If No One Challenges Hillary Clinton From The Left, One Progressive Group Will

[xchrom]

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/if-no-one-challenges-hillary-clinton-from-the-left-one-progr



Two years from now, on the eve of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, it’s possible that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could be running for the nomination without a major opponent to her left.

But even if no serious Clinton challenger in the mold of progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren emerges, a nonprofit group called the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, or PCCC, is prepared to take up the mantle.

Co-founder Adam Green says plans are already in the works to pressure Clinton from the left on Wall Street reform and Social Security, sending PCCC members to storm her early town hall meetings and using Warren — the Massachusetts freshman senator who is increasingly held up as the hero of the party’s left wing — as the guiding force of their movement.

“Elizabeth Warren is the North Star of where our party should be going and is going,” Green said in a phone interview, citing Warren’s work on student loans, her introduction of a new Glass-Steagall Act earlier this year, and a speech she delivered last week that advocated for the expansion of Social Security.

[LuvNewcastle]

1. I don't see what good these people are doing if they're not

working to find a candidate. Warren keeps saying she isn't going to run and the people close to her say the same thing. If they're going to help challenge Hillary, they're going to have to do better than showing up at her rallies and firing questions at her. Are they working to find a candidate? Only another candidate will defeat Clinton, not a bunch of questions about Elizabeth Warren's issues.

[onpatrol98]

2. Different goal

I think their goal is to "encourage" Clinton to include parts of a platform that she might want to minimize in order to seem more centrist in search of the ever elusive independent. To avoid a contender running to the left of her...any contender, who could bring her negatives up by running in a primary they knew they were going to lose, they would want her to agree to truly commit to a progressive agenda.

[LuvNewcastle]

4. I don't think much of that goal.

If she thinks she can avoid having a challenger, she'll say just about anything to get our votes. The public are more politically savvy than a lot of people give them credit for. They know when a candidate is mollifying her base, while the base laps it all up and tells themselves that it's okay to support her. It's the same old game and I'm not interested in playing it.

If progressives want someone who will represent their interests, they're going to have to find a candidate, because Hillary Clinton is completely untrustworthy when it comes to supporting our issues. If they're serious, they need to find a candidate who is determined to beat her, not someone who is resigned to losing.

[HereSince1628]

6. She'll say anything to get our votes, anyway. That's basically what all politicians

from Rahm Emanuel's side of the party have done for a generation.

And when they get caught, it's all excused because, "you can't do anything if you aren't elected".

At best it's a sick system.

[LuvNewcastle]

9. Exactly, she'll say anything. That's why I'm not interested in hearing it.

They think they're going to move Hillary Clinton further left. Ha! She'll do exactly what she wants when she gets in office.

[ReRe]

40. At best it is a trick system...

... and I don't like tricks. For once I would like to vote for a candidate who espouses something other than "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." That makes me feel . That's the slickest cop-out I've ever heard, I don't care if God said it. It's the same with "You can't do anything if you aren't elected." Those kind of statements are condescending and I think downright insulting.

If Hillary is the Democratic candidate for the 2016 general election, I will vote for her. But I hope Bernie Sanders runs, as well as Elizabeth Warren. If nothing else, they will guarantee a lively debate and possibly drag Hillary Clinton back to at least left of todays middle.

[rhett o rick]

55. Understand that but it's not a reason to not try to pin her down. Of course having a progressive

candidate is the best, but let's face it there are not a lot of hopefuls and we would need to start now to get name recognition. Another thing that is being overlooked is that if Christie is the R candidate then Clinton will need the left's support. Obama needed the left's support in 2008 but then in 2012 he picked up enough Centrist/Republicans that he didnt need the left. But lots of Centrist/Republicans that voted for Obama in 2012 will vote for Christie.

There is no way to force a candidate to keep their promises. But we must always challenge them.

[HereSince1628]

57. I don't want her pinned down, for that matter I don't want her not pinned down

Typically, the primary candidates don't all emerge until late summer or early fall the year before. Name recognition can jump up pretty damned quick.

Clinton will need the left in the general, but a "socialist" progressive to her left and a less trusted Wall St. dem on the right is what would get her the nomination.

I suspect that Carville is already working that.

[rhett o rick]

65. I disagree with the name recognition. The Corp-Media wont help any

last minute progressive get name recognition. I think it will be real difficult to defeat Clinton in the primary. Ironically she will have the full force of Citizens United behind her.

[HereSince1628]

67. Being in a year ahead is hardly last minute.

As an example of a person who simply jumped up and onto media radar that late in the game is Wesley Clark.

It's true that not everyone attracts broad media attention...I think Mosley-Braun is an example of that.

[polichick]

7. Well said. I wrote to boldprogressives asking if they'd draft and back a prez candidate...

and they never answered my email (and I'm a member). Don't know how serious they are.

[LuvNewcastle]

10. Apparently they aren't serious, which makes me question their credibility as progressives.

[karynnj]

32. Sadly, they are serious

IMO, their tactics are really unhelpful. I remember in 2009, that they had a series of really obnoxious ads - targeting Democrats - that they felt were not for the public option. However, rather than make the case their position, the ads completely attacked their integrity - mostly using campaign finance information.

I got into an email conversation with Green - because surprisingly, he responded to comments that I emailed him - as well as posted. It will surprise no one that the reason was that in addition to the people against the public option, he decided to target John Kerry. (Using the fact that his career sums of money collected was high - ignoring that it was because he had been our nominee.) In sum, he admitted that he included Kerry because having volunteered on the 2004 campaign he was angry that Kerry was not more forcibly fighting for a public option. His goal - for putting out (in his case) internet ads was to get Kerry to step forward rather than to work within the Finance committee to make the bill marginally better where he could.)

I disclose this because it seems his goal is the same here. He wants Hillary Clinton to be the candidate he wants, not necessarily the candidate that her team wants her to be to win or who she really is. To me, BOTH of these actions show a huge amount of chutzpah on his part. In Hillary's case, it also ignores that she is a known quantity. It also ignores that some of the vague outlines we are beginning to see show that Hillary may well run a more progressive campaign. Any shifts that HRC makes MUST be seen as something organic - something true to her - as seen by many comments here, NO ONE will be happy with a HRC suddenly speaking like Alan Grayson!

Two issues seem to highlight changes to the left. One is that she has tied together her advocacy as a recent Yale Law School graduate, her time as First Lady of both Arkansas and the US and her time as SoS - on her record for advocating for women and children. Although this was a theme in 2008, it seems to be far more high profile now. ( The only danger I see here is whether Republicans will push her on whether we should stay in Afghanistan - either backing an unpopular continuation of the war or being open to question on the assurances to Afghan women.)

The second is more surprising as it is not rooted in the past. She has given speeches on both green building and sustainability. These are actually closer to things that have moved John and Teresa Kerry than the Clintons - The Kerrys actually were 2 of the co founders of Second Nature, which they did right after they met before they married and Teresa was a leader in Green building and the reason that Pittsburgh has many green buildings. (I know the Clinton Foundation has done some things on green buildings - but last I read it was more talk, than action.) Bill Clinton had a poor record on the environment in Arkansas and neither were as concerned about global warming as Gore and Kerry. Because this is a new level of commitment, it is actually a sign that on this issue HRC has already moved to the left and it is believable.

It will be interesting to see how she positions herself for 2016. If Obama gets something passed on immigration, there may be two big issues central to Democrats that - because they are partly "fixed" could be less important - health care and immigration. However, it might be the Republicans may run on rolling them back - giving any Democrat very simple positions.

[JDPriestly]

79. The most important issue facing Americans today is the disparity in wealth between rich and

poor. And a corollary to that is the great tragedy of our declining middle class, the class from which creativity and talent arise, new ideas and new businesses.

To deal with that issue, we have to change Wall Street, the way investments work, our trade strategy, our employment law, tax law and improve our safety net. These issues are especially important to women and children yet Hillary is extremely weak when it comes to economic issues, just as weak as Obama.

I do not see much hope for America unless we get a president who can confront these issues and find a solution to them that is consistent with American values. Hillary is not that person.

Elizabeth Warren would be. And I think she can be persuaded to run.

Hillary would be more of the same old, same old, same old. Voters are likely to recognize that and could vote for some very harmful right-winger like Ted Cruz out of desperation. Hillary should come to her senses, recognize that she is not right for America today and back Elizabeth Warren. If Hillary loves America, that is what she will do.

[TBF]

12. It's early - have patience

most don't announce this early. Media is pushing along the Clinton vs. Christie narrative for their own purposes. I personally like Clinton as well (only because she has the name recognition - I'm not a fan of the neo-lib policies) - but I'm not at all convinced she will run either. Clinton is getting older and her health may be a factor in 2 years.

I'd be very surprised if Elizabeth doesn't show up in the primary. And I don't think we have to decide this now. We have the 2014 vote to get out.

[Laelth]

23. Good post.

I thought it was very odd when Chelsea Clinton said her mother needed some rest.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/329043-chelsea-clinton-mom-needs-a-year-to-rest

That's a strange thing to hear from a family member when she's the assumed front-runner for the Party's nomination for President. That said, it's hard for me to imagine Hillary Clinton not running. I suspect she feels the pressure of millions of women who have pinned their hopes upon her becoming the first woman President of the United States.



-Laelth

[TBF]

24. Exactly.

And we need to focus on 2014. If they kill us in the states we are done anyway.

We will get to 2016 and I'm quite confident we'll have a candidate.

[riqster]

82. Ding ding ding!

2014 is at least as important as 2016, and unlike 2016 we have a lot of quantified, known candidates to support/oppose.

[blue14u]

80. I read about this

when Chelsea said it, and a flag went up for me...

Hillary has had some health problems and is ageing. As a woman myself

younger that HRC, I can say she may not have it in her to run again..

Its hard... really hard. My family

has been asking my tired, old as Clinton, Mother to not run again in her

district. Not being ugly, but give her a break. She did her time for

the country. Let her enjoy her private life now. Even the 4 year difference in age

between Clinton and Warren is a big difference, not to mention health history..We need someone younger than Hillary imo. Even if only 4 years younger..

[blue14u]

71. You summed that up

very nicely TBF!!!... Thank you. I like your take on this, and agree 100%..

2014 is my focus at this time, we must get out the VOTE

and we must win! I do push for Elizabeth Warren

every chance I get. She would be my choice for us in 2016.. I am very hopeful

I will have an opportunity to not only campaign for her, but also VOTE for her.

[L0oniX]

35. "she'll say just about anything to get our votes" Exactly!

Isn't that what both corporate parties do?

[7962]

16. I agree. "Storming" her meetings will only give her sympathy from the "centrist' wing;

which will just increase the chances that she takes the lead.

[JackRiddler]

19. Hello?

They're working to find a candidate.

This couldn't be more obvious.

Thanks.

[2banon]

68. Elizabeth Warren's Issues?

No. Those issues that Warren gives voice to, are OUR issues.

[JDPriestly]

75. I would like to see a draft Warren group nominate her at the convention.

I plan to get a tee-shirt.

[billhicks76]

81. Better Hurry

I hope Warren does run. It doesn'tstter what Hillary promises during the election if we just get betrayed later. We need a real Progressive...but one who is unique and has a couple Republican causes that it supports. It's not implausible.

[Scuba]

3. “Elizabeth Warren is the North Star of where our party should be going and is going,”

[HappyMe]

5. Exactly.

More progressive candidates must be found. They may not win at first, but at least progressive ideas get out there which will enable them to win. I saw on Chris Matthews last night that Clinton is popular among Republicans. Not exactly a glowing recommendation for a Dem candidate as far as I'm concerned.

A few of us here aren't going to swallow the 'inevitable' meme without a fight. We are meeting up to try to get an email campaign together for a progressive Dem candidate. It may not work, as we don't have a ton of money or connections, but we are going to try.

[blue14u]

85. Please let me know if there is

something I can do to help.. I'm all in for this!!!

[blue14u]

72. YEP!!! No doubt

in my mind..

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I both support this effort and oppose those who might demonize Hillary in the process

We should put pressure on Hillary from the left. Definitely. And if a candidate from the left catches fire with the public and actually defeats her in the primaries, glory be. At the same time I hope few if any of us fall into some of the ugliest attacks against Hillary that were routinely thrown about during the 2008 primaries. Hillary is mildly center left, far to the right of where I want the Democratic Party to be. But come 2016 if she has the Democratic Party nomination I would enthusiastically, not hesitantly, support her against anyone who the Republicans may nominate. Not because I am enthusiastic about her specific politics, but because Democrats have to retain the presidency after 2016 for a truck load of reasons; real reasons, tangible reasons that make a difference in the lives of millions of people.

We are moving the Democratic Party to the left through the election of people like Sherod Brown and Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and New York City's new mayor. If it turns out that we are not yet at a point where a strong liberal/progressive can once again head our national ticket we can make someone like Hillary Clinton more responsive to our positions if we keep electing more people to Congress like Brown, Sanders and Warren. Meanwhile all of that "Hillary was a Goldwater gal" trash talk from the 2008 primaries should be permanently retired. We are better than that nonsense.

[dreamnightwind]

11. Agree

I've always admired Bernie Sanders' skill in doing just that, presenting his policy as the right one and making the case for it, but without demonizing President Obama or prominent Democrats. Not sure how Warren would handle it, though I'd love it if she runs.

I don't see a lot of traction here for Sherrod Brown but he is a somewhat acceptable alternative on the left of Hillary, worth considering.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. I've noticed that about Sanders also

I expected to be impressed by him when he was elected to the Senate but he has exceeded by expectations. If he decides to run in the primaries I am confident that he will be a substantitive class act who will elevate the level of political debate in this country - making a number of critical arguments in the process that need we sorely need made. I hope he does run. I am confident that if he runs in 2016 and fails to defeat Hillary if she runs also, that because of they type of principled campaign he would wage he could smoothly move to strongly support her if she prevailed Bernie is a strong progressive with street smarts.

[dreamnightwind]

18. Of course he'd probably run 3rd party

which would get the ideas discussed, but at the cost of some Democratic votes. Could he give all (if he wins any) of his electoral college delegates to the Democrat? If not I'd rather see him run as a Dem in the primary, seems unlikely though.

Warren might not play as nice, but then again Warren would have at least an outside chance of winning.

Glad to see the PCCC stepping up to get the left into the campaign. Hopefully the right (left) candidate will emerge.

Are the slogans in the site in your sigline your own? Some good ones there.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. That's an interesting question. I hadn't assumed that he would run third party

Yes I know he's an Independent but he sits in with the Dems in the Senate. There is no reason why he couldn't seek the Democratic nomination. I would prefer it if he went that way. Somehow I don't see Bernie pulling a Nader on us.

Yes those are my bumpersticker etc. slogans. Thanks.

[JackRiddler]

20. There's no need to demonize her.

She voted for the War of Aggression on Iraq all on her own.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Yes she did

Sure, I would rather have a different nominee. Kerry did also, and I would rather have had a different nominee in 2004, but I have no doubt we would have been better off if Kerry beat Bush.

[mountain grammy]

31. I have no doubt either! I agree

with your posts here. The whole idea is to drag the Democratic Party back to the center, then back to the left where we belong. Splitting the party now would be a disaster, like 2010. Republicans must be denied victories at every level.

[L0oniX]

36. Some Dems will never vote for Clinton. Don't expect them to be quiet.

[Tom Rinaldo]

84. I don't. They shouldn't expect me to be quiet about my view either

It's the good old market place of ideas

[Laelth]

14. k&r for Elizabeth Warren. n/t

-Laelth

[SidDithers]

15. PCCC. LOL...

http://theobamadiary.com/2011/07/15/here-we-go-again-2/

http://blog.reidreport.com/2011/07/adam-greens-dishonest-fundraising-attack-meets-obamas-adult-debt-conversation/

Sid

[SunSeeker]

27. Wow. The PCCC sounds like a scam. Thanks for the liinks.

"...$725.2k of funds raised in 2010 went on “administrative costs”, $503,788 of that on “salaries and benefits” and only $32k on candidates.

[SidDithers]

44. The 2012 cycle is pretty good too...

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/expenditures.php?cmte=C00458000&cycle=2012



~ $4 million spent

~ $2 million on salaries
~ $500K on Administration
~ $300K on Media
~ $400K on Research


$48K to Federal Candidates


Sid

[SunSeeker]

47. Dayum. Sounds like they borrowed Newt's business model. LOL nt

[L0oniX]

37. Who will you be voting for???

[SidDithers]

41. ...

Sid

[gulliver]

17. Alleged "Left Wing" Nobodies Begin Trading On Elizabeth Warren's Name

Yup, the unauthorized fan clubs are springing up to capitalize on poor Elizabeth Warren. They know untapped demand when they see it. Why would Warren go to all the trouble of making a name for herself if she didn't want a bunch of nobodies trading on it?

[raindaddy]

26. We need more left wing "nobodies" speaking out in the Democratic Party

Because we already have too many third way "somebodies" supporting secret corporate give-away trade deals, offering up the public safety net for cuts, carrying water for Wall Street, etc, etc......

[L0oniX]

39. ^^^^this^^^^

[polichick]

50. That's the group that supported Warren's candidacy and got her elected...

They received an award from The Nation for that campaign.

Besides, no voter - especially one who actively participates in campaigns - is a nobody.

[gulliver]

58. Well, $1 million isn't chicken feed.

But I think it is an exaggeration to say they got her elected. Varying sources seem to say Warren hauled in about $50 million total. Still, the PCCC apparently helped to power her campaign rather than using it to power themselves, so I stand corrected. They are not nobodies.

Voters aren't nobodies when they act as voters of course, so you may be inferring something from what I said that isn't accurate.

[FogerRox]

59. 43 million.

[gulliver]

62. It depends on what you decide to count.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/elizabeth-warren-scott-brown-massachusetts-hottest-senate-race/story?id=17567044

I'll go with your $43M number though. That means that the PCCC is 1/43rd of the money directly donated. That makes them "non-negligible" in my book.

I actually don't want Warren dragged down by an over-association with the left-most regions of our party, because I want her to be viable. I think 1/43rd is about right.

[FogerRox]

64. Most of any Senate race in 2012, Brown self funded 20 million.

and totaled 46 million. This page doesnt show that.

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?cycle=2012&id=MAS1

A large portion of the money Warren raised was out of state and small donations, shes a great fund raiser, and likely would do well in fund raising in a Presidential race.

[polichick]

83. The idea that candidates associated with the left aren't viable...

is corporate bullshit designed to protect the status quo.

[George II]

25. It doesn't matter who runs, within weeks many DUers will turn on him or her.

[SunSeeker]

29. LOL. So true. nt

[Renew Deal]

28. Somebody has to lose to Hillary

Let them run. Maybe they will get more delegates Kucnich did.

[HappyMe]

33. It's just that overly confident,

inevitable 'chosen one' attitude that lost her the primary the last time. It could easily happen again.

[Renew Deal]

42. I agree

Though I still don't see any competition this time around. Biden wants to run, but he can't win.

[HappyMe]

43. There isn't any competition YET.

I'm not giving up this quickly.

So far, nobody has declared their candidacy. Clinton fans shouldn't underestimate the amount of people that want a primary. The only way that she can win is if she plans to appeal to the republican-lite crowd. She won't have my vote in the primary. I'm fed up with the 'well she's better than a repug'. If we want to move forward, that meme just ain't cutting it any more.

[Renew Deal]

45. "The only way that she can win is if she plans to appeal to the republican-lite crowd."

This is a misunderstanding of the Democratic base. The Dem base isn't a bunch of arch-leftists. It is mostly normal working people that aren't overly ideological. The far left has a voice, but they don't have a majority of the votes. That's why candidates that come from the left of the popular candidate(s) don't do very well. Kucinich is an example of this, but there are others (Dean, Gephardt, Bradley, etc.).

[HappyMe]

46. I know that the base isn't from the 'out there' crowd.

On Chris Matthews last night he put up polls of republicans that favor Clinton. I am not enamored with a Dem candidate that scores well with republicans. If she wins the primary, she won't get any of my time or money. I know that she could probably care less about my crappy $50 or phone banking, because she has plenty of big donors.


edit to add - I'm sure that there is a fair number of not 'out there' voters that are also sick of the 'better than a repug' any crappy platform for the win. I don't want to mindlessly vote for somebody who's only thing so far is 'inevitable' and 'my turn' .

[bvar22]

48. Who is this "far left" of which you speak?

I know on NONE in the Democratic Party.
I know of no one who advocates for the confiscation of private property and organizing the population into forced work collectives.
Perhaps if you pointed out these "Far Left" groups in the Democratic Party, I could better understand you.

Have you mistaken the Mainstream-Center, Pro-Working Class, FDR New Deal traditional Democrats as some shadowy "Far Left".

The Progressive Caucus is the largest Caucus in the House,
but have near zero representation on the White House's "Team of Rivals",
and can't BUY face time on any of the major TV outlets.

[PassingFair]

49. Ha. That's what they said to Obama! nt

[RC]

30. What I see with all the attention now on Hillary is a sideshow, being billed as the main attraction.

Hillary is nothing more than a distraction from the coming midterms, which is where we need to be putting our attention, first and foremost. If we do not make significance gains in the mid terms, we could end up with a Republican Congress and another Right of Center, DLC corporatist as President. Which for all we know may be the plan.

[L0oniX]

38. That IS the plan!

[rhett o rick]

56. I dont think working to get a progressive running for president in 2016 will detract from

getting out the vote in 2014. Being one that works in the trenches, I know that we can do both. I have contacted my HoR Reps office and they dont even know when next year they will start their campaign, and no one has filed to run against at this time. If we are going to get a progressive to run for president in 2016, we need to start today or last year. Except for Sen Warren, no one else has the name recognition needed and wont if we wait until 2015. Again, I think we can do both.

[90-percent]

34. Suggestion

Can we take our Florida Congressman with Guts and makes him President of the United States with Guts?

-90% Jimmy

[MFM008]

51. divide and lose

we saw how well this split worked in 2000. Lets just hand it over to Christie/Paul/ Cruz/ Rubio/Bush right now.

[HappyMe]

52. Oh noes!!1

Another meme that doesn't work any more.

[ffr]

69. Liz is great, but it's Hillary's time. USSoS and Bill in the WH working 24/7 again.

I'm all for it. And in 2024, she'll be more worldly and ready. I'll support her as Hillary's successor.

[colsohlibgal]

53. Don't Sleep On Brian Schweitzer

I heard him on "Up With Steve Kornacki" this weekend and wow, after hearing him speak one finds it amazing he got elected governor of Montana, a pretty red state. He sounds really populist but explains his positions in clear simple language.

This guy, and maybe Liz and Bernie, will go after Hillary hard about her rich Wall Street crowd, her Iraq vote, and NAFTA/CAFTA/TPP - the Rubin stain is like a scarlet letter with liberals.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. I'd be happy to settle for Bernie Sanders. Another "not as bad" candidate like Hillary? Nope.

[truedelphi]

60. A Bernie Sanders-Matt Damon ticket would get my vote. n/t

[woo me with science]

61. Bernie Sanders is the real deal. He has a proven record

of representing the people he claims to represent.

After so many deliberate, manipulative lies and empty promises from the Third Way, I think wariness about new faces claiming to be the real deal is not only understandable, but absolutely necessary. Our candidates for 2016 need to be thoroughly vetted, and corporate wolves in sheep clothing exposed and defenestrated.

[rustydog]

63. I don't believe in an annointed one whose turn it is

Hillary doesn't get to run unopposed because it is her turn or because Bill will be such a good counsel...We need a primary system where the good one rises to the top.

[rhett o rick]

66. If you are ok with Christie, then go ahead and nominate Clinton. nm

[blkmusclmachine]

70. Hillary, Queen of the Blue Dogs, Triangulation, "Centrism," "bipartisanship," Third Way, "New Dems,"

and the DLC.

Rev. Doug Coe, preacher at the Frathouse For Jesus and suspected collaborator to Uganda's genocidal KILL THE GAYS bill, is Clinton's self-professed friend, mentor, and inspiration.

Clinton is another wanna-be "moderate 90's Republican," much like BHO.

Just say NO!

[blue14u]

74. "Just say no" is spot on!!!

Her association with Coe is clear from what I have studied

about him, and his " Cult"...Its difficult

to find much to study on them. They hide, change their name and

moved their location ...

I will go kicking and screaming if HRC is my

only choice..

[avaistheone1]

73. We have been needing a North Star for a long time.

k&r

[cantbeserious]

76. Warren For President 2016

eom

[iamthebandfanman]

77. dont know why folks are so upset

about a primary challenge to Hillary..
she'll still get it .. lets be real about this.. its hers for the taking.. if she loses, its because she did something to deserve it during the campaign ... lol...

so why all the uproar over someone being there to voice left wing opinions and attempt to push her own stances closer to our goals?

itll be good for Hillary, good for the left, and good for the process.

seems like a win , win , win to me.

its either accept that there should be a left opposition on our party that stands up and has its voice heard.. or maybe its time to start a new party...
whats the point of being in the democratic party if you never speak up?