary Clinton isn't really a natural populist, even though her policies will benefit ordinary Americans. She's working on presenting those policies in populist terms, though, which is a good idea. Most people have no idea about the complexity of policy issues, so the more she speaks to the people, the better she'll do. It's not a natural thing for her. She's a professional politician, which is not a criticism.

[Proud Public Servant]

11. So you're talking about

Populism as a tactic, rather than populism as an ideology. If that's the distinction, I accept it and agree with you. My concern is that she's actually going to try to "pull off" presenting herself as an ideological populist, and that it will backfire spectacularly.

[MineralMan]

16. Populism is a tactic. Republicans use it, too.

Populism involves speaking directly to average voters and trying to appeal to their immediate needs. It's related to policy, of course, but doesn't really address policy. The vast majority of voters will never even look at policy papers or listen to policy speeches. That's why populism as a campaign tactic is so important, especially in presidential elections.

Hillary appears to have learned more about how to present herself using that tactic, from what I'm seeing so far. She wasn't so good at it in 2008. Barack Obama was very, very good at it. He won. If Hillary uses populism well, she'll also win.

I'm not endorsing Hillary or anyone else. I'm just commenting on what appears to be happening in the campaign. I will continue to do that, and will vote for and strongly support whoever the eventual candidate is in November 2016.

[cascadiance]

66. No... Defining populism this way is a "tactic". Real populism is not just a "tactic"....

[VanillaRhapsody]

8. Oh good god like she hasn't been a populist all along.....she is a freaking Liberal...to the Left of

Obama...always was...

[PoliticAverse]

33. She has not been 'to the Left of Obama' on Defense/War issues. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

72. Yes she has...and THAT is only one issue out of MANY that Liberals care about....

sorry....you are wrong!

[PoliticAverse]

74. Except for the 3 trillion dollar Iraq war I guess. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

75. no exceptions...

[Dawgs]

71. LOL

[VanillaRhapsody]

73. really now...

http://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm

[L0oniX]

51. ^^^THIS^^^

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

77. The best strategy is one that doesn't look forced or phony, but ratha is based on one's core beliefs. Hillary's needs to work on that & look comfortable doin it, but ...

I expect Hillary will improve over time with the help of her paid consultants. The longer she practices the more natural it will become.

[7962]

82. well, you dont really think she feels that way, do you?

[cali]

6. I don't see how one can come to that conclusion so early

I've repeatedly been cautioned by her supporters here to wait until she unrolls specific policies and not to characterize her campaign so early because it's unfair.

In any case, her Wall Street employers don't believe her populist rhetoric, which I think has been vague indeed.

Her campaign may or may not be off to a good start. That we'll have to see and we won't know for a few wks.


Hillary Clinton sounded like a woman on a mission after her long drive into the heartland: “There’s something wrong,” she told Iowans on Tuesday, when “hedge fund managers pay lower taxes than nurses or the truckers I saw on I-80 when I was driving here over the last two days.”

But back in Manhattan, the hedge fund managers who’ve long been part of her political and fundraising networks aren’t sweating the putdown and aren’t worrying about their take-home pay just yet.

It’s “just politics,” said one major Democratic donor on Wall Street, explaining that some of her Wall Street supporters doubt she would push hard for closing the carried interest loophole as president, a policy she promoted when she last ran in 2008.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clintons-wall-street-backers-we-get-it-117017.html#ixzz3XTpOHU48

[MineralMan]

12. Well, you seem to feel free to come to conclusions early.

You've been doing it for years now, when it comes to Hillary Clinton. My post is about clues she's giving this early in her campaign. It's not about anything else. Like most people, I'm following the campaign and listening and watching to how it's beginning.

What I said was that it seems to me that she's starting with a populist approach. That's not a conclusion about her campaign. It's a conclusion about its beginning, and appears to me to be supported by actual events.

BTW, I don't read Politico. It's a right-wing website, started by right-wingers and run by right-wingers. I'm watching the actual events and drawing my own conclusions from those events. I don't need someone else to tell me how to think about things.

[cali]

14. No. I've been asking questions- particularly since her announcement

I've been careful to be respectful to her supporters. I disagree with your premature conclusions.

and I know I'm one of the few, but I don't find Politico to be any more right wing than most news wees.

[MineralMan]

15. You know, that's not actually factual.

You have been actively opposed to her candidacy for a long time. You've been very clear about that, to the point of stating at one point that you would not vote for her in the general election. You've backed away from that, but you oppose her candidacy still, and find many ways to say so here.

Here's the thing. I'm not endorsing Hillary Clinton. I'm just commenting on my perception of her campaign so far. I will not endorse any candidate until after the convention, but I will comment on all of them as there is reason to do so. I will absolutely vote for and campaign for whoever gets the Democratic nomination, and will not talk trash about any potential candidate.

I never disparage a Democratic candidate during primary or general campaigns. If I have a favorite, I will point out why, but I will never, ever attack any Democratic candidate. I will vote for Democrats in general elections. Period.

It's a long time until the general election. I'm commenting only on what Hillary Clinton appears to be doing early on in the primary season. I'm not endorsing her, but am simply commenting on what I'm seeing from her campaign.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. Avoiding the fray as long as possible is strategically and tactically sound...

Eventually she will have to be put some meat on her proposals...

I was watching Megyn Kelley on FOX lamenting Hillary's inaccessibility and contrasting her with Rand Paul...First of all, Paul needs the publicity and Hillary doesn't...Second of all, a lot of good it has done him...All has he has accomplished is getting in verbal altercations with female reporters.

[MineralMan]

27. Well, until there are other primary candidates,

there's no pressure to issue detailed policy statements. They're either already prepared or are being prepared. When they're needed, they'll be there. Right now, she's essentially unopposed in the primaries. She can continue the current strategy until that isn't the case.

Over in the GOP Clown Car, all of the morons have to duke it out to try to get the nomination. They all seem to be pandering to the teabagger and libertarian crowd right now. Rand Paul is saying appropriately stupid things in that effort. So are all the others. Watch the candidates who are not doing that closely. One of them will be the GOP nominee. Odds are in Jeb Bush's favor, I think, but Republicans are really weird, and the far right has figured out that a small group can heavily influence primary elections. So, everyone's still in the Clown Car.

Right now, though, Hillary Clinton's driving solo. That may change soon, and if it does, her campaign will change accordingly.

[AuntPatsy]

53. .

[BlancheSplanchnik]

68. very good commentary, too.

Appreciated.

[think]

7. Bernie outlined his policy objectives pretty clearly. Hopefully HRC will do this as well & soon

https://berniesanders.com/issues/

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/ (No issues page found)

[JEB]

23. Thanks for the links.

Important stuff.

[bemildred]

9. Things are pretty crowded over on the right, I don't think she has much choice.

Even some of the wingnuts, the Libertarian-type wingnuts, are giving a lot of lip service to leftist culture war positions like LGBT rights and dope and down with Citizens United. She needs to distinguish herself, and fast, I think it's going to get crowded this time, and dirty.

[Baclava]

10. that van is rockin'

Hillary Clinton's van' is a beast! Presidential hopeful's armored Chevrolet van with tinted windows is finally spotted as she stops for coffee

[workinclasszero]

61. Cool van

Thanks for the pic

[freshwest]

79. Bet the secret Service is pleased. Not big enough for comfort for a long trip, though, IMO.

But then she's not going to spend very long inside the thing, she's got a ton of people to talk to across the country. It takes incredible stamina to do this.

I remember Gore went all out, saw the campaign stops like Obama, covered in sweat. Obama lost his voice more than once. Gore was more enthused than Obama, actually.

Gore was a great stump speaker, he really whipped up the crowds, but Obama was low key except when asking people to turn out. After the BushCo theft, voter suppression and gerrymandering, turnout is ALL we have left to win.

I think Clinton's campaign will be so much different than Sanders, Gore, Obama or even Bill Clinton. Both in delivery and emphasis. And she's looking pretty energetic there.

I noticed the same thing in a video of Sanders today, perhaps something is energizing about being on the road running for POTUS?

[mucifer]

13. I think all democrats do the populist thing while campaigning

But, President Barack Obama and President Bill Clinton who both campaigned this way did plenty of unpopulist things like NAFTA, repealing Glass Stegal, pushing for fast tracking TPP etc.

That said, I will vote in the general election for whoever we choose as the democratic candidate like I always do.

[seabeyond]

17. omg. and just yesterday i was learning about our very own PC (that opposes pc), lol

here on du. i heard mention that they want to be the teabaggers of the liberal branch.

so fuggin' interesting. all of this.

and i feel that they are defing hillary support, cause in their extremism, they are helping me to take a close look at hilary and what is happening, helping her to shape up that campaign. lol. and here you are, taking it another direction.

this election is going to be very interesting on so many levels.

[MineralMan]

19. Every presidential election is very interesting on many levels.

I've been following them since the 1960 election. Closely. It's fascinating stuff. It has to be. Getting more people to vote for you than the other candidate all across the country is an amazingly complex job. Few voters really bother to learn about actual policies. They're more interested in how they feel about the candidate, generally. Obama understands that very well indeed. I'm sure Hillary Clinton and her campaign advisers learned a lot from the 2008 election. We'll see how much they have learned in the upcoming months.

The kind of policy discussions we have here on DU have almost nothing to do with who will win in November. In many ways, they're irrelevant. Each voter has a picture of the candidate, a few words from the candidate and a lot of advertising. If all of that appeals to that voter, the candidate gets their vote. Party identification is also important. Many voters decide only on that basis, and don't bother with any of the rest of it.

A very tiny percentage of voters actually takes the time to learn and understand policy issues. In a few elections, they make a difference in the outcome, but not in most presidential elections. It's all too bad, but that's how it works.

[seabeyond]

26. i just put out that i think we all learned a lot in 2008 about a woman running. over the last 8 yrs

i think we have become very aware and able to define much better. yes.... i think this si a real opportunity from that perspective.

all of us are doing. not just clinton, or her group. but all of us.

[MineralMan]

28. That's definitely true. People who still see Hillary Clinton

as the candidate from 2008 are in for some surprises. She's not going to be that candidate this year and next year. She is a very, very smart person, and has a group of very, very smart advisers. This will be a different campaign from 2008. Very different, I think.

[seabeyond]

39. +1. nt

[whatchamacallit]

18. Yeah, who cares what she really believes

as long as she can pull off the perception and fool dumbass voters!

[MineralMan]

22. That's not my point at all. To win the presidency,

a candidate must appeal to a very broad group of voters, most of whom will never learn anything about policy at all. Populism is a strategy, not a political position. It's crucial to winning a presidential election. Obama won because of it. Hillary lost. She appears to have learned something.

We talk a lot about policy here on DU. The vast majority of voters never even think about policy. Campaigns are about getting votes, and not about much of anything else. If you don't appeal to the voters who never consider policies much, you will lose the election. That's not a good thing, but it is a reality.

If Hillary is the candidate after the convention, whether she wins or not is going to depend on her ability to appeal to voters who have no idea about policies. They won't learn. They don't care. They only want to know if they'll somehow do better if a candidate is elected. That's the essential message of all presidential campaigns. How well each candidate succeeds in telling that story to the voters determines the outcome.

That is why, when I canvass in my precinct, the first thing I say to anyone I talk to is a question: What is your main concern about this election and the candidates? When I learn that, I'm able to tell them why the candidates I support are the best choice. It's not DUers who decide who wins. Not by a long shot. It's people who could not tell you a single thing about any policy. They have basic questions and issues. Answer those effectively and you have their vote.

Populism as a tactic is what wins. Nothing else matters in terms of actual voting results. Reality.

[whatchamacallit]

40. Wow, let's recap

According to MM

Populism is a tactic, not a philosophy or doctrine

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/populism
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism

Americans are idiots

Even simple policy statements or summaries are incomprehensible to the average American, so just tell them something they wanna hear.

Paternalism rocks!

Whether they know it or not, the rubes will benefit from Hillary's presidency, so just get there by any means possible.

Pure MM gold...

[Trajan]

42. Just as another poster noted above, an accidental revelation of truth

She is creating the RUSE of populism without whole heartedly adopting it ... She knows it's what the little people are clamoring for, so she says the words ... and ... well ... that's about it ...

Bread and Circuses ...

[Locrian]

47. ^^^^THIS

Once again, we are talking details about strategy, the "horse race" etc of the circus.

As for what the real actions vs "sales pitch" is - who the hell knows?



Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice - don't get fooled again....

[bahrbearian]

20. The Question is , Will she be a Populist after elected. She wasn't one before now.

[MineralMan]

24. Populism isn't a position. It's only a campaign strategy.

You want to know what she'll do? Study her policy statements. If she can manage to get those things done, that'll be great. President Obama was able to get some of those things done. Presidents are not kings. They have to get Congress to send them bills. That's not always possible.

The real question is, which candidate will get more things done that you want. No candidate will get everything done that you want. Ever. That's reality. It often sucks. But your choice in the general election is a binary one. If you avoid the binary nature of presidential elections, your vote won't matter. If you vote for a third party candidate, you vote for whoever wins, because the third party candidate wont' win. Other people decide in that case.

Presidential elections are a binary choice. Vote for the candidate who will do better for your goals than the other one. It's simple.

[jeff47]

25. It's a good start, but she'll have to explain why she's changed positions on some issues.

The disadvantage of having a long track record is you have to explain why you were wrong. Because inevitably, everyone is.

If she doesn't, it may come off as pandering.

But even without that it's better than "Fucking retarded".

[MineralMan]

30. Yes, I imagine she will have to do that.

I'm sure she'll do it just fine. OTOH, most voters have short memories and limited understanding of complex issues and policies. Presidential elections are really a short attention span theater. DUers have long memories and better understanding of issues. But we're a tiny minority of voters.

[jeff47]

32. It doesn't take many "for it before I was against it" statements to cause a problem.

Even short attention spans can pick up on that.

[MineralMan]

34. Her campaign team knows that.

Right now, the only thing going is the primary elections. She currently has no opponents in that. If some show up, then things will change. She doesn't have to really say anything about major policy issues at the moment. Later, she will have to. We'll soon see the polls that indicate what the primary issues are among voters. When we do, you'll see what the campaign will focus on.

And do you know what won't be at the top of that list? Trade agreements and the Iraq war. Those are not going to be the top issues, since most people know nothing about the first and aren't interested in the second.

Presidential elections are about other stuff. Truly they are.

[jeff47]

36. What is at the top of that list will depend on the other candidates

It isn't Clinton's party. The other candidates can bring up issues, and Clinton can not control which ones are off-limits.

With O'Malley and Sanders already talking about trade agreements, it's pretty short sighted to presume they will not be issues. The IWR will probably not be an issue because it is so easy to deflect - Bush lied.

[totodeinhere]

29. I don't buy it. I think the main reason why she is coming off as a populist

is because her advisers are telling her that she needs to do this in order to discourage Senator Warren from changing her mind and running. But heck, why elect a phoney populist who is merely twisting with the political winds when we can have the real thing in Senator Warren? I will continue to push for Warren to change her mind and decide to run.

[MineralMan]

31. Warren's already not running.

If you want someone other than Hillary, it's time to focus on someone else. Elizabeth Warren will be a Clinton supporter. You'll do whatever you decide to do, but Warren isn't going to run. You're wasting your time.

[totodeinhere]

38. There really is never such a thing as "no" in politics. Even if Warren should give

a Shermanesque "no," there will be those who continue to push for her to change her mind. As we speak it is full speed ahead at Moveon.org to persuade Elizabeth to change her mind. But failing that Bernie might decide to run as a Democrat.

What I'm pushing for here is a real primary contest. Barack Obama had vigorous primary opposition and I think it strengthened him for the general election. We do not need a coronation this time, we need a real contest for the nomination.

[MineralMan]

46. At some point, you'll have to accept that she's not going to run.

I'll leave it to you to decide when that is. If you want a strong primary contender, though, you need to look elsewhere. Warren's not going to enter the race.

[arcane1]

50. Plus, Cruz and Paul have already adopted some populist rhetoric. n/t

[LynneSin]

41. There is something about her campaign this time around that I didn't see in 2007-2008

I was ready to jump on the Bill Clinton Campaign when he first announced he was running. There was something about the way he started his campaign race and his announcement message that promised hope that made me sign up almost immediately.

Hillary's campaign in 2008 almost came across to me like 'I'm Bill Clinton redux and a woman therefore you will support me' and I just wasn't excited about her. I was keen on Obama but started with Biden since he was hometown.

But something about Hillary and watching her announcement. Not sure what she's been doing these past years - but she's different. She almost comes across more down home folksy the way that her husband did instead of the uptight way she was in 2008.

I honestly can't see anyone beating her in the primaries but we shall see.

[MineralMan]

43. She's a politician and has learned in the past 8 years.

I can't imagine why anyone would be surprised about that. The 2016 candidate Clinton will be a major version revision from the 2008 candidate. If she wasn't capable of learning the lessons from 2008 and 2012, then she has no business running at all. She has learned, and we're going to be seeing what she has learned.

[justiceischeap]

63. Being Secretary of State could have actually changed her

She's now known in her own right as a powerful individual who did some really good work, instead of the scorned wife standing in Bill's very large shadow. A wee bit of autonomy can change people.

Of course, I'm sure there will be many who just see it as politically expedient that she seems more relaxed in her own skin but she actually does seem more relaxed in her own skin and that she doesn't have something to prove any longer.

[LynneSin]

67. I'm tired of looking backwards. I need to look forward

I need a candidate who is going to continue working on what Obama started. Voting for anyone who could help elect a republican (or a republican) will not be it.

I thought Clinton was doing great for the country back in 1999 and that came to a screeching halt with Bush. I think with any of today's republicans, they would not only bring it to a screeching halt but they would actually put it into reverse.

There has been such a hard shift to the right with the GOP that I worry about the civil rights for everyone if they get into office. We are starting to recover from Bush but we need more time. We need to keep a Democrat in the White House.

[Gothmog]

44. I agree

^T^H^I^S ^H^A^S ^B^E^E^N ^A ^G^O^O^D ^S^T^A^R^T

[OregonBlue]

45. Hillary is a good, solid, true Democrat. I don't have to agree with a candidate on every

single issue, as long as I feel like they are working toward the same social goals that I am. I'd love to see Elizabeth Warren run but not only do I not believe she could raise enough money, I don't think she even wants another campaign. She seems very comfortable in the role she has right now. So for me, is it Hillary or some clown CON. Simple.

Anyone who claims Hillary is not a real Dem needs to go take a look at her career and what she has fought for for the last 40 years.

[polichick]

48. She's using populist rhetoric, that's for sure.

[MineralMan]

49. Whoever wins in November 2016 will be

using populist rhetoric. Winning is impossible without it.

[polichick]

52. Of course, which is why it'll all be bullshit...

until a real populist is talking.

[MineralMan]

54. There are populists on the right and the left.

Populism is not a policy. It's a campaign method. The right has been using populist strategies since the tea party first showed up, and even before that.

[polichick]

58. Sure, but most - on both sides - are con men and women...

Populist rhetoric is just the tool to fool.

[MineralMan]

70. So you say. You want to know who was a real populist

candidate? Jimmy Carter. JFK, too, was a true populist candidate, as were Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Now, you're calling all of them "con men." You can use that characterization of them, if you wish, but you're quite incorrect if you do. Your general cynicism about politics colors your entire viewpoint and your posts here on DU. Cynicism is easy, and you're certainly within your rights to be cynical.

Cynicism, however, does no good whatsoever when it comes to elections and choosing who will be in office. It merely means that you do not really participate in good faith. Especially for the presidency, every candidate who can win will be someone who will compromise on some issues. No political purist will ever be elected as President in our lifetimes. We're too diverse and too divided for that to happen. So, you pick and choose from the candidates seeking the office during the primaries and then you choose during the general elections.

So far, no candidate or sitting President has ever matched my goals or hopes. None. I don't expect that any person who must be elected in a national election will ever do that. It's impossible. Every presidential election, we are faced with a binary decision. You either vote for one of the major party candidates or your vote is wasted. You're free to waste your vote, but I'm not sure it's wise to do that.

No nation can use cynicism as a way to choose its leaders. Instead, we must select from our choices and hope for reasons for optimism. Is that ideal? Certainly not, but it is a fact of life in a nation of 1/3 of a billion people. That's life.

[cascadiance]

65. Populism "as a campaign method" is basically saying working FOR the masses...

It is not specific on each individual policy yes, but it IS saying that the candidate is working for people in general, and not just a special privileged few. If you label yourself as a "populist" and call that populism without any real intent to work for them and not to those bribing you, that is NOT populism, but a con game trying to make people THINK you are populist, and trying to characterize that conning method as a means of redefining the term "populism", much like the way that the Third Way has tried to redefine the term "progressive" in the labeling of many of its efforts in the same fashion.

[BrainDrain]

55. Noise...Noise...Noise...

is all she is making. The ONLY reason she is making such populist moves is because of Warren. HRC is a tool of Wall Street and big biz. She is in no way a true populist. She is an old-school monied (2.5 BILLION!!??) pol and that is all.

No amount of advertising is going to change any of that.

[johnnyrocket]

56. Clinton is NOT a natural ally to the populist ideology, however...

...there's nothing more revolting than when a Republican uses populist rhetoric, since their policies destroy the working class. She may be able to pull it off.

I personally don't find her very inspiring, not a very good speaker, nor likable.

[calimary]

57. I think it's a great move.

It suggests strongly that she's been listening to Elizabeth Warren, AND to the growing clamoring among an increasingly loud and progressive-leaning America, and she's been taking notes. I was hoping this would happen. HRC is NOT dumb. She not only can listen and learn from what the people want, she can evolve her views accordingly to reflect that, and then hopefully use her considerable clout (and maybe a new job next year) to act on it.

I look at what she did to win over the State of New York. THAT was no easy task, either, especially from someone who was widely perceived, and cynically, as an outsider. She went all over the state on a listening tour. And evidently, she made a good impression because she beat the odds and her GOP opponent the first time, and then did it again six years later. Even those who were on the fence about her wound up with little to complain about, regarding the job she did.

This woman is smart, and she's no dingdong. I HOPE she's been taking note of Elizabeth Warren's message. If Hillary is indeed our standard-bearer next year, she'd be a GREAT one to take that message and run with it, and act on it. And I think she's smart enough to notice which way the wind is blowing, and which way America is trending. A smart leader (or would-be leader) would do exactly that - take note of which way the people are leaning, and respond accordingly. Maybe the people are leading here. That's my hope.

That IS my hope. That she's going to turn out NOT to disappoint those of us still on the fence (as many are, here, who've voiced legitimate concerns). I'm not on the fence about her. And I sure don't want to be disappointed, either. I think she has it within her to evolve. We've seen MULTIPLE politicians evolve on controversial issues, including our current POTUS, on issues like marriage equality, and more. I think what we all want is leadership that recognizes changing times AND that those changes are for the better for this country. I think we all want leadership that doesn't insist on standing in the way of the march of time that naturally brings progress, inevitable social change, and modernization - but, instead, acknowledges it, and works WITH it. I think Hillary Clinton is among the latter.

[Liberal_in_LA]

59. a positive Hillary thread. thank you

[workinclasszero]

60. I think she is off to a fantastic start

She is going to build a groundswell from the roots up to defeat whatever nutcase theocratic ayatollah the republicans put up.

[cascadiance]

62. I'm still waiting for populist SUBSTANCE, rather than a populist LABEL for her campaign...

She should have made statements in her announcement that noted:

1) She doesn't support the TPP, despite her earlier work on it.
2) She doesn't support expansion of H-1B Visa program and other similar guest worker programs because of the costs to American workers and to foreign workers that are forced in to indentured servitude, despite her earlier support for this expansion.
3) She supports cutting back military spending and redirecting that spending back to investing in our own infrastructure where that investment will actually generate long term value rather than building weapons that don't get used, or if they are used just cause more losses for everyone involved other than the arms manufacturers.
4) She supports funding higher level education and providing forgiveness/relief for students who have endured such high student loan costs, whether they've gone broke paying it down, or still have the debt load hanging over them, which prevents them from helping restore our economy if they can spend more money they earn.
5) She supports more investment in alternative fuels and not the carbon-based fuel industries as addressing climate change is absolutely necessary in 2016 and further.

THAT would be her trying to be populist. Just saying in general terms that she wants to "be populist" and "talk to ordinary people" sounds nice, but it still isn't delivering of being someone that's trying to be a populist candidate just yet. A good populist candidate will remind people that substantive policy statements ARE important for them to understand and look at when measuring candidates, so that they can feel comfortable that who they are voting for is working for them and America as a whole, and is not just trying to say "join our team" to beat the other team as if it is a sports recruiter.

And working in a campaign like this IS the way to win over disaffected independents, and perhaps even some Republicans, who have felt left out of the equation like many of the rest of us have felt in terms of having politicians working for them and not for others with more money. If we don't have the message, we'll have that populist message potentially worked against us by someone like a Rand Paul, who though he's a wolf in sheep's clothing, will play the popular Libertarian small element of populist items like legalizing drugs, cutting back on military spending, and cutting back on domestic spying. We will lose and Hillary will also lose, if we don't engage with citizens more in a substantive fashion.

I can just see now how the Third Way will now start labeling their think tanks, etc. with the "populist" label much as they have falsely latched on to the term "progressive" to label other groups they control in an effort to marginalize that term to describe those that don't want corporatist policies.

[dodger501]

64. I hope she's not shipping supporters in to pose as everyday Americans

That is a repub tactic:

[link:http://www.ijreview.com/2015/04/297921-clintons-coffee-shop-chat-featured-regular-iowans-actually-driven-town/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=organic&utm_content=conservativedaily&utm_campaign=Politics|

[YoungDemCA]

69. Some academic definitions of "populism" from Wikipedia

Academic definitions of populism have varied widely over the centuries, and the term has often been employed in loose and inconsistent ways to denote appeals to "the people", "demagogy" and "catch-all" politics or as a label for new types of parties whose classifications are unclear. A factor traditionally held to diminish the value of "populism" as a category has been that, as Margaret Canovan notes in her 1981 study Populism, unlike conservatives or socialists, populists rarely call themselves "populists" and usually reject the term when it is applied to them.[3]

Nonetheless, in recent years academic scholars have produced definitions of populism which enable populist identification and comparison. Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous ‘others’ who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice".[4]

Rather than viewing populism in terms of specific social bases, economic programs, issues, or electorates — as discussions of right-wing populism have tended to do[5] — this type of definition is in line with the approaches of scholars such as Ernesto Laclau,[6] Pierre-Andre Taguieff,[7] Yves Meny and Yves Surel,[8] who have all sought to focus on populism per se, rather than treating it simply as an appendage of other ideologies.

Although in the US and Europe, it currently tends to be associated with right-wing parties, the central tenet of populism that democracy should reflect the pure and undiluted will of the people, means it can sit easily with ideologies of both right and left. However, while leaders of populist movements in recent decades have claimed to be on either the left or the right of the political spectrum, there are also many populists who reject such classifications and claim not to be "left wing", "centrist" or "right wing."[9][10][11]

Although "populist" is often used pejoratively in the media and in political debate, exceptions to this do exist, notably in the United States. In this case, it appears likely that this is due to the memories and traditions of earlier democratic movements (for example, farmers' movements, New Deal reform movements, and the civil rights movement) that were often called populist, by supporters and outsiders alike.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism#Academic_definitions

[Tarheel_Dem]

76. Agreed. Off to a good start.

[freshwest]

78. Warren is likely educating her on how to make the changes. And Bernie will, too. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

80. Saying "I want to empower families and communities" isn't populism, it's pablum.

"Substantive policy statements" may seem boring, but that is where the rubber meets the road.

We'll see. Haven't seen any yet.

[Jamaal510]

81. Yet another sensible thread from you.

I now have a better idea of what the term "populism" actually means, plus I'm also reminded not to get my hopes up about the voting populace wisening up and making the GOP irrelevant anytime soon. Not many people know or care about the "sausage-making" process in D.C., or the impact of different policies if they aren't immediately affected. We still have people who think that a president can get things done willy-nilly without Congress, and the really messed up part is that whenever a president tries to point out the flaw in this type of mindset (such as when Jimmy Carter said that he is "only one man&quot , they're seen as ineffective or weak. When it comes to firing people up in politics, it almost seems to be more about image and bold rhetoric than substance, like what Bruce Miroff was getting at in his piece The Presidential Spectacle.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

83. It's nice to play pretend with one's candidacy.

But some will meme away. Others will mindlessly follow.

[99Forever]

84. Hillary is as much populist...

.. as I am Ruler of the Universe.


And anyone that believes she is, has the all the brains of a sack of hammers.


I'm pretty certain the Democratic Party has already used up all of it's faux populist creds.