Moderates push in the same direction as "the left." But Clintonism pushes in opposite direction.
On the scale of center-to-left and in the Democratic Party, there are the further left types, who want more change faster. And there are moderates who are closer to the center and believe that incremental gradual change and compromise are more effective.
Which is fine. There may be occasional arguments over pace and extent. But they're all rowing in the same direction, to advance liberal/progressive goals.
And then you have the centrists. While they claim to be rowing along with the moderate liberals and lefties, they are often rowing in the opposite direction.
And no one embodies that better than Clinton. She Claims to be a pragmatic progressive. (God forbid she should ever use the word liberal.)
While she will when it suits political purposes, row along with liberals/progressives whan that is the safe direction, she is also more than willing to row in the opposite direction if that seems to be the most politically expedient course.
She is all smiley and nicey nice and progressive -- until push comes to shove. Then she's more than willing to undercut liberal goals and values, and adopt GOP right wing talking points.
Like healthcare. She'll pretend to be a pragmatic reformer. But she is more than willing to start spouting right wing GOP talking points about how bad single payer universal healthcare is because it would raise taxes.
There are plenty of legitimate points of debate and discussion about how public healthcare can be expanded....And a true principled moderate pragmatic progressive would say "Yes single payer universal coverage is a great goal. But politically it would be difficult to achieve. So we have to take gradual steps over time."
But that's a whole lot different than what Clinton has started doing. Demonizing it and claiming that it would penalize average people with high taxes.
Rather than helping to pave the way for better healthcare, she joins the GOP and corporate insurance and Big Pharam in shooting down alternatives because they would be "too scary" and be bad for Harry and Louise.
And, lest one think her opposition is principled...It is totally based on some short-term effort to save her political bacon. And, belopw the surface, protect the status quo.
If, for example, Bernie were to modify his healthcare proposal, she could very easily switch back to her "progressive" outfit and criticize him from the opposite direction.
Her core values change with her opponent. She did it with Obama last time on guns. And she also attacked Obama for not supporting single payer in 2008.
In other words, she'll say or do anything.
And some people here wonder why some of us here question her trustworthiness?
= new reply since forum marked as read
