Please DON'T CALL Hillary A Progressive

[Segami]

I’ve been in leadership positions for two labor unions for over 40 years, the last 30 years leading a local urban union of almost 2000 members. And given the state of the labor movement, it galls me to read a supposedly progressive site where the leadership of the site, and about half of the posters, claim that Hillary Clinton is a progressive leader. I have no problem with people supporting Hillary because they agree with her record. But please, please, don’t try to fool anyone, including yourself, in claiming the progressive label. I have hard time calling anyone “progressive” who thru their actions, not their pre-election rhetoric:

1) Was a member of the Board of Directors of Walmart from 1986 to 1992 and ...remained silent as Walmart waged a ferocious campaign against labor unions seeking to represent store workers; especially at a time when workers, particularly women workers, were treated as scum; workers who had no right to complain, to organize or to raise a family on a living wage. Hillary did nothing to fight for working people when she was on that Board.

An ABC News analysis of the videotapes of at least four stockholder meetings where Clinton appeared shows she never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions.

A former board member told ABCNews.com that he had no recollection of Clinton defending unions during more than 20 board meetings held in private.

The tapes show Clinton in the role of a loyal company woman. "I'm always proud of Wal-Mart and what we do and the way we do it better than anybody else," she said at a June 1990 stockholders meeting.

Clinton, now that she is a politician, says she no longer shares Wal-Mart's values and believes unions "have been essential to our nation's success."

2) Who supported every corporate trade deal that shipped jobs overseas and lowered income for thousands of American workers, many of them women. And only now, in trying to win the nomination, has she said she opposes the TPP. Does anyone in their right mind think if she wins the Presidency, she will keep that stance? I didn’t think so.

3) Who was silent on Keystone pipeline until very recently

4) Supported the Iraq War. Enough said.

5) Supports the death penalty. She won’t change that position until the wind blows in the other direction.

6) Looks to Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, the poster children for Wall Street, for her economic guidance.

While Hillary has taken some consistent liberal positions on equal pay, abortion rights andpaid sick leave (all popular issues),(I can find no core values that she has, except that she is a classic corporate democrat. At what point do some of you question her core values and her judgement? Support her if you must, but I will do what I can to expose people who have served a lifetime of shilling for big money and when elections roll around, change their positions for 12 months. Just like I know what I’m getting with Hillary Clinton, so too I know what I’m getting with Bernie Sanders.


Yes, I will encourage my members, to vote for Hillary, if she is the nominee, but I will do so in an honest way; not like the sycophants carrying her water on this site. I know her campaign makes sure she is painted with a progressive brush on this site, but it really is unseemly. Isn’t there a Third Way website you can go to? By the way, everything about Hillary’s time at Walmart is documented, so please let’s not try revisionist history. Thanks.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/29/1442488/-Please-don-t-call-Hillary-A-Progressive

[JaneyVee]

1. We'll just call her POTUS instead.

[riversedge]

3. Madam President will do also.

[erronis]

48. Queen

[SCantiGOP]

165. Please DON'T TELL me what to say

God some people on here are getting pushy.

[erronis]

187. OK. It's your call. No god, no pushy. Just HRH.

Still, you could pack all the good bits from the repuglican field into a wurst and Hillary would fry them up and feed them to the dogs. Even all the red-meat/nitrosamine lovers in the RW herd won't be able to legally/fairly vote in a repug. However, $$$ and conniving may once again win the day.

The "democratics" have an excellent opportunity to hold onto the presidency and gain some seats in the senate. My preference would be Bernie, then Hillary and then anyone else (D).

I'm not sure any sane person wants to be in that unpeople's house right now. However, we all have jobs to do, some very unpleasant. Thanks to those that rise to the task with nose plugs firmly in place.

[SCantiGOP]

190. my complaint in my post above

was the use of capitals and the condescending, lecturing tone from one of my fellow-DUers in the OP title. That attitude is showing itself more and more in this forum.

[Bubzer]

180. I think she might like that.

[treestar]

244. I'm thinking this is sexist

you wouldn't call Bernie King.

We used it on "Queen Ann" Rmoney but that was because of her snobbishness.

[Armstead]

11. I suppose none of those issues matter

[artislife]

32. And yet ..

They cannot see why there is push back.

[Armstead]

56. Yep. "Unhinged attacks"

Expressions of concern about the state of the nation don't fit in to the narrative I guess.

[artislife]

106. careful

I got my first hide using that word after being swarmed by a Betty for 5 plus responses.

[Armstead]

112. Just describing a term often levelled at Sanders supporters

IN an ever so reasonable way

If necessary I guess I'll have to trust a jury of my peers.

[Gothmog]

127. Your claims would be more persuasive if you could show viability for sanders in general election

Arguing over labels and name callling is not going to help Sanders unless and until someone explains to mainstream democratic voters how Sanders is viable. If the Democrats nominate an unviable candidate, then the GOP will get to control the SCOTUS and agencies like the NRLB.

[Armstead]

135. Have you missed all of the posts about how craaaaaaaaaazy Sanders suppoters are getting?

And the OP -- which I did not write -- was a well thought out explanation of that poster's views on Clinton and the issues, whatever the headline.

One can agree or disagree on the merits of the points raised, but it is an attempt to explain why the OPbelieve that voters should choose someone else over Clinton, and the reasons.

[Gothmog]

157. These posts do not demonstrate or answer my questions as to viablity

Sanders is not going to be able to expand his base unless and until someone explains his viability in the general election. I keep reading articles hoping to see some signs of viability for the Sanders campaign in the general election. Here is a thread that is a good example. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251667157 if you read the last three paragraphs of the article cited in that thread, Sanders campaign manager does not outline a path to the nomination but a path to be a "serious" candidate.

If all goes according to plan, Sanders will have won enough delegates by mid-March to be a serious contender for the nomination. That would signal a shift for Sanders; it would be time to court the establishment. “Then we have to offer fundamental assurances to party leaders who say he’s a socialist. He’s been in the Congress 25 years and his program is not to replace the current system with socialism, it’s to revive the middle class.”

Sanders’s outsider campaign has been likened to Jesse Jackson’s insurgent campaign in 1988—it wasn’t until the Wisconsin primary in April that Michael Dukakis defeated Jackson. But Devine thinks the more apt analogy to today’s politics is 1984 when the combination of Gary Hart’s insurgency and Jackson’s coalition of minority voters together almost beat Walter Mondale. “Jackson never received support from the institutional party, but he demanded respect. If we register, as Jesse Jackson did, millions of people, that would be a huge lift for the party in Senate races.” And for whichever Democrat reaches the magic number of delegates next year to secure the nomination.

The idea that Sanders is good for the Democratic Party is a hard lesson for Clinton to appreciate in the heat of battle. But he’s got voters fired up and ready to go, and Democrats need that energy.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/12/bernie-sanders-s-strategist-this-is-how-we-win.html
The apparent goal of this campaign is not for Sanders to be the nominee but to be considered a serious candidate who might almost beat Hillary Clinton.

This article is silent on what Sanders intend to do in a general election contest in that it appears that Sanders campaign manager does not expect that Sanders will be the nominee.

Again, Sanders needs to come up with a good explanation as to how he is viable in a general election if he wants to expand the base. I keep looking for a good explanation and I have yet to see anything close.

[Armstead]

162. I'm not a political strategist, but here's my own layman's take

(originally an OP -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251698645 )

There's a lot of "I think Bernie's ideas are great but he's not as electable as Hillary" floating around.

Let's unpack that for a moment. Instead of that big amorphous claim, break it down into the categories of people who will actually be deciding whether to support Clinton or Sanders or the GOP Candidate in the General Election.

The GOP Candidate is a Wild Card. It could range from a safe Establishment guy like Bush to the Wild Eyed Demagogue Trump. So that's a factor that will be important but is unknown.

First off, we're always being told "Well no matter who the Democrats put up as the candidate, we all have to support him/her because it's so important to keep the GOP from winning." Okay, so let's say somehow Sanders were to get the nomination and a large majority of Democrats who preach that do that. That locks 99 percent of the partisan Democratic vote for Sanders. Likewise Clinton.

Now, most partisan Republicans are not going to vote for the Democratic nominee. It doesn't matter whether it's Bernie, Hillary or Jesus Himself.

That leaves those ever-popular Swing Voters and Independents to be fought over.

There's the non-partisan independents and Republicans who are scared and/or angry at the GOP for being such mean-spirited blockheads. You can likely add them to either Hillary or Bernie's column, unless the GOP candidate does well at selling snake oil, and/or the Dem candidate screws the pooch. (For those who say Bernie would screw the pooch, I;d say look at his unbroken string of successfully winning elections.)

Some of the independents may have Clinton Fatigue ....Others may actively like Clinton as a person enough to support her, Clinton evokes enough mixed feelings that these categories are not easily predictable.

Likewise for Bernie. He's still a newcomer to national recognition. Some may have a visceral dislike of him. Others may be attracted to his honest, straightforward personality, and trust his integrity. "I may not always agree with Bernie, but I know he's got my back."as the conservatives in Vermont say....... Only time and more familiarity will tell which of those would be predominant for Bernie. But so far, he's doing pretty good on that.

There's also the Obama Fatigue factor or the "I'm ready for a change from the Incumbent" faction who simply want a change. Clinton has a disadvantage there. Bernie? Not certain, but he could represent enough of a change to be the "candidate of a change" even if he is the Democratic candidate.


Some people might be skeered by the word "Socialist." They are so knee-jerk that they won't pay any attention whatsoever beyond that word. Take them out of the Bernie column. How many? Some. But IMO the more issues get discussed in the campaigns, the less that word will matter.

Some might be conservative enough to classify ANYONE who proposes programs that sound like taxes or regulations might be involved as a Socialist or, perhaps, a Damn Liberal. They won't vote for Bernie. But they won't vote for Hillary eitehr, unless she really plays an image switcheroo to become a conservative.

Some are open minded. They actually pay some attention to issues, and are more interested in results than labels. They just choose who they think will represent their interests and values. "Making college affordable or free? Heck I've got three kids, I'm all for that." .........That segment is a draw. Those voters are up for grabs, and will depend on the respective abilities of Sanders or Clinton to sell their ideas. They have different styles, but both are good in their own ways.

Some are just pissed. They don't like Big Government or Big Business, they just feel like they're getting screwed. The GOP will try to convince them that Big Government is the problem. Bernie will fight to convince them that Big Business is the problem. Hillary? Well, that will depend on whether she's in a populist or centrist mood. But IMO Bernie has the edge on that one.

There are many other ways of breaking all this down.

But the point is, if you consider the conventional wisdom that the country is split between GOP/Conservative and Democratic/Liberal and about 1/3 bouncing around between those, IMO the electability argument is not a slam dunk for Clinton. It is far from inevitable that she'd do better than Bernie in winning over the segment of the population whose votes are up for grabs.

[ms liberty]

225. +1. n/t

[Gothmog]

250. You got to be kidding

First, there is the chicken and the egg issue. Sanders will not be the nominee unless he can convince the vast bulk of Democratic voters that he is viable and your analysis would not convince anyone other than someone is already supporting Sanders. You are relying on guess work and some amusing guesses that lack any solid plans that would work in the real world.

Second, there is no discussion of how Sanders will be able to fund an adequate campaign. Money is not mentioned in your post and in the real world money matters. Sanders is very vulnerable to negative ads that practically write themselves. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/12/why-bernie-sanders-isnt-going-to-be-president-in-5-words/

The simple political fact is that if Sanders did ever manage to win the Democratic presidential nomination — a long shot but far from a no shot at this point — Republicans would simply clip Sanders's answer to Todd above and put it in a 30-second TV ad. That would, almost certainly, be the end of Sanders's viability in a general election.

Americans might be increasingly aware of the economic inequality in the country and increasingly suspicious of so-called vulture capitalism — all of which has helped fuel Sanders's rise. But we are not electing someone who is an avowed socialist to the nation's top political job. Just ain't happening.

The only way to compete with such negative ads will be to have adequate financing to compete which is not likely without a super pac. President Obama had the best fundraising machine in existence and even he used a super pac in 2012.

I live in the real world and in the real world, you need money to be competitive. I am supporting Hillary Clinton in large part because she is viable in the general election and can keep the fundraising close. You are entitled to support the candidate of your choice but you will need some real plans if you want people to think that Sanders is viable. If Sanders was the nominee, I would probably concentrate my contributions to Texas candidate to try to undo the negative coat tails that Sanders would have in Texas.

Again, in the real world, money is important in political campaigns and I understand why you do not address this concept in your post because Sanders would not be competitive financially in a general election contest

[Armstead]

252. Yes Clinton is rich and she can buy the nomination. Maybe her millionaires will...

outspend the GOP's millionaires and she will win. And then we'll have eight years of payback to them. Whoop dee do. Another voctory for democracy.

I'm sorry, but I took in good faith your question as how Sanders might be electable in the sense of voters. How novel.

I'm not a political strategist but I'm not stupid either and I've been living in the "real world" for 63 years. I know money is a factor all too well. But not all of the candidates who have spent the most have won. Sometimes, voters do actually make a difference, and the ones who spend the most still lose. The GOP learned that one a few years ago.

And furthermore, if the people who donate large sums of money to the Democratic Party decoded to hold back of Sanders were to get nominated, well, let';s just say that it would not speak highly of the real role of the party and many of those supporters. Someone who is not really all that radical is unacceptable, and they'd rather see the GOP win?

[Gothmog]

256. Sanders is not viable in the General election

First, Sanders will not be the nominee unless there is a real path demonstrated for him to win or be viable in a general election contest. I like Sanders and according to the online quiz, I am closer to Sanders' positions than to Hillary Clinton's positions. However, I live in the real world and it is clear to me that Sanders in not viable. Your explanation as to Sanders viability would not convince anyone to support Sanders other than people who already have decide to do so.

Second, it is not donors deciding not to contribute but the fact that Sanders is committed to a plan that will keep such donors from contributing. President Obama had the best small dollar fund raising machine in the history of politics and even he had to use a super pac. Under the campaign finance rules, major donors can only give $5,400 directly to the Sanders campaign and another $30,800 to the DNC. That amount may not be sufficient when the Kochs and the RNC candidate will have access to super pacs that can raise unlimited amounts from large donors. It is not a case of the Democratic super donors deciding not to give but there not being an acceptable mechanism for these donors to give if Sanders is the nominee because of the ban on super pacs.

I note that you do not want to discuss the role of negative ads and the terms "socialist" and "socialism". Sanders is very vulnerable to be being buried by negative ads. These terms poll badly now and would be radioactive after several hundred million dollars of negative ad. Many Democrats do not want to run the risk of hoping that voters will change their views on socialism in a contest where Sanders will lack the resources to fight back effectively.

The recent polling and the lack of traction by the Sanders campaign confirms that I am not the only one who is concerned about Sanders not being viable in a general election contest. While Predictwise is still unproven and may not be as accurate as the old Intrade system. it is clear that I am not the only one who thinks that Sanders will not be the nominee. Again, if Sanders wants to expand his base beyond the current group of supporters, Sanders will have to provide a good explanation as to how he will be viable in the general election.

Hillary Clinton and most democrats hate Citizens United and the only way to change the game is to win in 2016 and to appoint SCOTUS justices who will vote to overturn this ruling. To that, we have to win which is why many Democrats are not willing to take a chance on Sanders. Texas is the process of having yet another election under a voter suppression plan that was allowed to go into effect due to the SCOTUS gutting of the voting Rights Act.

Again, I live in the real world and I am not convinced that Sanders is viable. If Sanders is the nominee, I will support him but I may end having to direct my campaign contributions to areas where I see some chance for success such as the Democratic Senate campaigns and local races.

[saidsimplesimon]

241. Point well made Gothmog

The Sanders' campaign HQ is not doing a very good job of communicating "how he is viable", imho. As a Sanders' supporter, I want to know how our donations are being used to staff up the first 5 primary states, developing a strategy to win the nomination and communicating our message via paid media.

What plan is in place to insure students, and others who support Sanders are eligible and registered to vote (fight voter suppression)? What plan is in place to insure that all donors and newly registered voters show up to vote? What is the Sanders' team doing to form a broad based coalition?

I'm not a member of the inner circle.

[Fawke Em]

261. I'll let Bernie tell your "friend."

[JDPriestly]

144. It's all relative. I personally view Hillary as unelectable and as unable to serve as president.

While a lot of Democrats like her, the numbers of Republicans who utterly hate her is overwhelming. I don't think she can overcome that negative to actually govern.

Obama has had a tough time with the Republicans. Hillary will have it worse.

Bernie is attracting trust and interest from a surprising number of independents and even Republicans because he is recognized as honest and not part of a political machine.

I doubt that Hillary and her supporters realize this, but her seeming stranglehold on the powers that be in the Democratic Party -- her seeming sweep of endorsements across the top echelons of the party -- looks very much like the Tammany Hall corruption that the Progressives so ardently fought.

It looks sometimes as those the "leaders" of the Democratic Party are afraid of Hillary and follow her more out of fear of revenge if they don't than any real belief in her.

What is there to believe in?

Her stance on LGBT marriage? Her stance on education" Her stance on the TPP? Her stance on the XL Pipeline and the environment? Her independence from Wall Street??????? Her dedication to abolishing corruption and pay-backs in government?

Heavens! How can anyone believe any stance that Hillary takes. She is a chameleon, changing her mind on basic issues every few years.

And that is not just what you will hear from Progressives. That is what you are going to hear from Republicans if Hillary is the nominee. They will teak her apart, destroy her, based on her record. I assure you. Any candidate with as much money as Hillary has collected has skeletons in her closet galore. Democrats are not working very hard to find them. The Walmart clips are just one part of them. The Republicans will find and out them. When the time is advantageous for them.

That is the way politics works.

I do not want to end up with Donald Trump in the White House. But if we nominate Hillary, that is a more likely outcome than if we nominate Bernie. Bernie stands for cleaning up government. I think a broad spectrum of the American people, across party lines, wants a cleaner government. We are really sick of the corruption that the corporate donations and dominance of the media have brought.

[Gothmog]

156. Knife to a Gun Fight

Sanders does not appear to be viable in a contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the likely GOP nominee will be able to raise another billion dollars. This article had a very interesting quote about the role of super pacs in the upcoming election http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/03/bernie-sanders-grassroots-movement-gains-clinton-machine

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig, who founded a Super Pac to end Super Pacs, said Sanders’ renouncing Super Pacs is tantamount to “bringing a knife to a gunfight”.

“I regret the fact the Bernie Sanders has embraced the idea that he’s going to live life like the Vermont snow, as pure as he possibly can, while he runs for president, because it weakens his chances – and he’s an enormously important progressive voice,” Lessig said.

President Obama was against super pacs in 2012 but had to use one to keep the race close. I do not like super pacs but any Democratic candidate who wants to be viable has to use a super pac.

I would love to see someone explain how Sanders would be viable because the explanations that I have seen so far have been sad and weak.

[floriduck]

159. Don't you see the absurdity of your

argument? We all want to see money out of politics so we vote for those who violate our principles because only they can win. The only way to stop that vicious cycle is to band together and fight for the one person who can change it. The task is tough but doable if honest voters vote their own interests instead of thinking with a defeatist attitude.

[Gothmog]

172. And how do you overcome being outspent by the RNC candidate and the Koch brothers?

I live in the reals world and in the real world, it takes money to win elections. Clinton will be able to keep the contest close while I do not think that Sanders will be able to compete financially. Sanders is an easy target for negative ads and the GOP and the Koch Brothers would bury him with negative ads that would have the effect of hurting the other candidates on the ticket.

Again, if you see some way for Sanders to be a viable general election candidate, let us know. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation and have yet to see one

[floriduck]

192. The whole purpose of money in politics is to

promote negative ads and discourage voter turnout. That's why we lost the Senate. Another reason we lost is due to Dem candidates hiding from Pres Obama during their campaigning. So whenever Dems lose an election, it is due to low voter turnout at the polls. I don't consider anyone participating in DU to be passive voters. We know what's going on with both parties. So I cannot accept the fact that Bernie can't win. He will win if we decide as a group to be active in promoting him as the one to take on all things we dislike about politics, corporatism and trade deals that result in dealing job opportunities. I just don't believe Hillary will have our best interests at heart when its decision time for her.

[JDPriestly]

166. I would love to see how we can ever attain a true representative democracy as long as the

oligarchs have so much power in our country.

And the worst of it is that among the donors to the superpacs and among the owners of our corporate media are individuals and companies that have NO LOYALTY WHATSOEVER TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Have you ever asked yourself how many of Hillary's donors to her campaign and to her superpac have Americans' interests at heart?

I bet you would be surprised at those who are primarily interested in their personal wealth and their corporation's international standing and wealth.

Our government is supposed to belong to us and represent us. Right now it does not. And if Hillary is elected it will not.

If Bernie is elected we will be able to reclaim our government.

[Gothmog]

171. No Democrat likes Citizens United

President Obama was forced to use a super pac in 2012 to keep the contest close but even then Romney outspent him.

The only practical way to get rid of Citizens United is to elect a Democrat to the White House. Hillary Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley have all committed to only appoint SCOTUS justices who will vote against Citizens United. It is unlikely that we can pass any real campaign finance bills so long as the GOP control either the House or the Senate (I have hope that the Democrats will be able to retake the Senate in 2016 but that will take a viable candidate who has coat tails).

Sanders has to get elected and I do not see any way that Sanders is viable. Sanders would be unable to do anything other than try to appoint SCOTUS justices who will vote against Citizens United. At least with Hillary there is a good chance that she will be able to win and have sufficient coat tails to help the Democrats retake the Senate.

[JDPriestly]

233. We need a constitutional amendment combined with chsnges in state laws changing the definitions of

[iights. It will in my opinion take a combination of state laws and an amendment to the Constitution that clearly defines person for the sake of free speech and participation and support in campaigns and politics.

A lot of non-profits like the ACLU need to have some clarity about their speech and other rights. This is a difficult issue. In my view, it is a political question that should be dealt with by legislatures. A vote for Bernie is a vote against cottuption.

[Lorien]

211. Agreed. There are polls out there showing Bernie beating Trump

by 20 points, but every poll shows Hillary losing to Trump. The old saying holds true; given a Republican and a Democrat who acts like a Republican, the people will choose the Republican every time. Hillary doesn't have a prayer. The DLC Dems need to accept this fact before it's too late!

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/249677-sanders-beats-trump-by-20-plus-points

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/30/politics/bernie-sanders-donald-trump-poll/

[totodeinhere]

206. Actually Sanders has been quite competitive in several polls that measured his

appeal head to head against several of the top Republican candidates. There is no reason to think he could not win the general election especially given the solid blue wall in the Electoral College that favors the Democrats.

[eridani]

239. Sanders appeals to the 63%. Clinton does not.

What more do you need to know?

[paleotn]

54. Nope, not one.

at this point, she could claim to eat small children every morning for breakfast, and they'd not change their minds. Politics is like that. They're emotionally invested.

[mythology]

264. Wow is this just an utterly insipid post

Really you should be ashamed of making it and reconsider exactly who is so blinded by their political allegiance.

[1StrongBlackMan]

116. This might come as a shock to you; but, while those issues might matter ...

there are other issues that matter MORE to other people.

[Armstead]

123. It comes as no surprise whatsoever

That's part of the problem. There are many important issues -- including those above -- but many important core issues have been ignored and marginalized.

I kind of think that the status of working people, and their ability to asset their rights, is kind of important to everyone who works. As are salaries, working conditions, and the existence of decent US jobs in the first place.

That's not dismissing many otehr issues, but how about we pay attention to some of the systemic problems in the overall distribution of wealth and power too for a change?

[1StrongBlackMan]

125. What I am saying is ...

That's part of the problem. There are many important issues -- including those above -- but many important core issues FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE have been ignored and marginalized.

Again, what may be/are important core issues TO YOU may be LESS important, and not so core, to me. I can think of at least two, probably three issues that are MORE important .. more core ... to ME, than any of those issues.

[Armstead]

130. I can only speak for myself, as can you

I kind of assume that whatever I say is only speaking for the majority of one that lives inside my head.

But the reason I stated that "no concern for issues" is because of the dismissive response to a heartfelt OP that someone worked hard on writing with of "Lets just call her president instead."

[1StrongBlackMan]

138. Yes ... We can only speak for ourselves; but, we can, also ...

make observations ... you are saying this or that is a core issue and point to others that agree with you for validation ... but do not give those that see other things a MORE important and MORE core, the same gravitas.

[Armstead]

164. We all do that. It's human nature. Especially for those who are passionate about issues

Those who aren't passionate say "Whatever....."

[JDPriestly]

141. What matters more than women's rights and unions?

The term "Progressive" has always, historically, referred to a movement against corruption and for populist economic reform.

The Progressive Era was a period of widespread social activism and political reform across the United States, from the 1890s to 1920s .[1] The main objective of the Progressive movement was eliminating corruption in government. The movement primarily targeted political machines and their bosses. By taking down these corrupt representatives in office a further means of direct democracy would be established. They also sought regulation of monopolies (Trust Busting) and corporations through antitrust laws. These antitrust laws were seen as a way to promote equal competition for the advantage of legitimate competitors.

Many progressives supported Prohibition in the United States in order to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons.[2] At the same time, women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena.[3] A second theme was building an Efficiency Movement in every sector that could identify old ways that needed modernizing, and bring to bear scientific, medical and engineering solutions; a key part of the efficiency movement was scientific management, or "Taylorism".

Many activists joined efforts to reform local government, public education, medicine, finance, insurance, industry, railroads, churches, and many other areas. Progressives transformed, professionalized and made "scientific" the social sciences, especially history,[4] economics,[5] and political science.[6] In academic fields the day of the amateur author gave way to the research professor who published in the new scholarly journals and presses. The national political leaders included Theodore Roosevelt, Robert M. La Follette, Sr., and Charles Evans Hughes on the Republican side, and William Jennings Bryan, Woodrow Wilson and Al Smith on the Democratic side.

Initially the movement operated chiefly at local levels; later, it expanded to state and national levels. Progressives drew support from the middle class, and supporters included many lawyers, teachers, physicians, ministers and business people.[7] The Progressives strongly supported scientific methods as applied to economics, government, industry, finance, medicine, schooling, theology, education, and even the family. They closely followed advances underway at the time in Western Europe[8] and adopted numerous policies, such as a major transformation of the banking system by creating the Federal Reserve System in 1913.[9] Reformers felt that old-fashioned ways meant waste and inefficiency, and eagerly sought out the "one best system".[10][11]

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

The tradition of the progressive movement is about clean, populist government and economic reform. That's what the word means.

Women's rights -- the suffrage movement -- the movement to include more people in the voter base -- better working conditions -- fighting against corruption and the domination of our politics by money and corporations -- science, technology and the environment (Teddy Roosevelt and our national parks), that is traditionally what progressivism has always been about. Today, the Progressive movement is building on that.

So Progressives should be concerned first and foremost about clean government -- hence the movement against Citizens United and the corruption -- and economic health and fairness -- hence the movement to tax the wealthy and corporations and to have fair employment policies as well as home ownership -- and direct democracy as much as possible with improvements in our voting laws -- plus science, environment and learning being of major importance.

Bernie Sanders' issues are the issues of a true Progressive.

Hillary's -- she has pretty much copied Bernie's positions. For Hillary, it appears to be anything to be elected. But as we saw in those Walmart clips, she has always been driven toward success for herself more than Bernie has. For Bernie it really is about progressive values. For Hjllary, the values get you into the White House. They are not her main focal point. That is why she can so quickly and easily change her mind on issues. What matters to her is being on the board, being in the White House, having the power.

What matters to Bernie is changing the world to make it better for others.

That is the difference, the difference that a real Progressive will make in our society. Bernie is already making it.

Hillary is essentially a follower. She follows whatever is the value of the today. That's why she is constantly, repeatedly "evolving." She is a follower, not a leader.

Bernie is a leader, a value-setter. He speaks from a solid moral basis within himself.

Hillary is just not capable of that.

[LynneSin]

175. If she wins the nomination and she's up against any of those candidates the GOP is fielding

Nope is the only word I can say.

You got nothing there that tells me I wouldn't vote for Hillary for President. I'm now officially back to 'don't really give a rat's ass for who gets the Democratic Nomination' now that Joe Biden is out. Delaware has a late primary and the choice will probably be made by the time it gets around to me. I'll probably still write in Biden's name just because I can because in the end I will support any Democrat who gets nominated.

[Armstead]

177. You have a point but IMO it's just a stale sequal to a movie that's getting old

Yep, most of will do whatever to avoid President Trump.

But it's discouraging that with all of the systemic problem we have to deal with, it always boils down to that.

[Hepburn]

62. OMG.......

....

The more I think of one of the Repukes or Hillary as POTUS, the my stomach turns over.

[anti partisan]

129. it makes me so sick that I leave words out my sentences :(

[workinclasszero]

110. Works for me!

[leftofcool]

117. That works for me

[Gothmog]

128. For me also

[sabrina 1]

134. We'll be calling Sanders Mr. President!

[sammythecat]

148. That's it!? No other response to what was said in the OP?

You stand by the facts of her record? Even the good things she supports are, as stated in the OP, are all popular issues that she pretty much could not oppose and remain viable. She has, and always has had, only one passion, one ambition, and that is to become President by whatever means necessary.

If this was a male candidate with her actual record would you consider him the best option? Or an option at all?

[840high]

163. God forbid.

[penndragon69]

201. Sorry

But i will call her what she is

DINO !

[classykaren]

202. Ya wanta bet?

[SharpProgress]

227. Yep...

My comment exactly

[riversedge]

2. No dice.

[cprise]

72. I used to click on these H responses thinking

there would be substance of some kind.

[riversedge]

199. I have hope--but it is discouraging.

[rhett o rick]

197. Ironic that those that hate the far left want to believe that HRC is progressive. She is a neolibera

neoliberal sponsored by the billiionaires. The signs are there so how do people get fooled into thinking she is progressive.

[Flying Phoenix]

4. I have always found her to the right of her husband.

Because of that, I'm not buying the "progressive" mindset that Clinton is selling.

[riversedge]

5. What's in the box...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1107&pid=23061

[Fuddnik]

33. Shrodingers Cat

She's a progressive until you open the box.

When you open it, you find a neocon and a neoliberal. A conservative at heart.

[riversedge]

36. You looked in the wrong box

[Fuddnik]

41. She's Lieberman in a skirt.

No difference in policy. However to Joe's credit, he didn't shift in his principles.

[erronis]

49. What principles?

[Hepburn]

66. Joe was far more liberal and trustworthy than Hillary. N/t

[DhhD]

98. There is only one box. Each orbital can contain up to two electrons. Which electron decays first?

[cui bono]

210. This box?

[99Forever]

6. Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal.

Period. End of story.

[cprise]

79. With neocon foreign policy:

She has Kagan and Nuland as policy advisors (actually promoted Nuland at State). They are as neoconservative as you can get -- true war mongers.

[99Forever]

137. A neoliberal is a neocon that goes left on just...

...social issues to fool the uninformed into thinking they are "populist."

They are anything but.

[rhett o rick]

196. Bingo!

[Jack Rabbit]

204. Granny D:

Neoliberalism is the colonialism department of neoconservatism

I still maintain that the good ole gal had it backwards. I would say that neoconservatism is the enforcement department is neoliberalism.

In any case, colonial designs inevitably lead to colonial wars. Corollary: If any leading candidate except Bernie Sanders is elected president, then Americans should avoid military service.

[JaneyVee]

7. Lets respond to some of these:

1-She sat on the philanthropy board in the 80s for less than a year. And Walmart wasn't the behemoth it is today. Others on the board said "she was a thorn in the side of the Walton's". Constantly encouraging more woman in leadership roles, more environmentalism, and more made in usa products.

2-She has also opposed trade deals.

3-She's against kxl and her state dept denied permit.

4-Every progressive president has led this country into war since WW2.

5-Not really a top issue on voters concerns.

6-Joseph Stiglitz and Gary Gensler are her economic advisers.

[think]

15. She has Keystone lobbyists on her staff. She pushed for TPP 45 times, the Iraq war

vote is inexcusable and trying to compare it to WW2 is just reprehensible. It was a preemptive war based on lies. Lies that Senator Sanders called out when he voted against that despicable war.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/hillary-clinton-lobbyists-campaign-staff-keystone-lehman

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/15/politics/45-times-secretary-clinton-pushed-the-trade-bill-she-now-opposes/

Joseph Stiglitz stated that repealing Glass Steagall was the greatest indirect cause of the 2007 economic meltdown:

The deregulation philosophy would pay unwelcome dividends for years to come. In November 1999, Congress repealed the Glass-Steagall Act—the culmination of a $300 million lobbying effort by the banking and financial-services industries, and spearheaded in Congress by Senator Phil Gramm. Glass-Steagall had long separated commercial banks (which lend money) and investment banks (which organize the sale of bonds and equities); it had been enacted in the aftermath of the Great Depression and was meant to curb the excesses of that era, including grave conflicts of interest. For instance, without separation, if a company whose shares had been issued by an investment bank, with its strong endorsement, got into trouble, wouldn’t its commercial arm, if it had one, feel pressure to lend it money, perhaps unwisely? An ensuing spiral of bad judgment is not hard to foresee. I had opposed repeal of Glass-Steagall. The proponents said, in effect, Trust us: we will create Chinese walls to make sure that the problems of the past do not recur. As an economist, I certainly possessed a healthy degree of trust, trust in the power of economic incentives to bend human behavior toward self-interest—toward short-term self-interest, at any rate, rather than Tocqueville’s “self interest rightly understood.”

The most important consequence of the repeal of Glass-Steagall was indirect—it lay in the way repeal changed an entire culture. Commercial banks are not supposed to be high-risk ventures; they are supposed to manage other people’s money very conservatively. It is with this understanding that the government agrees to pick up the tab should they fail. Investment banks, on the other hand, have traditionally managed rich people’s money—people who can take bigger risks in order to get bigger returns. When repeal of Glass-Steagall brought investment and commercial banks together, the investment-bank culture came out on top. There was a demand for the kind of high returns that could be obtained only through high leverage and big risktaking.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2009/01/stiglitz200901-2

[erronis]

52. It's their party, they can lie if they want to...

[truebluegreen]

26. Wasn't aware that there had been a whole bunch

of "progressive" presidents since WW2. Just sayin'

[JaneyVee]

57. FDR, Truman, LBJ, JFK, Obama.

[blackspade]

131. Your history is weak on this point.

FDR didn't lead the country into WWII, it was forced upon him.
Truman wasn't a progressive, that would have been Henry Wallace FDR's original choice for VP in 1944.
JFK, was trying to extract us from Vietnam before he was killed. Eisenhower is the one that first sent troops there.
LBJ was also not a progressive, although he had liberal policies. Plus he didn't start Vietnam.
Obama, is not a progressive either, and he didn't start any wars.

This "progressives" (liberals) starting wars meme has been floating around for 15 years or more. I think the first time I saw it was coming from my RW B-in-L. It's a GOP talking point that has penetrated the American collective 'knowledge' much like the term 'Democrat Party.'

[bvar22]

186. Even Republican Dwight Eisenhower was way more "progressive" than Hillary.

[saidsimplesimon]

242. bvar22, thanks for this comment

Rachel did a great job of highlighting the progressive values of President Eisenhower. If she is reading, thank you for all that you do Ms. Maddow.

Dwight D. Eisenhower said: http://eisenhower.archives.gov/all_about_ike/quotes.html

I have no use for those — regardless of their political party — who hold some foolish dream of spinning the clock back to days when unorganized labor was a huddled, almost helpless mass.

Speech to the American Federation of Labor, New York City, 9/17/52

"The job of getting people really wanting to do something is the essence of leadership. And one of the things a leader needs occasionally is the inspiration he gets from the people he leads. The old tactical textbooks say that the commander always visits his troops to inspire them to fight. I for one soon discovered that one of the reasons for my visiting the front lines was to get inspiration from the young American soldier. I went back to my job ashamed of my own occasional resentments or discouragements, which I probably -- at least I hope I concealed them."

Remarks at the Breakfast Meeting of Republican State Chairmen, Denver, Colorado, 9/10/55

"My life has been largely spent in affairs that required organization. But organization itself, necessary as it is, is never sufficient to win a battle."

Remarks to Participants in the Young Republican National Leadership Training School, 1/20/60

“For a just and lasting peace, here is my solemn pledge to you: by dedication and patience we will continue, as long as I remain your President, to work for this simple -- this single -- this exclusive goal.”

Address at Byrd Field, Richmond, Virginia, October 29, 1956

The most famous for last:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road. the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

Address "The Chance for Peace" Delivered Before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, 4/16/53

[truebluegreen]

224. Oh, so "progressive" is just a synonym for "Democrat."

Well that certainly explains why you think Hillary is one.

[cprise]

70. This is the most information-rich defense of Hillary

that I've ever seen.

No links, no references ("trade deals&quot mostly yadda yadda... but still, a big improvement!

[JaneyVee]

74. Which one you want a defense for?

Trade deals? She opposed some trade deals including CAFTA and TPP, etc. Feel free to do your own research to prove me wrong.

[Jester Messiah]

95. I don't think you can call it "opposition" if she's been on both sides of an issue.

And there are few issues upon which she's maintained a single position.

[Bubzer]

181. +1

[tex-wyo-dem]

102. She supported the TPP for years and then...

Very recently and suddenly came out against it...why? Because she saw her support being a negative among a large slice of the voter pie and Bernie getting support for his staunch opposition to TPP (she has a habit of stealing Bernie's positions and claiming them her own...at least until the "manifesto&quot .

Of course, she doesn't really oppose the trade deal, or kxl for that matter.

She's as fake as a $3 bill.

[JaneyVee]

109. No, because she said final bill doesn't include currency manipulation.

That she would fight for a better deal. Trade supports millions of US jobs and a huge amount of US GDP.

[tex-wyo-dem]

124. There is a helluva lot more wrong...

With the TPP than just currency manipulation, and it's a huge negative hit to climate change, one of my top concerns. The whole trade/globalization model needs to be completely changed and has been one of the biggest reasons for the destruction of the middle class.

[Bubzer]

182. Two words come to mind. "Gold Standard" - Hillary Clinton on the TPP prior to a final bill.

She wins no points for being wrong on an issue, and then, eventually evolving with the political winds.

[BeanMusical]

228. "she has a habit of stealing Bernie's positions and claiming them her own..."

[cprise]

118. She's lying about TPP because the changes made after her tenure

were concessions to progressive concerns. The deal actually got somewhat better. She flipped on the issue to garner progressive votes in the primaries, not because the text supposedly changed for the worse.

She also lied during the debate about her earlier full-throated endorsement the treaty, saying she had only "hoped" TPP would become the gold standard. That is simply a lie.

[Bubzer]

184. Right!

[1StrongBlackMan]

119. But none of that matters. n/t

[CharlotteVale]

8. I'd like to add her signing the Bankruptcy "Reform" Act. NOTHING "pgrogressive"

about that either.

[azmom]

9. Her opposition to the TPP was mild at best.

When she gave her reason for opposing it, she added a qualifier of, as of today...... Which begs the question, how about tomorrow?

Progressive my ass.

[Segami]

16. Oh yes,...typical lawyer,.....using her famous wiggle-words "as of today"

......BUT,..tomorrow, tomorrow, toooooooomorrow is another thing.

[cascadiance]

60. She's been consistent on one issue... NOT PROGRESSIVE on supporting H-1B quota expansion!!!

She hasn't tried to evolve her position recently to clarify anything is different from when she took this strong stance that is more in line with what REPUBLICAN Orrin Hatch of Utah wants as part of immigration bills, than what *progressive* politicians want.

If she's progressive on this issue, someone explain how that is the case! This example is pretty damn clear that she isn't here.

[monmouth4]

10. I have a hard time calling her a democrat...n/t

[brooklynite]

13. I wouldn't worry too much...18-20 Million other Democrats can

[paleotn]

55. Who would have been Republicans 30 years ago. (nt)

[Go Vols]

151. exactly

and I didn't care for them then either.

[NCTraveler]

12. President Clinton will do.

She is a progressive.

[JonLeibowitz]

77. Will do what?

I still have whiplash from the last time she changed positions.

[NCTraveler]

82. See a doctor. nt.

[JonLeibowitz]

88. Heh

Have a nice day. I always enjoy your posts. Truly.

[NCTraveler]

91. Welcome aboard.

I read for a while before posting myself. That is the safest way to do it. One still needs to wear a hardhat. lol.

[JonLeibowitz]

221. Don't I know it

I got banned from the Hillary Clinton group first day for pointing out that someone couldn't spell (with too much snark, I guess). That really hurt me, I thought I was a bad person.

Now I am building a thicker skin, and yes, putting on a hardhat.

Cheers.

[pinebox]

14. She isn't

and it's a failed re-brand of her image.

We can sit here and say "she's one of the most progressive people in the Senate" and yet, her score is lower than Bernie. The truth is, there aren't many progressives serving and there hasn't been in quite awhile. Outside of Warren and Sanders, right now, you may have 1 or 2, that's it. That being said, Hillary and the positions she has taken aren't progressive. They're run of the mill and in many ways, even that of a conservative democrat.

She still has no opinion on legalizing pot, sorry but after 50 years of studying it and its effects? Wake up Hillary. It makes one wonder what she's hiding. This week she just came out on favor of the death penalty. Her college plan is to the right of Bernie and she doesn't support single payer. Her stance on minimum wage. On and on. These aren't stances which a progressive takes.

[INdemo]

17. Why would any real Democrat vote

for a corporatist? Really

[Scuba]

18. Hillary is a progressive in the same way Bristol Palin is a virgin.

[Fuddnik]

27. Perfect analogy.

[truebluegreen]

29. <snort>

[restorefreedom]

47. snap! nt

[LuvNewcastle]

53. Yes, that's about the most accurate

assessment I've ever heard about her.

[Hepburn]

67. +1,000,000 n/t

[Jester Messiah]

97. Shots fired!!

[stonecutter357]

19. Hillary is A Progressive..

[tex-wyo-dem]

89. And Rmoney was a progressive populist...

[WillyT]

21. K & R !!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

22. She's a self admitted moderate...but she does feel guilty about it.

[Le Taz Hot]

96. LOL!

[Skinner]

23. Hillary is a progressive. (nt)

[Le Taz Hot]

111. Advocacy for the death penalty is not a progressive value.

And regardless of her stated (equivocal) opposition to the TPP and Keystone XL, I've no doubt she still supports at least the TPP (as First Lady she supported and defended NAFTA). These are not progressive ideals.

The video clearly shows that what she says publically does not translate into real action on her part. These are just a few of the points her campaign needs to address. The Republicans have all this information in their ever-burgeoning arsenal of things against her. You can't just whistle your way past that less-than-progressive history.

The fact is that this is a new electorate. The millennials are taking over and they will be the generation that can change the way the game is played. But they need our help to ensure Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, despite the formidable Democratic Party's opposition. If successful, it will remind the .01% that they're still answerable to the electorate.

[tex-wyo-dem]

121. She, at best, has socially progressive leanings...

But she is clearly economically centrist/neoliberal and has supported a hawkish foreign policy approach.

[Dawgs]

158. Fooled you too, huh? n/t

[MissDeeds]

205. Apparently

Hillary is a progressive.

I guess it depends in what "is" is.

[dreamnightwind]

160. Mostly on issues that don't cost the wealthy and the corporations anything

Is that what progressives are these days? I know the word has a messy history, but I always thought of progressive as someone that championed the interests of regular people not the wealthy elite. Theodore Roosevelt certainly was that kind of porgressive, he was not afraid to take on the monied interests, nor was FDR, both progressives.

Even on issues that don't cost corporations anything, Hillary's only marginally progressive. She has neocon foreign policy tendencies, is against rec pot legalization and still wants to study medicinal pot leglization, is pro death penalty, supports H1-B's and outsourcing, wants universal health care but through the giant health insurance corporations, certainly not what I call progressive.

[Lorien]

213. Define "Progressive"

I haven't seen her take a consistently progressive stance on a single issue.

[Amimnoch]

24. Thank you for dictating to me who I may or may not call progressive.

I'd missed the memo where you've been declared supreme leader.

[Jester Messiah]

99. Words have meanings.

Use them correctly or don't use them at all.

[Amimnoch]

104. true.. Hillary Clinton is a progressive.

[Jester Messiah]

140. Insistence != truth

Nor is repetition. Though I suppose in some sense she might be "progressive"... it's just what she's progressing toward that makes capital-P Progressives negative about her.

[angrychair]

191. So, in fairness

What makes her a progressive to you?

[redstateblues]

251. like Socialist?

[LynneSin]

176. Give it time, we'll also be dictating the clothes you wear, how you think and what you eat

I'm team undecided here at DU. I find this post extremely OFFENSIVE. I'll call anyone I want progressive!

[angrychair]

193. First off

It is an OP subject title, an opinion, not a command. The OP doesn't claim to be "Lord of the Dictionary", I would suspect you know that. See, not "telling" you that you have this knowledge, only I think you do. Like this OP and every OP, it's an opinion.
Many OPs, such as this one, do present their opinions with supporting documentation as a way to substantiate their perspective.
While you may have an opinion of what a progressive is, there is also a generally accepted understanding of what a progressive is and is not. The original Progressive Party and their party platform is what all other progressive movements have used to model and define themselves. Why? Because, they were the first progressives and their platform is as valid today as it was then.
Link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)
Interesting link and history. Funny that they were a splinter group of the old school Republican party.

[Fuddnik]

25. I can call her a lot of things.

"Progressive" or "Liberal" aren't on that list.

[treestar]

28. Hillary is a progressive

To most Americans, to many, far too much so.

What is the point of this labeling business? And directing it as fellow Democrats. And how to deal with Republicans, still a large part of the electorate, who think she's a Marxist?

[TBF]

71. Anyone who thinks she is a Marxist

needs a dictionary. And a copy of Capital.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf

[treestar]

243. In talking to right wingers, I have tried that

But the same could be said for the left wingers in their labelings.

Right wingers will claim Rmoney lost for being "too liberal."

People are not at all objective when applying the labels, yet the labels were meant to be somewhat objective. I tell them I can at least recognize the difference between a "Republican" and a "Fascist" so why can't they recognize the difference between a "liberal" and a "communist" but they refuse and must use the label communist for anyone to the left of themselves.

[AzDar]

30. Watch what she DOES, not what she SAYS.

[RandySF]

31. Hillary is a progressive

There, I just did it.

[Fuddnik]

34. By her standards, so was Maggie Thatcher.

[Sheepshank]

45. most ridiculous post on this thread

the only thing they have in common are body parts. They do not have the same platform, leadership styles or track record for human rights.

gawd, make the dumb assertion and then run away, with absolutley no rhyme or reason other than you thought it may make a good soundbite.

[Hepburn]

69. Amen! n/t

[Lorien]

214. True. It would be interesting to do a side by side comparison

of their positions on the issues.

[Lorien]

215. Repeating a statement doesn't make it true

No one who has claimed that Hillary is a Progressive has posted any facts to back their statement up.

[passiveporcupine]

220. Hillary is a dolphin

There...I just did it.

[GoneFishin]

35. Calling her a progrogressive is another trick like Republicans using bogus names on legislation.

It will fool a few people who have not caught onto the scam yet.

[NYCButterfinger]

37. Pot is for losers

Honestly. Who smokes that shit? I'm not a fan of it. You want to legalize it, go ahead.

[dreamnightwind]

161. So is junk food

Doesn't mean it should be illegal. The illegality feeds the out of control police/prison complex that makes calling this the land of the free nothing but a sick joke.

[Sheepshank]

38. Just more than a bit annoyed that people....

...deign to tell others what titles they are permitted to attach to their favored candidate. Especially given the rest of the opposition hurls incredible amounts of epitaphs against that same candidate.

Since Progressive is a relative term, I believe it's absolutely appropriate to call Hillary a progressive, and be very, very comfortable with that label.

[Fuddnik]

44. They have laws against fraud and false advertising.

[Sheepshank]

50. are you on the right thread?

consumer laws is not the subject at hand

[Armstead]

58. Then I'm calling Bernie the best Democrat we've got

[Sheepshank]

83. you can call him anything you want ;)

I can call him anything I want.

I just won't tell you what you can call him.

[Armstead]

105. Okay

I'll take your into consideraton.

It's just a message board after all

[nyabingi]

39. If Hillary becomes president

this country is as good as toast. Obama didn't stop the slide and Hillary will just make the slope steeper.

People hoped Obama would change the direction this Empire was heading only to see that he was only another lapdog for corporate and wealthy interests. She's pretty much repeating Obama's "I'm a progressive" tag line now so she can rally the Left in this country, but we all know she's a slave to Goldman Sachs, Israel and the financial industry.

Bernie at least has principles that he hasn't wavered on.

[Go Vols]

154. +1

[Locrian]

207. exactly

If people can't learn from the Obama experience then there's no hope (fool me once, don't get fooled again...)

If HRC wins, it'll be the same thing: she'll use the cover of having to "compromise" with the GOP to push farther and farther to the right with corporate / wallstreet adgenda.

More deals with the devil to "get things done" etc. All the while pushing the same old rule of the wealthy.

[redstateblues]

255. Drama Queen (or King) The end is near!

Puhleazze. The hyperbole is exhausting

[liberal N proud]

40. I will make up my own mind what I will call her thank you very much

At least until she it the President then I will have to call her Madam President.

[NorthCarolina]

42. Who said she's a Progressive? Even Hillary herself confirmed that she is firmly

in the "moderate" pro-corporate category.

Columbus, Ohio (CNN)Hillary Clinton confessed Thursday to something liberals have long suspected: being a moderate Democrat.

"You know, I get accused of being kind of moderate and center," Clinton told the audience at a Women for Hillary event in Ohio. "I plead guilty."

[ucrdem]

43. Fine, let's stick to Democrat and Independent, the terms that actually matter. nt

[Fuddnik]

51. I can't do that.

I switch back and forth almost as fast as she switches policy positions.

[ucrdem]

65. Voters don't have to but candidates do

and candidate Sanders has to my knowledge never identified himself as a Democrat. Not once.

p.s. here's the Vermont statute:

Declaration of party membership is required of all Vermont state candidates per statute:

If no party is indicated, the word “Independent” will be printed on the ballot. No candidate appearing on the ballot as a candidate of an organized political party can appear on the ballot as an “Independent.” 17 V.S.A. 2403

https://www.sec.state.vt.us/elections/frequently-asked-questions/state-candidates.aspx#faq-4377

That's a problem.

[cascadiance]

76. If being a democratic party member is the only thing to judge people by...

... when it currently has its leadership owned by the remnants of the DLC that was funded by the Koch brothers, then no thanks!! Especially if the party works against REAL progressives on what matters to most people... ISSUES DAMMIT!!!! And you had the last president start by appointing someone that built his cabinet (Rahmbo) that was dismissing progressive Democrats as "f'ing retarded"! That was a middle finger given to us, and I think it's time that we expect better from officials with moves like that and the former president pushing ANTI-PROGRESSIVE legislation like TPP harder than anything else!

I predict that if Bernie were to win the presidency, and lead a big progressive voter turnout to help PROGRESSIVE legislators take back congress and start doing more progressive changes on things that count like climate change, prosecution of banksters and other corporate criminals, bringing back a decent tax structure, campaign finance reform, and bringing down corporate personhood through court appointments or a constitutional amendment, I wouldn't be surprised later if he were to become a Democrat, when the party returns to its roots and stands again for what it stood for when FDR was president, when presidents spoke out publicly against "economic royalists" instead of getting in bed with them.

[ucrdem]

81. I get it, but if he's not a D he's an I. Good luck with that on Nov 8.

Winning isn't the only thing but it's pretty damn important.

[cascadiance]

87. He's running as a Democrat, and finally gives REAL Democrats someone to vote for...

... that has TRADITIONAL progressive Democratic values. Are you suggesting he run as an independent and likely throw the election to the Republicans with a vote split? Do you want a Republican to win? He doesn't, which is why he's running in the Democratic primary. Don't like that, and want to not have progressives split a vote with an independent candidate? Then push for instant runoff voting as a more constructive solution than pushing against Sanders as an independent running in the primary. The system is rigged to not allow independent candidates a shot at winning, and now with Citizen's United to allow corporate 1% money to control both parties.

If you like corporate ownership of both parties, then continue saying you don't like Bernie. If you don't like that, you're not going to have that happen without someone like Bernie winning in 2016.

[ucrdem]

92. I'm not suggesting it, but yes I am predicting it.

I've been predicting that Sanders will run 3rd party since he got in. There's nothing to stop him and that's a huge problem. I hope I'm wrong. Time will tell.

[cascadiance]

107. If you ever tuned to Thom Hartmann the way most PROGRESSIVES do these days...

... you'd know that he has no plans to do that. He, Thom Hartmann, and many others realize that if you want to launch a real presidential campaign with a lot of support for it, and not just a symbolic Green Party candidacy that doesn't get a lot of attention or any chance at winning, that he has to go the route of running in the primary.

Until there's tangible evidence, which there is absolutely NOT, that he would run as a third party, then don't make him out to be the spoiler that he's not. He's not going to try and become the beacon of hate to our flawed system like Nader was, whether you like it or not. If you really are worried about third party candidacies that many of us don't think are going to happen this time around, you should push for instant runoff voting, which would eliminate a liberal independent or third party candidate splitting votes with a Democrat of a majority of American votes to put in place a Republican with only a plurality of support.

It's interesting that more Republicans don't demonize Perot for allowing Clinton to win the presidency with a plurality of the vote then too. Though Perot's votes might have gone to either Republicans or Democrats in that instance, if either party had stood against NAFTA then, I could see how many Republicans might interpret Perot as getting in the way of a Bush senior win then.

[ucrdem]

185. Hope you're right.

And thanks for the tip. Hartmann's show sounds great though I've only heard a few bits posted here. I've heard Sanders on Pacifica for years though and I've never felt the Bern so to speak, but I think I understand the appeal and why it's catching on so widely this year, which I will admit comes as a surprise. Based on what I know, I'd say the tea leaves point to a 3rd party protest candidacy, but if Sanders sticks to his word and demurs, he could be a great asset, so I'll keep my fingers crossed and hope for the best.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

219. There are flaws with the two party system

There are even more flaws in a system with vote-splitting when other parties get involved (See: Nader, Ralph).

I have mixed feelings on the issue. A friend of mine voted for a third-rail candidate several elections ago who had absolutely zero shot in the General. I felt at the time that it was a wasted vote, but perhaps his 'protest' vote was more important to him than being forced to hold his nose and vote for candidates he wasn't particularly interested in. I wouldn't recommend Sanders running as a 3rd candidate in a general, but the two party system isn't doing us any favors either.

[cascadiance]

258. Which is why those trying to blame Nader for losing should support Instant Runoff Voting...

... and make a big deal in trying to push the party to get it passed when they can, as it would solidify the Democratic Party if they truly put forth candidates that a majority of Americans support their policies with. I do believe if Democrats run on traditional Democratic Party values supporting the welfare of the 99% of us rather than selectively not working for us when certain issues the 1% wants something different, that with IRV in place, they will win, and it would serve more to minimize big money's influence on politics, as it would be harder for corporate interests to "buy the field".

Even if Ralph Nader and other third parties in most cases might still not have a chance at winning (though occasionally if they run a really good campaign against two bad mainstream candidates they'd have a bigger shot), they at least will be able to allow more voters supporting them and their platform to be heard by having the first pass vote totals be public showing the number of 1st place votes, even if the 2nd place votes of their voters puts someone like a Democrat in office. That gives a better measuring stick to those who want to govern what kind of stances they should take on issues that they might not have a measurement of with our current system of winner take all where people vote for the lesser of two evils.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

259. Instant Runoff Voting sounds good to me

Promoting ideas while also promoting democracy sounds win/win.

[redstateblues]

253. I'm a lifelong Democrat

and I don't need you to tell me what a REAL Democrat is. Bernie is a good guy- He is no President however and has no chance of winning in the GE much less the nomination. The polls reflect that

[cascadiance]

257. This poll says you are WRONG, and the polls you cite are WRONG...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-defeats-trump-by-a-wider-margin_b_8345156.html

If Bernie is beating Trump in polls by a wider margin than Clinton is, then how do you conclude that "he has no chance of winning"... If he has no chance of winning, then by your measure and this poll, she's already lost the general election.

Polls are polls! They are essentially meaningless at this point other than just serving as conversation topics. Obama was smart to ignore them when he was FARTHER behind Hillary at this point than Bernie is currently.

So, pardon if we all ignore the absolute BS that Bernie "has no chance" as echoed corporatist propaganda from the oligarchs that fear Bernie the most when he champions platform points that just about all of them are supported by a MAJORITY of AMERICANS, and not just the so-called "far left" that he's typically characterized as having as his base.

[MurrayDelph]

46. To be a progressive leader

one has to be progressive.

And lead.


(and again, for the record, if Hillary is the candidate next year, I will vote for her, as she is infinitely better than anyone the other side will have. But she is not my first choice. At the moment).

[JTFrog]

59. Hillary is a progressive.

Please don't tell me what to do.

[paleotn]

61. Hillary progressive?

....that's downright Orwellian. No point trying to change the minds of the true believers with facts and information. It's like arguing with a stump.

[dmosh42]

63. If she wins, the bankers will continue to have sleepovers in the White House!

[KansDem]

100. They'll all "progress" to the Oval Office...

...to collect on their investment.

[ToxMarz]

64. She may not be as progressive as you like, but anyone may choose to consider her progressive

Like socialism, it can be measured in degrees. She is progressive enough for me to call her one. She could be more IMHO, but I will be happy to call her Madam President. You are not the arbiter of progressiveness.

[Maedhros]

149. Is their no bad policy that Hillary supporters won't ignore to elect her President?

Do you have any expectations of what a Democratic President should be, other than "Presidential?"

[ToxMarz]

167. As Justice Potter Stewart said "I know it when I see it"

And I haven't seen anything to disqualify Hillary from be President, and I don't have to ignore anything. I know everything about her you do, and don't agree with everything about her but I support her for President. I think she we be amazing.

[retrowire]

68. never have and i don't plan to start now. n/t

[MohRokTah]

73. Hillary is the most progressive candidate in the race. eom

[cascadiance]

78. Saying she does without explanation is rather useless!

[MohRokTah]

80. Demanding people not say something is counter productive.

I DESPISE Sanders, solely because of his supporters.

[cascadiance]

113. I'm not demanding you not say something, but that you back up what you are saying...

... with something that explains such a strong opinion. If you just express an opinion, without details of why you feel that way, then what you are saying is mostly just going to solicit arguments rather than a constructive discussion. If you start out with saying she's the most "progressive" candidate without explaining why, then how do you expect people to respond? You are just trying to say something to rationalize your "despising" of the opposition.

The OP tries to establish with supporting content why he's making his claim. Why can't you do the same if you don't want people feeling you are just trying to "argue" here.

[paleotn]

115. Because they're infidels?....

...is that it? Because they're snarky and arrogant? Who isn't at this point in the Primaries. We've hit the emotional time, when any criticism of one's candidate is considered a personal attack and responded to as such. Luckily this will pass.

[mindwalker_i]

147. It's faith-based

I seems very much like support for Hillary, at least around here, is a religious faith in the magic (D). Actual policies and record don't matter.

[Bread and Circus]

260. You should calm down and get a grip.

[tblue37]

262. That is an incredibly illogical attitude. nt

[paleotn]

103. pfffffffffttt!......

You owe me a keyboard.

[kath]

90. This.

[Go Vols]

155. Yep

on the money

[840high]

170. Yes. Thank you.

[Babel_17]

84. It wasn't an attempt at humor?

Maybe she's just a victim of Poe's Law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

Anyone else think of the following when the talk is about labels?

He's a poet, he's a picker,
He's a prophet, he's a pusher,
He's a pilgrim and a preacher, and a problem when he's stoned.
He's a walking contradiction, partly truth and partly fiction,
Taking every wrong direction on his lonely way back home.

[NonMetro]

85. It Depends On How We Define "Progressive" These Days. Some examples:

1) Progressives supported trade deals that have outsourced jobs and lowered wages.
2) Progressive support the Death Penalty.
3) Progressives supported the Iraq war.

Personally, I would call HRC a conservative Democrat because that's what I think a "progressive" is.

"Progressives" are like religious people who support a woman's right to choose - sort of.

[cascadiance]

101. Yes, with the "Progressive" Policy Institute, and the "Progressive" Coalition for American Jobs...

... and other "Progressive" entities set up by the corporatist Third Way/DLC groups who are trying to HIJACK this term to sneak in NON-Progressive agendas masquerading as what many of us consider progressive principles.

Just because the Third Way tries to corrupt the meaning of progressive, doesn't mean we have to accept them doing that. We'll call foul and call them out for that attempt at blatant propaganda to LIE about what progressivism is to try and redefine it to fit their own oligarchic agenda, that can't work if it is honest to the American people about what they really want to do.

We moved on from using liberal when Rush Limbaugh was demonizing that as a dirty word. Right Wingers are trying to do the same thing with the term "socialist". But now they are trying to steal the term progressive as a mean to shutting down attempts to speak out against oligarchic agendas trying to shut down our system of democratic principles to get all power over us. There have also been attempts to try and demonize the term "populist" too in the same vein, even though populism in many cases isn't just progressive in stances on issues. It could be argued that in some contexts, that populism could be used to advocate issues like racism too, which wouldn't be progressive in that instance, but might be the kind of populism that tea bagger Republicans might try to push at times.

It's time we draw the line, and tell others when people do not fit the term of what we all feel is progressive (and have explained what is progressive on various issues like TPP, taxation, H-1B Visas, etc.) so that it is clear what this term represents. If you feel those issue stances aren't what you consider progressive, and think that where Hillary is different on them is somehow more progressive, then come out and explain why her stances are more progressive, instead of just playing the labeling game and demonizing those that want real progressivism as being "not as progressive" as the PTB.

[NonMetro]

122. I agree. Still, HRC Kind Of Defines What A "Progressive" Is These Days

So, she supports the death penalty, "progressives" support the death penalty. Now, if people want to call themselves "progressives" and they don't support the death penalty, but they do support her, then it's up to them to explain themselves. When they pull the lever for her in the voting booth, why are they doing that if they don't support the death penalty?

Your point about Limbaugh demonizing the word "liberal" is spot on! I recall that very well. People started calling themselves "progressive" because they were ashamed to identify as liberal among their friends. What people should have done is remember what JFK said, because liberals have absolutely everything to be proud of in our accomplishments in this country. Conservatives, OTOH, and I'm sure everyone reading this knows this as well as I do, have never done one damn thing to help the people of this country. Not one! And all conservatives have ever done, as they continue to do today, is obstruct and stand in the way of every liberal proposal to benefit the people of this country!

[Maedhros]

150. Just as "Liberal" was co-opted as a pejorative by the Republicans,

conservative Democrats are co-opting "Progressive" to mean "supports a few cherry-picked social issues."

[Lorien]

218. Those are all GOP positions on the issues

How do her positions differ from, say, Reagan's? The dictionary defines Progressive as:

noun
1.
a person advocating or implementing social reform or new, liberal ideas.
synonyms: innovator, reformer, reformist, liberal, libertarian
"he is very much a progressive"


(That's Webster's. The Urban Dictionary has a definition that was obviously written by a Freeper. Why it's allowed to stand is anyone's guess).

[NonMetro]

222. Sure, but they are also Hillary Clinton's positions...

And those Who support her call themselves "progressives". So, a "progressive" these days, for instance, supports the death penalty, trade deals that result in outsourcing, the war in Iraq, etc. I'm not saying those are "progressive" things. I'm just saying that what "progressives" are these days.

It's like she said about abortion. She wants it "safe, legal, and rare", and those "progressives" who support her support that. In other words, they support freedom of choice, but not too much. That's HRC: she supports a woman's right to choose abortion, as long as not too many of them do that. If it's not "rare", she has an issue with it. That's the position of those who then support her who call themselves "progressive." A liberal, by contrast, supports a woman's right to choose, period.

[MasonDreams]

86. Use her own words, Hillary told Rachel Maddow she's

Center-right, center, center-left, center. OK, I'm Ok with that.
The problem lies in the fact that the ''center" is way right of Eisenhower
and just slipped right of Nixon. She's hanging out w/Kissinger.

Your pissing on my leg and telling me its raining.

[stupidicus]

93. apparently your use of "please" suggests a rude demand

language/comprehension challenges like that may well explain in whole or in part why they support HC and call her a progressive.

[raindaddy]

94. Hillary's an aggressive..

She's aggressive when it comes to soliciting campaign donations from Wall Street and global corporations.

She'll aggressively appoint Wall Street and Corporate insiders to her administration.

And she'll be aggressive in carrying out their agenda.

[GummyBearz]

108. The only way she could call herself a progressive

Is if she had an auto insurance policy from progressive, but she can't even claim that. I know this because she doesn't drive.

[yuiyoshida]

168. I bet she doesn't even know Flo!

[JohnnyRingo]

114. Hillary is a progressive

I hate when self righteous far left liberal purists try to tell me what I can do as a democrat.

I'm not even a fan of Hillary Clinton, but posts like this just drive me away from Sanders. I don't want people to think I'm associated with the insufferable "better than you because I'm liberal" crowd. For those like myself who have been a DU member long enough, this is like Dennis Kucinich v2.0

BTW, though I'm something of a moderate, I'm absolutely no less a democrat than anyone else here. I'll put my 40 year voting history and volunteer service record up against anyone.

No rec for you for trying to divide DU and the party.

[Desert805]

216. you're not supposed to vote for the supporters

it's the candidates who are running.

duh.

[Nitram]

120. Hillary Clinton is and has always been a progressive.

Please stop telling us that she's not. You can cherry pick all you want, her life has been a long testament to herr progressive values.

[DownriverDem]

126. Please don't call Hillary your enemy either

To become the Dem nominee, you have to rack up enough delegates. You win them by winning primary elections, caucuses, and getting support from the super delegates. Hillary already has racked up super delegates.


She is not your enemy. I, as her supporter, is not your enemy.

I just don't get the hate on Hillary. We Dems do not do hate for our candidates.

[Maedhros]

152. I consider Hillary supporters to be my political opponents, in a larger sense than just

"Bernie v. Hillary." They represent that faction of Democrats that will excuse and rationalize any bad behavior by a Democrat simply because their political arguments start and end with "Blue Team v. Red Team." They have such incredibly low expectations of Democratic candidates that "voting for the lesser of two evils" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In this sense, Hillary is a fantastic bellwether - just look at all the objectionable behavior (IWR vote, private prison industry coziness, warmongering, Wall Street ties, sleazy campaign behavior, etc.) that they are willing to overlook in service of identity politics. That kind of behavior has nearly killed the Party.

[azurnoir]

132. IMO she is at best a centrist more accurately a I'll say whatever will get me a vote ist

[Rebkeh]

133. On the surface is one thing, delving deeper

at some point it comes down to a simple decision: people or profit first? I'm not saying Hillary doesn't care about people, I'll even concede she is liberal on some issues. But at the core, she clearly chooses money/profit/business as her primary value. She does extremely well in an unjust system, but said system is ultimately optional. If we truly believe we can have the country we want, why would we want her as President? We have a chance to tip the scale, even if it's just a start. Why not now? The republicans are flailing, after all.

[Gothmog]

136. You are entitled to your opinion on this issue and we are entitled to our opinion

I disagree with the premise of this thread and I beleive that Hillary Clinton is a progressive.

[Gamecock Lefty]

139. Not Another Post About This Crap?

I love this "Hillary's not really a progressive" nonsense from the self-righteous types that think they have a monopoly on liberalism.

[Broward]

142. Warmongering corporatist fits the bill.

[xynthee]

143. Amen!

If Hillary is progressive, we're going to have to find a new word!

[olddots]

145. I don't want to consider Hillary my enemy

I feel betrayed by her which is my fault because she mislead me by assuming the progressive lable. ( this makes no sence ) why do I hate her ? let me count the ways .

This is a big problem here that only the election hopefully will heal .

[Tarc]

146. Hillary Clinton is not your enemy

[FlatBaroque]

173. You are technically correct

Her sponsors are our enemy.

[arcane1]

153. Especially since she herself says she's a "moderate"

At least, that's what she says to moderates.

[sabrina 1]

169. I don't! n/t

[LynneSin]

174. I'll call her anything I want

Thank you

[NotHardly]

178. We might want to figure out how to stand together ... or we will surely hang seperately

In the next year a new President will be elected. Castigating our own democratic candidates by either side in unproductive and quite frankly can lead to the other guys winning... and we all know what that means. So, quit the bashing and the winning ... you've got two choices... a republican or democrat president next year, the gnashing of teeth and railing against the democratic contenders may ultimately have the effect of keeping some voters from the polls and then you'll own those results. And, we'll have to live with our inability to work together and suffer 4 years with some Republican.

[HassleCat]

179. She's pragmatic, and so am I

Clinton supports policies and positions that could be called progressive. She supports some of them, some of the time, with many exceptions, qualifications and clarifications. I support her the same way, with exceptions, qualifications and clarifications. I figure, if she can do it, so can I. I share your disgust at the sycophants who pour syrupy praise on everything she does, claiming she will be a great president, transformational, revolutionary, etc. She will be lucky to win the election, considering her inability to inspire political passion among Democrats who hold traditional Democratic values. There is little doubt she will win the nomination, although I keep hoping for a miracle, and the Republicans are disorganized, so her chances look good in the general election. I just hope we don't have four or eight years of listening to her acolytes worship her here on DU.

[Jack Rabbit]

183. To those who call Hillary a progressive

Last edited Fri Oct 30, 2015, 06:06 PM - Edit history (1)

[center]

[/center][font size="1"]from Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll.
[/font]
I started describing myself as a progressive toward the end of the Bill Clinton administration when it was clear that he favored trickle-down economics and supported trade agreements that hurt most Americans, in addition to signing Republican laws like welfare deform, and the deregulation of the telecommunications and banking industry. It seemed to me that it was a wholesale embrace of Reaganomics, yet Clinton and his minions continued to call themselves liberals. OK, if liberals were such wimps, then I must be something else.

When, after acquiescing to Generalissimo Bush's and Vice Premier Cheney's coup d'etat of 2000, congressmen and senators who once described themselves as liberals, including Senator Hillary Clinton, began supporting his imperialist designs on Iraq, my view that liberals were wimps was reinforced. The Frat Boy's program for war included an assault on the due process of law and other constitutionally guaranteed freedoms as well as the explicit use of torture, the liberals went right along and voted for the USA PATRIOT Act, every special appropriation to fund the war the Bush Junta requested and, in 2006, more restrictions on civil liberties. Liberals, who I had long thought of as wimps, hardly seemed to be liberals any more; and I continued to call myself a progressive.

When Barack Obama ran for President, I thought this was a kindred spirit I could get behind. He opposed the war in Iraq and favored diplomacy over just sending in the Marines any time some dictator, or even an elected leader, became troublesome; he favored a more transparent government that would return to a guarantee of civil liberties for its common citizens, perhaps even protecting the powerless from the powerful. In the wake of the crash of 2008, he criticized the role of bankers and banking deregulation. And health insurance reform of some kind? I was in.

It would be wrong to say that he didn't mean a word of it. He did get us out of Iraq and now seems to be in the process of getting us back in to Iraq (and Syria and Jordan and Lebanon) without a clear plan of what to do there. He did prod congress into passing a watered down health insurance reform package that was less than a full-blown European style socialized medical program and still left unscrupulous health insurance companies in place to continue to prove why we really need full-blown European style socialized medicine. He has a personal dislike of war as a policy and would rather negotiate an agreement with a hostile state rather than go to war with it has paid dividends, such as the agreement with Iran. Beyond that, there's little good to say about the last six and a half years. That's not all President Obama's fault. The racist and misogynist Republican party has marched lock step against anything he proposes, except bad trade deals. They saw a successful black man and responded as racists have since emancipation: they tried to kill his mule and pour manure down his well. However, no Republican held a gun to President Obama's or Attorney General Eric Holder's head to get them to treat Wall Street criminals with kid gloves. Obama needed no encouragement from Republicans to negotiate the TPP, TTIP or TISA. No progressive would have entered such negotiations. The unprecedented secrecy in negotiating the the deals and the ridiculous procedures that members of Congress were made to go through just to read the damned thing indicates that there's something willfully opaque about the process and that there's something political/financial establishment doesn't want the common people to know. A progressive, of course, believes in transparency.

It used to be that Americans simply did not do as well under Republican administrations as under Democratic administrations. Nowadays. wages fall under Republicans and remain stagnant under Democrats. That may make Democrats better than Republicans, but it's nothing to write home about.

A progressive would not have negotiated free trade agreements; a progressive would not have been so nice to Legs Dimon and Pretty Boy Lloyd; a progressive would fight to undo banking deregulation; a progressive would not but boots on the ground in the Middle East or anywhere else with a clear idea of what military force is supposed to accomplish. Mrs. Clinton's present opposition to the TPP is unconvincing. She give no specific reason for opposing it. Mrs. Clinton takes a lot of money from Wall Street and cannot be expected to roll back banking deregulation. Reinstating Glass-Steagal is a progressive position; Alan Blinder, an aid to Mrs. Clinton, said that is something she would not do and Mrs. Clinton has said nothing to set the record straight. Mrs. Clinton, in word and deed, has supported a disastrous and unnecessary war in what can only be described as an anti-progressive political decision.

While Mrs. Clinton has a laudable record on civil rights for women, racial minorities and, perhaps belatedly, the LGBT community, her spotty record on issues of economic justice makes these bright spots on her career ring hollow. Social justice for traditionally persecuted minorities works hand-in-hand with economic justice for American workers. To support one and not the other leaves at best a watered down version of both. The two cannot be separated. So even here, Mrs. Clinton is not a progressive.

Please don't call Mrs. Clinton a progressive. It cheapens the word. It is an abuse of the English language.


Don't call Hillary Clinton a progressive.

[rhett o rick]

195. Great post. nm

[senz]

188. Who in their right mind would call Hillary Clinton a progressive?

Surely it's not an issue.

[rhett o rick]

198. Ironically those that spew hatred toward the "far left". They are so easily fooled. nm

[Doctor_J]

189. yesterday the proprietor of the new hate site proclaimed that progressives are the worst enemy

of the pragmatic democrats like Hillary. Now the fan club is insisting she's a progressive. They don't seem to have any values they can stick with.

[Attorney in Texas]

194. How about "please don't call Clinton a progressive during the primary"? Clearly, she is no

progressive as compared to Sanders or O'Malley. That's shamefully true.

But she's far more progressive than any of the clowns across the aisle.

Historically, she fought

* with (then professor) Warren against the bankruptcy bill that was so harmful to impoverished and at risk families,
* against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
* against obstacles to voting rights,
* in favor of gun control,
* in favor of protecting social security,
* in favor of increasing the minimum wage, wage equality, and the right to collectively bargain,
* in favor of expanded public health care.

In the current election campaign, she is advocating progressive positions on these same issues plus a greater emphasis on

* campaign finance reform,
* enhanced access to public education including college,
* criminal justice reform.

Does this put Clinton in the same ballpark as Sanders or even O'Malley? No. Does it rescue her from being in the same ballpark and Bush or Rubio or Trump? Hell yes.

Clinton is not a progressive as compared to the rest of the current Democratic field, but her voting record was just barely to the left of Obama's (who's record was to the left of Biden's) when they were all in the Senate together. As compared to even the least crazy batshits running for the Republican nomination, she's miles more progressive than any of them.

Finally, one more thought. I am a pacifist as well as a progressive, and I infer from your post that you are, too. But we shouldn't conflate those two beliefs. They are not the same. The greatest progressive presidents since the turn of the previous century have been FDR, LBJ, JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ike -- none of whom was a pacifist (quite the opposite, in fact).

[Lil Missy]

200. Hillary is a Progressive. n/t

[colsohlibgal]

203. Mass Hypnosis

Or delusion? Hillary is more progressive than what the republicans have on parade but how low is that bar?

For the most part she would be the female version of Obama in office. Obama when a candidate in 2008 talked way to the left of where Hillary is talking now. Then he went straight Neo.

Hillary will not appoint Stiglitz to her financial team once in, any connection to him now is window dressing.

Hillary zombies should listen to The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again" song over and over. Or, for comic relief, watch our verbally challenged president Dubya botch the old "fool me once " saying.

[passiveporcupine]

208. In her own words

“Nixon cemented the ascendance of a conservative over a moderate ideology within the Republican Party,” she wrote in “Living History.” “I sometimes think that I didn’t leave the Republican Party as much as it left me.”

http://www.salon.com/2008/04/08/hillary_1968/

Yes the republican party has continued to move rightward, and many of the moderate republicans have probably left the party and call themselves democrats now. But that doesn't make them progressive. Her social progressiveness on some issues has been noted and I agree, on some social issues she is progressive. But not on many issues (especially economic) that are part and parcel of the "progressive" package.

Now here is an opinion from this same link...

“What that meant was that she was vitally interested in the problems of poor people,” he said. “And Republicans are traditionally not interested in the problems of poor people.”

I cannot agree with this, considering later in her life, she worked on the board of Wal-mart and expressed favor for the company, in spite of it's use of slave labor overseas, and other bad policies and it's affect on jobs in small towns and bringing wages down...and never stood up for unions.

and this:

she wants to win the Roseanne vote that was key to Democratic victories of old. But her best chance at winning the nomination may lie in shaking loose some extra delegates — working the levers of the party machinery behind closed doors, just the way Mayor Daley might have done it long ago.

While this was written about her battle with Obama over POTUS, it is still true today.

[Segami]

209. +1

thanks....

[raouldukelives]

240. The inherent difficulty with crony capitalists.

They love addressing the issues, just not solving them. Corporations make money by making sure nothing is ever done to solve things, only to perpetuate them for profit.

Interesting quote. “I sometimes think that I didn’t leave the Republican Party as much as it left me.” Reminds me of what Chafee said at the debate about being a piece of granite.

[BootinUp]

212. LABELS SMABELS

She doesn't care how you label yourself, and she doesn't care how I label her. All that matters is whether we are moving in the right direction or not. If you think that a Hillary Clinton administration will move us in the wrong direction then vote your conscience! I will support her though you can bet on that.

[sabrina 1]

217. Hillary is a Third Wayer, period.

[rhett o rick]

223. So you say her stand on SS isn't progressive? Just because it sounds like the same shit

that we hear from Republcons.

Her stand on the Iraq War was also the same as the Republicons.

Her stand on the Patriot Act is the same as the Republicons.

Her stand on the TPP and Fracking are the same as the Republicons.

Do I need to continue? She and the Republicons agree way toooo often.

She had the chance to say she wants to help SS by raising the cap or lowering the age, but she didn't. So we must figure that she doesn't want to help us. She wants to "enhance" which is code for fuck-up.

We may not be able to win against the 1% billionaires, but we won't stop fighting. Those of you that don't care about the 50 million Americans living in poverty will sooner or later have to answer for your selfishness. The People will prevail.

[snot]

226. K&R'd & bookmarked.

[Rincewind]

229. Hillary Clinton is a Progressive nt.

[rtb61]

230. Really Unusual For DailyKOS

That is extremely unusual for DailyKOS they are a hard core Democratic Party establishment fake grass roots organisation. They'll attack Republican but normally always defend Democrats not matter what they do.
What is more interesting is the comments, real hostility between the establishment Democrats (the Republicans in Democrat clothing because that's where the money is for them) and the Liberal progressives and the Liberal progressives call out the DailyKos as being establishment Democrat, the pragmatic Democrat the Republican Democrat forum (losing members might be forcing change).
At least the lie is now being challenged there is no such thing as a pragmatic democrat, that is quit simply a professional politician choosing to pretend to be a Democrat because that is where the money is for them.
You want a real obvious pragmatic political decision, here is the most simple example, a politician gets paid one hundred thousand dollars a year to represent the people, a corrupt businessman offers that politician a million dollars a year to represent just the businessman, now all of you, what is the pragmatic choice, we all know the answer to that.
I don't want a bloody pragmatic politician up for sale, I want one who will stick core policies and represent the people no matter how little it is in the pragmatic interests of the politician, I want that politician adhere to a spirit of honesty and honour and say rack off to the pragmatist or in real world language the sell outs (being a sell out is the typical pragmatic choice).
Hillary Clinton the pragmatic politician, selling out to the highest bidder, the pragmatic choice.

[billhicks76]

231. What Idiot Did That?

No one in their right mind believes that. She supports NSA, prisons, wars etc. the list is endless. Not even worth arguing over anymore.

[Maedhros]

232. Hillary is a Progressive

War is Peace
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength

[marym625]

234. Bravo!

Thank you and thank you for saying it so honestly.

Let's not pretend she is actually coming out against the TPP. It was a qualified statement that lets her off the hook. More to the point, how has she seen it? She is not in office. She is a private citizen.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

235. It would take a special kind of idiot to call Hillary Clinton a progressive.

[sabrina 1]

236. I don't think half the people on this site would call Hillary a Progressive. SHE doesn't btw. I

a small group here, about 10% perhaps.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

237. just dropped in to say

Hillary Clinton is most definitely a progressive.

All of the female Democratic senators signed a secret letter to Hillary Rodham Clinton early this year encouraging her to run for president in 2016 -- a letter that includes the signature of Sen. Elizabeth Warren and other senators who are mentioned as potential candidates, two high-ranking Democratic Senate aides told ABC News.
The letter, organized at the urging of Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., was meant to be a private show of support from a group of 16 high-profile former colleagues and fans who are now senators, urging Clinton to do what much of the Democratic Party assumes she will, the aides said.

http://huff.to/1f4eXI3

[JonLeibowitz]

245. Speaking of endorsements and encouragement..

Emily's List has a history of backing non-progressive women over more progressive men, simply because their candidate is a woman. Is that happening here? Maybe.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

246. Emily's List promotes women candidates.

De Blasio and Brown are very progressive and need a champion in the White House who can really get things done.

Bernie has an admiral goal with no way to reach it. Congress will not support the levels of tax increases he'd need to achieve even one of his gosls.

[JonLeibowitz]

247. I refuse to accept defeat before a single vote is cast. Obviously, some politicians disagree n/t

[SleeplessinSoCal]

248. Good. That's the right thing to do.

And don't accept defeat if Bernie isn't nominated. Fight to get more Bernie's into Congress.

[JonLeibowitz]

249. Will do!

I vote every time for strong progressive candidates with a history of progressiveness, even minor elections like this coming Tuesday.

Bernie is only the beginning, even if he isn't nominated.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

238. my favorite kind of progressive - a persuasive pragmatic one.

Endorsed by liberal progressive Mayor Bill de Blasio.



“I think she’s one of the most qualified people to ever run for this office and, by the way, thoroughly vetted,” de Blasio said then. “But we need to see the substance.”

[Todays_Illusion]

254. I call Hillary a corporate conservative, always have but she now seems to have gone

socially conservative on Social Security, Death Penalty, and she is too silent on drug prohibition and sentencing reform.

[Todays_Illusion]

263. Her election campaign sell out was pretty obvious, first she was moving left along with Bernie, then

Suddenly she was spewing all this third way libertarian double talk and hedging coming out in one week supporting the Death penalty calling a slow down on wages that have been suppressed since the 1970s not mentioning the voter disenfranchisement among other startling statements.

Followed by endorsement by that tech libertarian "environmental" group. A social organization that can operate as tax exempt and meddle in politics as well, if you look at all the Democratic they have supported, they are all economic and political conservatives, or that New Democratic or third way whatever name the so called anti-democratic libertarians hide under the most visible being that word progressive. If you are liberal say so, talk the talk and walk the walk, like Bernie Sanders.