Hillary Clinton IS A Liberal? So What?

[demwing]

I don't doubt her credentials on that front.

I'm just saying that at this place and in this time, being liberal is no longer enough.

We are in an economic fight for our lives, and we need an economic populist to lead that fight. Despite Clinton's impressive resume, despite her liberal street creds, she has never really been a populist.
Despite her progressive words, she has never really stood with the 99%.
Despite her campaign rhetoric, she has never really been willing to fight for the middle class, not when doing so might jeopordize her relationship with the same Wall Street interests that underwrite her campaigns.

She's a great Lefty Liberal, in an America that can no longer choose candidates based on their Left-Right differences. Times have changed. The rules of engagement have been rewritten.

To paraphrase another Clinton campaign: "It's the Economic Justice, Stupid!"

There's only one candidate in this race that can draw a real comparison to the New Deal policies of FDR.
There's only one candidate in this race that could stand on Roosevelt Island and give a speech about economic justice, without bringing up the spectres of Glass-Steagall's repeal and Goldman Sach's donations.
There's only one candidate in this race that can really lead a battle against Wall Street.

Ask yourself honestly if you think that candidate is Hillary Clinton, or if that candidate is Bernie Sanders.

In honor of our choice, I'm changing my populist icon from Warren to Sanders, and am sending Bernie another $50.

No hate for Hillary, I just want someone whose desire to defend the 99% outweighs their fear of offending the 1%.

[vi5]

1. We've tried threading the needle and we just got stuck...

No more needle threading. Stands need to be taken by any candidate who wants to be taken seriously.

[peacebird]

2. K&R. The candidate for We, The People is Bernie!

[azmom]

3. Bernie Sanders has said he wants to break up big banks.

He is not afraid.

[Kalidurga]

4. I don't know if she is or isn't.

It is fun watching her make Conservative heads explode, I am up for anything that does that. But, you are right that is not enough. We need to get money out of politics, we need to get our military out of endless occupations, we need to close down some foreign bases, and we need a Commander in chief who will help the people in this country wage the war on income equality and social justice.

[demwing]

5. You're right Kali - we don't know

But I'm willing to accept her as a liberal because there are leftist 1%ers. Social Liberals who support LGBT rights, racial justice, and environmental regulations, but who chase the capitalist Golden calf of campaign cash

[Kalidurga]

6. I am okay with accepting her as a liberal

We don't all have to think alike. As we well know it's impractical to run a campaign without money. And money donated to campaigns tends to be from rich people even if someone tries to make it look grassroots like the Tea Party did with Koch money. I am not putting Hillary in THAT camp, but she has a similar situation with Wall Street and that is just how it is, she at least doesn't try to make it look like she is some grassroots candidate and a long shot or like she is struggling for campaign money. So, I do appreciate what she does for social justice issues.

[demwing]

7. I don't think that Clinton is soulless

I think she's forgotten her soul, maybe wouldn't even recognize it if she tripped over it.

[Kalidurga]

8. I don't think she is either. I think she's still a nice person.

But, it takes a lot more than being a liberal and a nice person to lead a populist revolution.

[demwing]

9. Carry the flame

Feel the Bern!

[Kalidurga]

10. Feel the Bern!!!

[fadedrose]

15. To go from Third Way to Liberal is a huge step

What are the friends who pay $200,000 per speech going to say? She just said on TV today that some of the guys who caused the meltdown on Wall St should have gone to jail, that is, if I heard her right.

Commendable, but astonishing at the same time..

[Kalidurga]

16. Yes it is astonishing

It only took what is it 7 years to say it.

[merrily]

11. I don't think liberals found the DLC, or travel with Al From to spread the DLC

gospel to Europe, or joined the Congressional New Democrat Coalition.

Or propose flag desecration legislation after the SCOTUS held it to be free speech.

Or get a rating of 60 from the American Civil Liberties Union.

Or vote for a trumped up war.

Or back NAFTA.

Or run "racially tinged" or anti-Semitic campaigns.

[demwing]

12. A liberal might, a progressive populist wouldn't

If you use the standard dictionary definition of Liberal: "Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values"

I'm not always liberal, because I believe that some traditional values should not be discarded. 3rd way Dems are liberals because of their willingness to discard traditional Democratic party values, like Social Security, Medicare, support of Labor, and protection of the middle class.

But we're bypassing the point - I don't care if she's the most liberal politician in Washington, or the least.

"Liberal" is not enough. Not anymore. Left-Right is not enough of a distinction. Not anymore.

The struggle of our time is between the 1% and the 99%. Oligarchs v Populists. The power elite v the people.

Within that matrix, it's much more clear to me why Clinton is the unacceptable Democratic candidate - on every metric, she's on the wrong side of history.

[merrily]

13. "Progressive" means different things to different people, and, IMO, that is deliberate.

It's like "Middle class." No one knows what it actually means when a politician says it, but each of us assumes we do.

However, you're correct. It's bypassing the point. Whatever label one uses, the person who did the things I described in my prior post is not my candidate.

[cascadiance]

14. Joseph Stalin was a commie but was NOT a "populist", which is probably why Fred Koch liked him...

... enough to do business and build the Koch empire and keep Joseph Stalin's tradition of empowering the 1% over the 9% alive, whether the state be "communist" or "capitalist"...

Using the term "populist" is VERY hard for the oligarchs to redefine or try to marginalize. It confronts them head on, and therefore they have a lot harder time of redefining it or deflecting it like they do other terms such as "liberal", "socialist", or progressive"...