If Hillary wins it is up to progressives to push Hillary to the left, we cannot become

[JRLeft]

apathetic, dispirited, or dejected. If you want change it will require an intense pressure that must be utilized every day without relent.

The same pressure must be applied to Bernie too.

No matter who's in power injustice must be fought with more intensity 365 days a year for as long as there are people on this rock we call earth.

[Jester Messiah]

1. If she wins there will be no pushing her.

She'll be able to do whatever she wants, answerable to no one except the money men funding her re-election bid four years hence.

[JRLeft]

3. I believe she can be pushed but it will take an enormous amount of pressure.

The question is are we willing to do it.

[Chitown Kev]

64. I agree but...

my gut tells me that Hillary does not like to be "pushed"...for that matter, Sanders really doesn't either but Hillary really doesnt like it and will go on the attack, instead...Sanders may or may not do so as well.

[JRLeft]

65. This is why I mentioned we have to go after congress too my brotha.

[merrily]

80. Remind me how we push a President to the left. Cause the left has been trying that since 1789.

[JRLeft]

85. Overwhelming force which it has not been. you have to push congress too.

[merrily]

94. You didn't answer my question.

[EndElectoral]

18. If she wins the primary she'll skew even further right to get moderate Republicans.

She'll never mention being a Progressive again. But it won't work. People here truly underestimate the actual vitriol that Republcians have toward Clinton. She will be a lightning rod for Repubs to get out the vote.

I have not seen a poll of HRC among Republicans, but my guess is her chance of getting many (other than Kissinger and bankers) is quite slim.

[HooptieWagon]

36. Agreed. DLC has made it clear we'll be ignored,...

...except every four years when they use fear-mongering to get our votes. Lesser of two evils will no longer work as the DNC has swung so hard right.

[Divernan]

46. I believe she is unelectable so that's a moot point.

If she & Bill did end up back in the Oval Office (and that historic little kitchen and hallway off of the Oval Office), we progressives would have zip leverage on either of them.

You are absolutely right that her four year term would be devoted to collecting funding for her second term campaign, along with promoting the Clinton foundation's demonstrated capacity to scam off a percentage of foreign aid and weapons deals

[earthside]

52. The Hillarians have no idea.

I can remember it like it was yesterday (but I try hard not to) ... the constant Clinton scandals of the 1990s.

There were a lot more of them than most people want to recall or acknowledge.

For instance, something made me remember the other day that there were actually tape recordings of chats between Bill Clinton and Gennifer Flowers.

If Hillary is nominated, we are all going to be reliving every sordid detail of all those scandals and Hillary's involvement in them -- and yes, she was a central figure in Travelgate and Filegate.

So, I hope above all hope that Hillary is not nominated and if she is then she is unelectable and she will take down the whole Democratic Party with her ... and I don't think she and Bill probably care, either.

If Hillary is nominated then I give up -- I'll be taking a political vacation, because the idea that Hillary Clinton can be moved to the left is so ridiculous that it is only worth a sardonic chuckle.

[JRLeft]

53. I agree, but I believe Hillary will win, because Trump will

eventually erode support.

[Divernan]

56. Lounge singer, Jennifer Flowers

In November 2012, Flowers claimed that Clinton contacted her as recently as 2005. During an interview with Susan Roesgen, Flowers claimed that, during her prior sojourn in New Orleans, President Clinton, while visiting the city, telephoned Flowers and asked for a meeting, which Flowers declined.[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gennifer_Flowers

And from the New York Times. Retrieved March 20, 2008. "In his January deposition, the President, though finally confirming a sexual encounter with Ms. Flowers, was precise in denying Ms. Willey's report that he had sought to kiss her and feel her breasts"
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/14/us/testing-president-accuser-jones-lawyers-issue-files-alleging-clinton-pattern.html

And from the LA Times/2008: Gennifer Flowers to auction off The Tapes with Bill

Gennifer Flowers has reemerged. She's trying for a comeback too, it seems. Once, she was the other woman from Bill Clinton's past. Now, she's just another one of those women. But she's made an announcement that's important for her financial future. Flowers has decided to sell the tapes of the telephone conversations she secretly recorded with then-Gov. Clinton during their long relationship. You may recall back in 1992 the about-to-be president denied having an intimate relationship with Flowers.

But, oops, she called a news conference and played part of one of the tapes as convincing evidence. One can only imagine what else is on those tapes. . . . . about shopping lists, the stock market and the dry cleaners. Those preserved phone conversations all came before Monica and what's-her-name and the other one with the big hair.

The 58-year-old Gennifer -- geez, it seems like we've known her a long time now -- says she's kept the tapes safely all these years and, what an idiot, turned down a $5 million offer from some unidentified Japanese man back in the 1990s.

Somehow she says she detected renewed interest in the recordings recently and, thinking of her financial security, figured why not sell now? Why not indeed? If Mrs. Clinton doesn't do very well in some states next week, the couple may not be around in the political news much anymore. And there goes the market for secretly-made telephone tapes. Asked about the timing of her announcement, which appears in Tuesday's Las Vegas Review-Journal, it doesn't sound like Gennifer will be campaigning much for Hillary in Texas or Ohio later this week.

“I don’t need to hurt Hillary," Flowers told Norm Clarke. "She is doing a fine job of that herself, along with her idiot husband. Karma is an interesting thing. If these two don’t get elected, and they are a team, it will be karma coming back to visit them. It's about time." Other than that, the Arkansas trio remain good friends.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/helloisthatu.html

Associated Press photo by Michael Caulfield of Gennifer Flowers blowing Larry King a kiss during the taping of "Larry King Live" on Jan. 23, 1998, at CNN studios in Los Angeles.

NOTE TO JURY: I made no comments or opinion of my own, but provide links to Wikepedia, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times.

[workinclasszero]

60. Dont even have to go to free republic to see these right wing smears

DU has really gone to hell. SMFH

[Divernan]

63. Yeah! NYTimes, LATimes and Wikipedia are not right wing smears.

Is David Brock a good enough source? You know, David Brock, the founder of several pro-Clinton groups including Correct the Record. He has a lot more smarmy detail than the LA Times, the New York Times and Wikipedia. And he's on Hillary's team so you can't call him right wing, can you?

I came across this link to an article he wrote about the Clintons' time in Arkansas. How could they possibly have hired him? But they did. Spoiler alert! I suggest you not read the what Brock has to say at this link unless you have access to a decontamination shower.

And of course this material will be liberally (pardon the pun) quoted by Republicans if Hill makes it to the general election.

http://www.shwiggie.com/articles/clintons.html

Living with the Clintons
Bill's Arkansas bodyguards tell the story the press missed
by David Brock

And THIS is who Hillary hired!?!?!

David Brock's Hardball Tactics Worry Clinton Supporters

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/269791-david-brocks-hardball-tactics-worry-clinton-supporters
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511267152

[politicaljunkie41910]

93. If you do remember, you'll recall that all those "whatever-gate" turned out to be pure unadulterated

Bullcrap. The only issue that became of all those "-gate" that Ken Starr and the GOP spent all that money investigating was Monica Lewinski and that wasn't even on the initial radar. During the Paula Jones deposition, while being deposed, he was asked about whether or not he had every had sexual relations with Monica. This didn't have anything to do with Paula Jones initial claims about Bill Clinton but Paula Jones attorneys had found out about the affair from Linda Tripp, and sprung it on Bill Clinton while he was being deposed by Paula Jones Attorney, and he denied it.

So WhiteHouse Travelgate - Nada
Whitewater - Nada (Webb Hubble was charged with some unrelated issue)
Vince Foster's Death - Nada
Filegate - Nata
Katheleen Whiley - Nada
Betty Broderick - Nada
Anything else I may have forgotten - Nada, Nada, Nada, Nada.........

So this just proves that a Special Prosecutor with an unlimited budget, unlimited time, and unlimited subpoena power can spend a lot of taxpaper's money and haul a lot of people in front of grand juries, and it the final analysis, have little or nothing to show for it.
Notice how quickly the GOP was willing to let the provision of the law providing for the authorization of a Special Prosecutor run out the clock just before they got back into power.

As Geraldo said in that other Post today, the purpose of all GOP investigations are designed to damage the Democrats. In the case of Ken Starr it was Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Benghazi was Hillary.

[earthside]

95. You just go on believing that ...

The Clintons have always had ethical problems -- and it is not all rightwing smears -- they have brought a lot of this on themselves by their own behavior.

And ... if you cannot take looking at it here, just wait till you see what the Repuglicans are going to do with these controversies.

Hillary Clinton is a loser in November.

First Whitewater prosecutor says 'serious crimes' were uncovered in probe
http://news.yahoo.com/first-whitewater-prosecutor-says--serious-crimes--were-uncovered-in-probe-220111087.html

Travelgate Inquiry Suggests Signs of Lies by First Lady
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/23/news/mn-44043

Clinton Settles Paula Jones Lawsuit for $850,000
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/jones111498.htm

A Clinton Plea Bargain
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/16/opinion/a-clinton-plea-bargain.html

New controversy emerges in Clinton pardons
Justice objected to clemency for client of Hillary Clinton's brother
http://www.cnn.com/2001/fyi/news/02/22/clinton.pardons/index.html

Hillary Clinton's brothers could cause major problems for her presidential campaign
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clintons-brothers-tony-and-hugh-rodham-2015-5

[dana_b]

70. I agree

I think if Bernie does not win, we are looking at a Republican president.

If by some MIRACLE she does win (who knows - maybe a Republican scandal will happen), then I agree with the OP. We need to not give up and to push her, push her, push her to work on a more progressive agenda. If not, we will sink down that corporate rabbit hole even further.

[peacebird]

77. She is pushed by her Goldman Handcuffs, we can't pay the price of admission for her interest

And she will HATE progressives for giving her a hard time during the primary.

She will be a right of center war hawk corporatist.

We have to elect Bernie

[cantbeserious]

2. For This Citizen - An HRC Win Means - Four More Years Of Hibernation - To Old For Her Crap

eom

[Gregorian]

4. Let's not forget what we have discovered in this election: There are more progressives than we knew.

I'm vacillating between abandoning everything, and realizing we only have to keep working at it to win the next time.

It's very difficult to stay positive having endured the last forty years of crap. And also knowing how rare a Bernie is. But still, there are new Bernies coming along every day now. And I suspect the establishment is dying off faster than the new Bernies are being created.

Thanks, I needed your post.

[JRLeft]

5. It may require a younger version of Bernie. I'm thinking a progressive Latino voice with the

charisma of Obama.

[w4rma]

6. After watching her campaign slander progressive issues, Hillary isn't moving left if she wins.

On that note, don't expect Democrats to win any seats, anywhere, if she wins, either. Oh, and don't expect her to win the general election, so it's best that she's beaten in the primary.

[jillan]

7. How the hell can we compete with all her corporate donors?

[JRLeft]

9. Flood the white house with emails, letters, phone calls, and massive

protests. Doing nothing will get you nothing.

[peacebird]

79. Yea, but yelling at a rock will also get you nothing. THAT is why we work so hard for Bernie.

If Hillary wins, we all lose because her interests are with those who made her rich, not the little people. We are expected to fall in line and smile.

[jeff47]

8. She's not going to respond at all.

If Clinton wins the nomination, most likely she loses the GE.

If she manages to win the GE, she will not be responsive at all to liberals. The fight should not focus on lost causes like Clinton.

[JRLeft]

11. You should respond to congressional members too.

[HooptieWagon]

39. Just liberal ones.

Rewarding corporatist Dems with our votes is counter-productive. It just solidifies their hold on power. We got to stand up and say 'no more'.

[JRLeft]

43. You can primary them.

[bettyellen]

67. Scares me how no one wants to do the work that is necessary. If they aren't showing up to vote now

what makes us think they will be here every November for the next 12-16 years? If a Republican wins, we would still need better Dems- and more of them.

[dana_b]

71. if Hillary is the nominee, I don't think that everyone will run off

I think that there will only be some that won't vote. But it will make it more difficult to win and I don't think that it will be as beneficial for the down ticket Dems. Just my opinion.

The next 8-16 years? Well, I don't see the enthusiasm and momentum increasing unless we have someone like Bernie to get people excited and involved. Even if he loses, the Dems will still need someone like him. For instance Obama at the 2004 convention. Pretty inspiring! It's kind of sad that we need leaders to get so many involved but it seems like we do. Many people can't keep themselves motivated and involved.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

10. If Hillary wins...

and we progressives try to push her to the left...
We will encounter the same push back here as we did when we did as we were told by President Obama to "hold his feet to the fire".
We did and the flack was amazing.

So let's just make sure we elect someone who we don't have to push anywhere.
It will take much work, hard work just to get the country going a little more left.

Where you start hugely determines where you finish.

[Chitown Kev]

66. But Obama himself said that

and never really seemed to mind people "holding his feet to the fire much" even if some of his supporters did...and I was (and am) one of his supporters and i don't mind letting the President have it once in awhile.

In that respect (among many others) Hillary is no Obama.

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

73. I support Mr. Obama also..

I was, as you stated, talking about some of his supporters.
He didn't get as far left as I wanted, but all in all who am I?
Overall though, no real complaints.

[JRLeft]

75. We're supposed to do that to every president. He/she works for us.

[Goblinmonger]

68. Hell, if she gets the nomination and we try push her to the left

and then she loses, we will be the reason why.

Every election year, I'm tired of being told to shut up so that a Dem can win the election.

[hobbit709]

12. If she wins she won't pay any attention to us at all.

[Le Taz Hot]

13. I'd rather spend my time more productively,

like finding progressives to run for office. Hillary has already burned her bridges.

[JRLeft]

16. You apply pressure to Congress, not just Hillary.

[Le Taz Hot]

19. Hillary is a corporatist who doesn't give a flying fuck

about progressives or progressive issues. Even if they shoehorn her into the nomination she won't win the GE so none of this is pertinent.

[JRLeft]

22. Don't forget to apply that same pressure to congress.

Congressional members are easier to get to.

[Le Taz Hot]

24. The vast majority of the incumbants are WAY too compromised.

We need new, HONEST blood.

[JRLeft]

29. If he/she won't comply primary him/her.

[Fawke Em]

14. I gave up on trying to push Third Wayers left a long time ago.

The only solution is to purge them from the party.

Even if she gives his policies lip service - which she already is - I don't trust that she'll implement them. Hell, Obama, who is to her left, is still a moderate. He sang the praises of single payer and being tough on Wall Street, but he didn't implement them. He did a lot to progress the country, but not enough to make the bankers who fund all the candidates (except Bernie) unhappy.

[corkhead]

15. She'll say anything. She just wants me for my vote.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. Evidence-based opinions are generally better ones.

How could HRC be pushed to the left harder than she's being pushed now?

Hillary says whatever is expedient. If one accepts reality, she's currently being pushed from the left as hard as possible, and she's still telling progressives to be patient... that the best we can hope for from the biggest economy on earth is a $12 minimum wage phased in over the next decade, and considering how to implement a raise in the retirement age.

[JRLeft]

20. We support Bernie at the moment, if he loses we have to focus all of intense pressure on her.

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. It won't do any good.

If Clinton wins the nomination, she will pivot to pander to the very serious people vote - particularly if she's running against Trump or Cruz.

We'll vote for Clinton because we don't have any other choice, and she knows it.

I support Sanders because I prefer unicorns and rainbows, not because they are my belief system. Clinton will do what she does; pander. The Clintons invented triangulation. Believing that she'll campaign for the GE in a more progressive way than she is right now is delusional.

[Vinca]

21. If she's the nominee, she'll drift to the right to pick up Republicans.

Especially if Trump is the nominee. She's further to the left now than she's ever been and she won't stay there. Guaranteed. It reminds me of Mitt 2012. Way, way right in the primary and back in the center in the general.

[JRLeft]

23. Remember it's not just her it's congress too.

[LuvLoogie]

26. Turnout in 2014 was the lowest since World War 2.

Low turnout got us 2010 gerrymandering.

You are correct the effort has to be sustained year to year, and state and local seats have to be given greater importance.

[JRLeft]

30. That's our fault, we should have shown up. Apathy has been a major issue with progressives.

[LuvLoogie]

57. My main reasons to vote are my wife and daughters. Before that

my elders, extended family and the powerless. I am motivated by that. I don't look to politicians for my enthusiasm or motivation. You're right. It's on us. Our responsibility is to each other.

As citizens, I think it is a civic duty to vote. Many are disenfranchised for one reason or another. But the rest of us have no excuse. If a given demographic is given to slacking off, it just may be endemic to their lives. It's either apathy, a feeling of futility or really not giving a fuck.

[JRLeft]

59. People better give a fuck, no change is easy. In fact it's hard as hell.

[pinebox]

27. Not gonna happen, ever. She has already sold her soul to Wall Street

and Dems will lose the general because people will outright refuse to vote for Hillary.

[Lorien]

28. Like that worked with Obama. Hillary was paid many millions for her services

and now she has a lot of promises to keep!

[JRLeft]

32. There wasn't nearly enough pressure applied on Obama or congress.

[rhett o rick]

31. I agree but can't count on dragging Clinton to the Left. She will never make her good

friends in the Oligarchy pay their share. But we must keep the pressure on thru this election. It's a People's Movement.

[JRLeft]

33. If she won't budge push congress, and threaten a primary challenge.

If that doesn't work follow through with the primary challenge.

[rhett o rick]

45. I think should the Oligarchy push HRC into the Presidency, we must immediately start

working on a primary challenge. We can't wait. We must push for a progressive agenda.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

34. She doesn't think very highly of me. I don't think very highly of her. She'll never be the President

[JRLeft]

35. Strategy my friend.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

40. a +1 for your positive attitude. I'm not feeling it this morning, but I appreciate your post.

[JRLeft]

42. No problem, I get your frustration, but it won't be long before we all have to back someone.

[NCTraveler]

37. K&R nt

[JRLeft]

38. Thanks you get it.

[whatchamacallit]

41. Sorry, but that's a fantasy

Presidential candidates aren't lumps of clay we get to mold. This is why the process of selecting is paramount.

[JRLeft]

44. If she won't listen you can always primary congress members who choose to ignore us.

[whatchamacallit]

49. Or... how about we just not elect another center-right, status quo, president?

[JRLeft]

50. I agree with you, and the if he loses the fight cannot come to a halt without him.

[Armstead]

47. If she wins, things will remain the same

Been around this merry-go-round too many times

The DLC (and yes I know they're defunct but their spirit still rules the Democratic Party) will move forward with the same old shit. They'll throw some social bones to "the liberal base" but when it comes to issues involving money and power, they'll just tell "the base" to let them handle things.

The cumulative pressure is what drives Sanders campaign. But the counter response and attacks against Sanders and his supporters proves that if Hillary wins, they won't budge an inch when it comes to fundamental reform.

[JRLeft]

48. He she's staunch then you elect a congress that represents our best interest.

[Armstead]

51. Congress is part of the problem but there are all lot of good Dems already

For example, I never felt sorrier for a politician than I did for Tom Harkin during the ACA battle. He was a staunch fighter for the Public Option (a harmless, but helpful compromise) and was on TV pushing it all the time, and putting himself on the line saying "I am positive we';ll get this through."

But then he got thrown to the wolves by the Democrat Power Structure, and he got humiliated. That's what they do.

(I know Harkin, now retired, supports Hillary,but a great liberal like him should not have had to face such uphill battles against the power structure of his own party, for even moderate progress.)

PS I don't mean to be negative. I hope I am wrong.

[Skwmom]

54. There is no pushing her to the left if she is in the Whitehouse.

That truly is believing in rainbows and unicorns.

[JRLeft]

55. If not push congress.

[Skwmom]

62. That Congress will be CONTROLLED by the Clinton Network.

To believe otherwise is wishful thinking.

[VulgarPoet]

58. If she wins it, they can have the party.

I do not sip coffee with my enemy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Read into American Oligarchy

Because there is no pushing her, or congress.

I vote to remain in practice, not because it makes a tinker damn of difference. For the record, that was my attitude in Mexico when I first voted at 18. The US is even more entrenched in an oligarchy than Mexico.

[Arugula Latte]

69. The Clinton machine is entirely corrupt and entrenched.

How do we "push" it if it consolidates its power?

[grntuscarora]

72. Well said.

nt

[Ferd Berfel]

74. You're not going to overcome this

with "people power"

[valerief]

76. The only hope is who's selected/elected in Congress.

[Bradical79]

78. Not just Hillary

More importantly, I think, will be the need to go hard after local and state offices.

[JRLeft]

82. Agreed

[BillZBubb]

81. If she wins the nomination, she'll immediately move (return) to the right.

Sanders has pushed her enough to make her talk more progressive. But that's just for the rubes. It's temporary and not coming back.

Her campaign will downplay change and focus on the danger represented by whichever loon the repugs nominate. It might work, given that the repug candidates are all ignorant boobs.

[wildeyed]

83. Now you are getting it!

Doesn't matter all that much who the politician is without an engaged electorate and activist intensity. When people vote in greater numbers and activists disrupt properly, amazing things can happen. See it with my own eyes

Also, the other side is VERY intense right now. Hate the Tea Party, but they know how to organize their asses off. We need to counter that.

[randome]

84. Anything less shows how little the 'revolutionaries' really care.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[totodeinhere]

86. No it is NOT up to progressives to push Hillary to the left. It is up to progressive to deny her

the nomination in the first place so we won't have to try to move an immovable object to the left. The hell with this moving Hillary to the left crap.

[JRLeft]

87. This post was based on if she won, which she is still heavily favored to do.

[jfern]

90. Then the left is screwed

[onecaliberal]

88. If she is the nominee a republican will win the White House.

Republicans intensely hate HRC and they will come out in droves to vote against her.

[jfern]

89. You don't push Hillary left

If you want someone who isn't a neoliberal, you must defeat Hillary.

[Lizzie Poppet]

91. Any movement to the left on her part will be complete bullshit.

If anything, she'll move further right for the General Election if she beats Bernie...and that's just campaign rhetoric content. It's already a done deal that her actions in office will be precisely what her corporate benefactors want.

Fuck that.

[cali]

92. Ridiculous. She is corrupt and a neocon