Hillary Clinton's suffocating presence/The Economist

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Inevitable?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/02/2016-democratic-primaries

THE field of Republican presidential contenders may be limited to a narrow range of conservative fellows in mid- to late-middle age, but at least there are a lot of them. The Democratic field is, for all practical purposes, Hillary Clinton.

But is Mrs Clinton really such a safe bet? She struggled with a concussion and blood clots in 2012. What if something like that happens again? In any case, she is not as spry as she once was. She and Mrs Warren are only a few months apart in age, yet Mrs Warren seems markedly younger and more reliably energetic. It's not nice, but such considerations matter in politics. A cakewalk in the primaries risks leaving vulnerabilities unexposed and unfortified.

It's also worth noting that the Democrats' electoral advantage at the presidential level is not a sure thing. It materialises only if the party machine succeeds in getting young, poor and minority voters to the polls. Mr Obama beat Mrs Clinton from her left, and went on to beat John McCain by exciting sometimes tough-to-reach Democratic constituencies. Mrs Clinton's gender is certainly a source of excitement, but her presidency would mark a shift to the right for Democrats at a time when the party's energy is coming from the left. A competitive primary pitting Mrs Clinton against an attractive progressive rising star or two would test whether she remains capable of generating real enthusiasm across the party's varied base. It seems like a test worth running.

Democrats ought to worry at least a little about the possibility that Hillary Clinton has become the contemporary Democratic version of Bob Dole in 1996: an elder statesman, a presumed nominee, universally admired and, when it really counted, insufficiently voted for.

[GeorgeGist]

1. Suffocating?

Sounds pissy.

[Warpy]

4. It's true. The Wall Street Democrats are trying to suck all the oxygen out of the party

in the hope that they can shove another Clinton into the presidency and the gravy train will keep on rolling.

They don't seem to realize the wheels are ready to come off.

[daleanime]

17. +1

[hifiguy]

25. Ansolutely spot on.

They want someone who will kowtow to them and let them run amok. HRC is a lead-pipe lock to do so.

And there's a lot of truth in that Economist analysis.

[A Simple Game]

54. And if she doesn't win, which I doubt she can, they still win.

I really believe that Hillary as the Democratic candidate is the only way the Republicans can win the Presidency. Even her supporters aren't excited about her they just think it's her turn.

[hifiguy]

61. She's the Bob Dole of the Democratic party.

Except Dole was at least a real Repig, whereas HRC is a pure corporatist/economic royalist.

[juajen]

70. That is simply not true!

She has many true supporters.

[Ken Burch]

150. Of whom Andy Stephenson, who was a preogressive, anti-Wall Street Dem,

would never have been numbered.

[Scuba]

32. I don't think they care if they win or not, just so no liberals are allowed in the contest.

[cheapdate]

34. Why do you use the word "allowed"?

Isn't the question of whether a prominent liberal (Warren, Sanders, Grayson, Booker, Castro, etc.) will declare their candidacy, up to them?

[Chemisse]

39. Certainly.

But Clinton's presumed inevitability has to be daunting, particularly when it comes with huge financial support.

[cheapdate]

40. True.

[INdemo]

111. They have to have money to finance a campaign

and with the current candidates (Hillary) is financed by Wall St. (its just a drop in the bucket now but the big $$ will follow) The actual liberals would have to draw their money from the ground source liberals that would be the primary source for their campaign.
A well oiled machine could do this but it would take those supposing the liberal candidacy deep pockets and labor groups going above and beyond their normal funding.
..So if Wall St gets their candidate propped up early that makes it much more difficult for the "liberal" candidate to move forward.

[cheapdate]

118. Thanks to the Robert's court Citizens United decision (5-4),

laws that limit many kinds of political spending have been declared unconstitutional. The price to run a credible and competitive national political campaign today is probably around $800,000,000, and there's nothing anyone can do about it for the time being. At that price, it is unlikely there will much diversity in candidates seeking the presidency.

[INdemo]

146. Correct Only corporatists candidates need to apply

If the citizens united law was in force in the 2008 campaign could President Obama have won with the Koch Bros and other billionaires deep pockets?

[Warpy]

35. Exactly, keeping libeals out of power is their sole reason for existing

never mind that liberals were the only ones who made the economy work for most of us, gave labor the best deal it ever had, allowed the rich to get richer, create social stability, and preside over the longest sustained boom in modern history.

They just want to keep the game closed to anyone but themselves.

[Enthusiast]

52. +1 an entire shit load.

[woo me with science]

37. +100000 Party obsession is a scam for proles.

Oligarchs care about the corporate agenda of empire, police state, and profit...and making sure it continues no matter which party is elected.

[cascadiance]

132. Or they want a "liberal" like Edwards was who they know they can out during the primaries...

... to syphon votes from those with more progressive tastes to the side where they won't be a factor in selecting a corporate friendly candidate. And perhaps even later use something like what Edwards did as a way to try and give progressives a bad name through guilt by association.

[bread_and_roses]

47. +1,000s (n/t)

[raindaddy]

48. Perfect response!

Thanks for your honest and direct response Warpy,I couldn't agree more!

[Egnever]

147. Silly

For Clinton not to get the nomination someone has to run against her. People aren't exactly lining up.

[Warpy]

148. Silly to count on her when she hasn't announced yet, you mean.

This is the second attempted coronation of Hillary Clinton. Maybe it will work, maybe it won't. She's just not as electable as her fans think she is.

She's got too many problems with her dogma and too many ties to unsavory people.

[Egnever]

149. I'm open

Let em line up and take a shot. That's what primaries are for.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

151. READY to come off? The Hillary Express is already sitting up on blocks.

[cui bono]

7. Not to me. Sounds spot on. Plus, there's more in the article if you read beyond the headline. n/t

[Katashi_itto]

16. 3rd Way does suck all the O2 out of a room.

I won't vote for another corporate shill no matter what 21st Century version of Caligula the opposition fields as a candidate.

[forest444]

33. Pissy and Snarky are The Economist's middle names.

So here's a little more for good measure: they are a pedantic Thatcherite propaganda rag that touts every corporate crime and brigand idea in the world while you read it, and couldn't even make good kindle afterward. Too much sulfur, you see.

[Nye Bevan]

84. They endorsed Barack Obama for president in both 2008 and 2012 (nt)

[demwing]

45. Definition of PISSY

1 slang : angry, pissed off (was acting pissy)
2 slang : irritating, annoying (a pissy bureaucratic hassle)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pissy

Using this definition, your post is pissy.

[Enthusiast]

53. Pfft!

[RedstDem]

140. Want proof?

Post anything that brings a negative light upon Hillary and get ready to be pounced on.

[Mike Nelson]

2. I don't think of either Clinton or Warren as being too...

...old or unhealthy to run for President.

[Deny and Shred]

5. Nor do I but

what matters is the opinion of the bulk of the electorate. I do think Obama's youth, energy, fresh message, etc were among the elements that garnered him the Primary in 2008, and got typically tepid voters to the polls.

It is pretty simple. If enough of the 99% go to the polls, the GOP doesn't stand a chance.

Problem is the 99% votes at a 50% clip. The real issue is how to get the more ambivalent 50% to the polls. Obama got them out - twice.

I fear that a Clinton campaign may not inspire typically apathetic citizens to vote. Age had to be a hinderance for Dole and McCain.

[Phentex]

9. Did you forget? Many thought he was too young and too inexperienced...

I am starting to hope Clinton runs just so heads can explode.

[Deny and Shred]

72. I didn't forget

Who are these 'many'? Cable talking heads? Op-eds in the papers? Wise old pundits? They were wrong. Perhaps he was/is too much of both, but he won - twice - despite what 'many' thought.

I guess I am postulating a new dynamic: get the young to vote, get the marginally interested to vote, get those who gave up on their vote actually mattering to go to the polls.

Do that ... and win. Rely on the base and the base only ... and lose.

The Democrats are very polarized by her, and the two halves cannibalize each other to the benefit of the GOP.

No hope necessary, she is running. The question is if she can galvanize the apathetic 50%. Half the heads in the party will explode, but which half depends on if she wins or not?

[George II]

15. You don't think her candidacy would energize the women's vote?

[Divernan]

43. Intelligent women don't base their vote on genitalia.

Sarah Palin didn't energize the women's vote last time around, although the GOP had the same insulting and condescending view of how to manipulate women's votes that you do.

[George II]

49. I doubt voters based their vote/non-vote on Sarah Palin because of her gender.....

....but because of her lunacy (and the guy at the top of the ticket)

And I don't have the insulting and condescending view you accuse me of having.

Barack Obama energized the black vote in 2008 and 2012. Is my saying that (which is a FACT, by the way) an "insulting and condescending view of how to manipulate African Americans' votes"??

[jeff47]

125. It's good you refuted your own post's argument.

Just too bad you had to have it pointed out to you.

Is my saying that (which is a FACT, by the way) an "insulting and condescending view of how to manipulate African Americans' votes"??

If you are saying the only reason that happened was the melanin content of Obama's skin, then yes.

Obama energized African-Americans with the same "hope and change" theme - that there was an option besides screwing over the little people. That we are a great people that can do great things together. All of us, including "the black vote".

[George II]

130. No, I didn't refute my own post's argument, and what was "pointed out" to me was inaccurate...

...First, comparing reasons for voting "for" Sarah Palin to reasons for voting for Hillary Clinton if she is the candidate are irrelevant. A little history lesson - JOHN MCCAIN ran for President in 2008, not Sarah Palin. Voters in 2008 for the most part were voting for Obama or McCain.

And where are the sentences of mine that appeared before the one you quoted?

[jeff47]

133. Your claim was women will vote for Clinton primarily because of her gender.

It's the same reason that McCain picked Palin - Republicans were absolutely sure women would be pissed off about Clinton losing, and McCain would get more votes from women due to Palin.

You've now backed away from that claim.

[George II]

141. "Your claim was women will vote for Clinton primarily because of her gender" Where?

This is what I said:

"You don't think her candidacy would energize the women's vote?"

[erronis]

64. Excellent riposte. Yet men will vote

pro or con based on how "manly" their candidate is.

OK - I'm withdrawing the manly bit - nobody voted for the shrub because of his codpiece.

[Deny and Shred]

73. It would, but is that enough?

I dare say that most women who vote regularly would vote their own way whether she was on the ticket or not. Politically aware progressive women voted for Obama and would vote for her. Pro-life, pro-GOP women who vote R wouldn't be swayed simply because she's female.

Is there another group of women who don't ususally vote but will go to the polls for her because of their same gender? Probably, but I don't think it rises to the level of the votes from the typically non-political that Obama garnered.

[rhett o rick]

110. I do not. I don't think the majority of women support her hawkish, pro-war stances.

I also think women will see her pro-Wall Street stances as harmful to the lower classes.

In other words, I think both men and women will view her the same, another conservative Democrat that's going to continue the status quo that is leaving our children in poverty, while the executives of Goldman-Sachs drink their martini's, toasting her as their new president.

[cascadiance]

134. I think a primary though with Warren would help focus an emphasis on issues...

... if they are both women, and the identity card can't be used by the media and other PTB to try and divide the party base with.

Someone like Warren debating Clinton would help us as a party focus on what issues we want our leaders to focus on and gives us a chance to make a statement on who we feel has better stances.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

152. All but 1 of the women in my immediate family are strongly anti-Hillary & refuse 2 vote 4 her under any circumstances.

[ND-Dem]

30. warren will be 67 in 2016; clinton will be 69. reagan, the oldest president, was 69 (a few weeks

short of 70) when he took office and apparently had alzheimers during his second term.

only 5 presidents have been over 62 when they took office, and none of them were particularly good at it: Reagan, Buchanan, wh. Harrison, ghw bush, and Zachary taylor.

[winter is coming]

69. Do we have any reason to believe they would have been better Presidents

if they'd been elected at a younger age?

[ND-Dem]

75. well, reagan wouldn't have had alzheimers.

[winter is coming]

76. I'm not sure that would have been an improvement, though. n/t

[ND-Dem]

78. you may be right in reagan's case. fact remains, warren and clinton would be significantly older

than nearly every other president *but* Reagan were they to win.

The soviet union was well on its way to dissolving when it kept installing old heads of state. Brezhnev was 62 when he became head of state, 80 when he died. Andropov was 68 when he became head of state, 70 when he died. Then Chernenko: 73 in office, and 74 when he died.

Then Gorbachev. At 60, he was comparatively young, and he ended the country.

[deurbano]

104. Jerry Brown is 76 (77 in less than 2 months), and just starting his second term as governor.

(Well, his 2nd term this time around, anyway.) I think Clinton and Warren are both still young enough. Whether or not they are "fit" to be president should be decided on other grounds.

[Art_from_Ark]

144. Reagan was already an ass when he was governor of California

William Henry Harrison never really got a chance to be President, as he was ill with pneumonia for the entire month of his administration.

Zachary Taylor also died in office, just a year and 4 months into his term, from "drinking too much lemonade on a hot day".

[ND-Dem]

145. true. but he didn't have alzheimers. that we know. and i'd guess that the reason whh & zt died

was that their ages made them more susceptible to illness. though there was a rumor zt was poisoned, now disproved.

[HereSince1628]

3. If the Dems can't cough up an alternative to HRC's left,

the party effectively has no left at the level of people who can be put forward as other than candidates from the procorporate democractic right.

That means no diversity at the uppermost end of the party. A truly terrible thing because the New Dems are anti-populists that suggest that it's just pragmatism that makes them look like elitists (you know the -did- dump the self-proclaimed leadership thing from their name) that their invitation by members only DLC good ol politicians said they were.

That would suggest at the top the party doesn't want to represent progressive interests. It would imply progressives need to look elsewhere. I sure hope that isn't the circumstance of the democratic party

[jwirr]

10. If it is the circumstances of the party then we are in a lot of trouble because not only do we have

a lack of people who excite the base (including Hillary) but we also have a lack of another party to go to that can win. No one to run and no other party that can win.

IF there is a real alternative I would really like to know about it. And it has to be an alternative that can win. As you can see I am a Bernie Sanders supporter but I doubt that he is going to be able to get the money to confront the Koch's and the others that will pop up as soon as the word socialist is mentioned.

[HereSince1628]

13. I'm not in wandering diaspora mode yet. June to Oct is typically the time for announcing

and it has happened that candidates don't announce until almost immediately before primaries begin--I think this is how Wesley Clark entered in late fall.

But YES this would be a terrible disenfranchisement of many millions of peoples' interests for representation of their values. Al From and Bill Clinton made a pretty direct snub of labor back in the early '90s. I'd hate to think that the 3rd Way would act on the idea of seeking non-traditional support and so justify dumping the progressive left. But I witnessed the dumping of Labor, and I don't trust the pro-corporatist right.

[Dustlawyer]

108. If Bernie champions where you think the country should go you should vote for him anyway!

I am!

[jwirr]

112. I will in the primary. But I will not help the Rs win in the general.

[DonCoquixote]

138. what cannot be said

is that ever since Hillary was silent as Kerry got swift boated, the truth is, Hillary has sucked the air out, by making sure NO democrats are talked about that are not in her image. Of course, a lot of that is also due to Hillary's handmaiden, Debbie Wasserman "I kneecap liberal dems and lose mid terms" Schultz.

[HereSince1628]

142. However it has come about, the inability of Dems to field a progressive candidate is bad

And it's bad for this reason... the context of problems facing the United States is -always- changing, voters need at least some chance of deciding on who will solve those problems while employing values and understanding that most represents the voters.

When a candidate has been steadfast in position for over 20 years, and in that time has worked deliberately and conscientiously to build a credential that matches that steadfast point of view, there is a very good chance that the problems that face the nation aren't going to be best met by the steadfast point of view that's been in place for more than 20 years.

HRC is very well qualified to be a pro-corporate candidate. But the nations problems at this time aren't really needing more pro-corporate policy. Someday they will again need that, undoubtedly, but I don't think that's what we need now, and it doesn't look to me like what's going to be needed in the next 20-21 months.

[woo me with science]

6. IMO we're being set up for a Republican win by both sides.

Red versus Blue is a scam, a propaganda act, with the purpose of keeping us divided and convinced we still have a democracy.

Corporatists on both sides are working hard to set the stage to elect a Republican next time, because eight years of corporate Democratic rule have opened too many eyes to the fact that we are an oligarchy rather than a democracy now, and that the predatory corporate agenda continues no matter which party is elected. That awareness is dangerous for the PTB.

They NEED a Republican in office for awhile so that that corporate Democrats can pretend to be against corporate/warmongering/police state policies again. They hope that the country will forget all this silly oligarchy talk and go back to believing that the only thing wrong in Washington is that a Republican is in office and we need to rally to get the Third Way Democrats back in again.

We saw it in the DCCC "Accept Doom" email campaign. We see it in the attacks on the base every single day by supposed Hillary supporters. Corporatists in both parties are doing everything possible to enable a Republican win. The corporate elite needs *us* to care which party wins, because our caring shows that we still believe we have a democracy. But the truth is that we live in a post-partisan, united oligarchy now, not a democracy. The corporate elite own both parties, and they care only that the corporate agenda continues, along with the "democracy" scam.

Red vs. Blue = Oligarchy Theater for the masses.

Mass spying on Americans? Both parties support it.
Handing the internet to corporations? Both parties support it.
Austerity for the masses? Both parties support it.
Cutting social safety nets? Both parties support it.
Corporatists in the cabinet? Both parties support it.
Tolling our interstate highways? Both parties support it.
Corporate education policy? Both parties support it.
Bank bailouts? Both parties support it.
Ignoring the trillions stashed overseas? Both parties support it.
Trans-Pacific Job/Wage Killing Secret Agreement? Both parties support it.
TISA corporate overlord agreement? Both parties support it.
Drilling and fracking? Both parties support it.
Wars on medical marijuana instead of corrupt banks? Both parties support it.
Deregulation of the food industry? Both parties support it.
GMO's? Both parties support it.
Privatization of the TVA? Both parties support it.
Immunity for telecoms? Both parties support it.
"Looking forward" and letting war criminals off the hook? Both parties support it.
Deciding torturers are patriots? Both parties support it.
Militarized police and assaults on protesters? Both parties support it.
Indefinite detention? Both parties support it.
Drone wars and kill lists? Both parties support it.
Targeting of journalists and whistleblowers? Both parties support it.
Private prisons replacing public prisons? Both parties support it.
Unions? Both parties view them with contempt.
Trillion dollar increase in nuclear weapons. Both parties support it.
New war in Iraq. Both parties support it.
New war in Syria. Both parties support it.
Carpet bombing of captive population in Gaza. Both parties support it.
Selling off swaths of the Gulf of Mexico for drilling? Both parties support it.
Drilling along the Atlantic Coast? Both parties support it.

[jwirr]

11. I would agree with you IF I thought that most peope in America even know what an Oligarchy is.

[woo me with science]

14. This nation is learning about "oligarchy" whether people know the word or not.

All people need to realize is that both parties are corrupted by corporate money and are looting us to benefit the criminal rich. And that the same agenda of looting continues no matter which party is in power.

That is indeed an awareness that is growing across party lines.

Bernie Sanders is using the word, "oligarchy." That's a very good sign.

[L0oniX]

82. Really? So the 99% does not know who they are up against? What ever.

[jwirr]

88. I live in a normal community and I come To DU to talk to people who actually understand what we

are discussing here. And one other place - my son in law is a strong union man so I can discuss this with them but I do not hear anyone else talking about it.

I am not saying they do not know what is happening in a superficial way - they know the economy has some real problems, they know that our jobs have gone to other countries, they know that they are not getting ahead. But they do not understand the philosophy behind it. The extent of the problem. The fact that we are losing our democracy. Most are too busy just surviving to take the time to educate themselves beyond what is effecting them personally.

I am wondering why you think that most people do know?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

18. Thanks, Woo. "Not as Bad" is losing its credence by its own acts.

It's become like a choice between arsenic and strychnine and those who say "no" to both are misguided "Purists" who don't appreciate the benefits of strychnine and point its faults.

[demwing]

66. An just listen to the language

"Not as bad" admits the "bad," and marginalizes it in the hope that the rest of us will just accept "bad" as the new norm.

[rgbecker]

41. Very depressing. Glad I don't keep guns.

That list is enough to drive anyone to suicide.

[Agschmid]

50. Sure if the list was accurate but it's not, no big surprise there.

[Deny and Shred]

80. Surprise to me. Care to point out the inaccuracies?

Your blanket statement discredits the list?

Please provide all attributable links. I know Woo can back them up if asked.

[Agschmid]

89. Here we go...

- First Andrew Cuomo a "leader" in the Democratic Party (and potential 2016 candidate) bans fracking in NY.

- Charles Schumer (another democrat... and another from NY go figure) upon finding out that Ashcroft signed wiretap authorization in the hospital rallies against the NSA wiretaps.

- Senate Democrats (Yuuuuuup more than one...) work to release the Inteligence Committee report on torture before the new congress making public and documenting America's actions around torture.

I can go on, but the whole "woe is me" the parties are exactly the same is bull. Sure the Democratic Party probably isn't as progressive as you'd like but it sure isn't quite how the other poster insists it is.

[woo me with science]

92. Nonsense. Of course individual Democrats speak out in favor of liberal policies.

That's how corporate Democrats get elected in the first place...by pretending to stand for the positions that have always drawn people to the Democratic Party. Part of the job description of a corporate Democrat is pretending to care about the same things the voters do. That's why corporate Democrats routinely LIE their way through campaigns, pretending to stand for things like a public option, or reining in the surveillance state, or protecting the 99 percent against criminal bankers. But their collective actions belie their pretty words once they are elected.

You have to watch their BEHAVIOR in office, and the policies that are actually enacted when they have power to control the outcome. Over and over again we see the deliberate installation of corporatists into positions of power in the administration. Over and over again we see executive actions that entrench and expand the Bush agenda. Over and over again, we see *just enough* corporate Democrats voting with Republicans to ensure that predatory corporate policies are expanded and the liberal policies they claim to support can never actually materialize.

That's the scam, and it's a familiar one by now. "The primary tactic in this con game is Villain Rotation."

http://www.salon.com/2010/02/23/democrats_34/

Tuesday, Feb 23, 2010 11:24 AM UTC
The Democratic Party’s deceitful game
They are willing to bravely support any progressive bill as long as there's no chance it can pass

Democrats perpetrate the same scam over and over on their own supporters, and this illustrates perfectly how it’s played:

.... Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing...But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.
....
This is what the Democratic Party does...They’re willing to feign support for anything their voters want just as long as there’s no chance that they can pass it. They won control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections by pretending they wanted to compel an end to the Iraq War and Bush surveillance and interrogation abuses because they knew they would not actually do so; and indeed, once they were given the majority, the Democratic-controlled Congress continued to fund the war without conditions, to legalize Bush’s eavesdropping program, and to do nothing to stop Bush’s habeas and interrogation abuses (“Gosh, what can we do? We just don’t have 60 votes).

The primary tactic in this game is Villain Rotation. They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it. One minute, it’s Jay Rockefeller as the Prime Villain leading the way in protecting Bush surveillance programs and demanding telecom immunity; the next minute, it’s Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer joining hands and “breaking with their party” to ensure Michael Mukasey’s confirmation as Attorney General; then it’s Big Bad Joe Lieberman single-handedly blocking Medicare expansion; then it’s Blanche Lincoln and Jim Webb joining with Lindsey Graham to support the de-funding of civilian trials for Terrorists; and now that they can’t blame Lieberman or Ben Nelson any longer on health care (since they don’t need 60 votes), Jay Rockefeller voluntarily returns to the Villain Role, stepping up to put an end to the pretend-movement among Senate Democrats to enact the public option via reconciliation.

This is the scam of corporate rule. We need to get the Third Way, Wall Street infiltration out of our party.

[Agschmid]

93. Notice that last one about "Senate Democrats"...

I put that in there on purpose. Your theory is that all democrats support NSA wiretaps and warrantless detention and torture... well they don't clearly.

And then there was this whole big things called Obamacare, sure we didn't get single payer but we got a whole lot closer. I just don't understand what the disconnect is?

You are comparing an apple to an onion... sure close your nose and they taste the same sometimes but they certainly aren't the same thing.

[woo me with science]

94. Nothing you wrote there, including your failed "gotcha" attempt, changes my point.

I'll give you credit for a slick attempt to divert from the point I *did* make to your strawman about accusing "all Democrats."

That was cute but ineffectual, since

(1) I have repeatedly recced and praised threads here pointing out the few Democrats. like Wyden, who DO stand up to and call out the unconstitutional surveillance state...

and

(2) Whether it is ALL Democrats or MOST Democrats (the corporate money-corrupted ones) complicit in sustaining the charade of opposing these policies is really irrelevant to the argument anyway.

I would suggest you read the post again to see the actual point I made, but I am pretty certain that you grasp it already, your diversions and protestations here notwithstanding. The scam corporate Democrats use on us is not a hard pattern to observe once you've seen it as many times as we have.

And...psst...Corporate Democrats' manipulations re: the ACA are addressed directly in the article I linked and which you are carefully ignoring. I would add to the slimy behavior noted in the article the fact that Obama never promised to fight for single payer (The Third Way always wants to shift this particular conversation from public option to single payer), but he *did* promise to fight for a public option. It's telling that he became completely silent about the possibility of a public option only *after* the nation started polling heavily in favor of it, and public will could have been rallied to demand it in the legislation.

[Enthusiast]

57. It's hard to see it any other way.

[Enthusiast]

55. The ugly truth. But there it is.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

56. Nominatimg Hillary guarantees a Repug win. The Dems can't be that stupid; I refuse to believe that.

[winter is coming]

96. I wouldn't go so far as to say it guarantees a GOP win. The GOP field

looks pretty weak. But we could do a hell of a lot better. If we had a nominee who could speak about income inequality as credibly as Warren or Sanders do, we'd pulverize the GOP. Hillary's not going to be able to pull that off.

[harun]

91. +1, it's a scam

[MisterP]

95. the differences are there to get people to vote for the similarities ...

[DeSwiss]

103. !

- The only ''win'' is if neither Republican nor Democrat wins the Presidency. This system has turned to cancer and it will kill all who stay inside it.


I know it sounds incredible, but remember these words........

[TBF]

106. I fear that's true and that the winner is Jeb -

because he is moderate enough in many minds to keep the theater going. At least Julian Castro is likely the dem's next candidate. I actually like him.

But yeah I have actually wondered for a while if any of it is legit anymore - especially with easily manipulated voting machines. They either choose up front or give us 2 candidates we can "choose" from that are both ok with the billionaires.

[hedda_foil]

116. ^^^What. Woo said ^^^

And th some.

[pablo_marmol]

129. Award-deserving post, AFAIC

Edited to add:

It's always astonished me that Democrats can cheer George Carlin for saying the following, while completely missing his point and dismissing posts like yours! (Shaking my downward tilted head)

[AtomicKitten]

8. Elizabeth Warren is emerging as the soul of the Dem Party.

She is the future of the party and this nation. We stopped the Clinton ruthless ambition in 2008. We will do it again in 2016.

[fbc]

20. What's sad is they don't have 10 more like her

I love Warren, but why the hell is she so unique?

Every democratic politician should be like her.

Why is it so hard to find a progressive in the democratic party?

[juajen]

68. Well, if the "Oligarchy meme is correct,

Why would we trust Elizabeth? She is a knight on a white horse, or is playing us also.

[cascadiance]

137. Ask Rahm Emmanuel that when he funded conservative dems in primary battles when heading the DCCC

... and it was many of those conservative Democrats that were pushed in to office by the DCCC that lost in 2010 and in 2014.

When you keep progressive Dems out of congress even within one's own party, it isn't hard to see why it's been really hard to have many progressive Dems as alternatives. And many who do have progressive viewpoints (I consider my Senator Jeff Merkley one of them) aren't pushed in to the limelight by the corporate media where they can build a following.

Warren had a unique circumstance of being kept out of heading up the CFPB by the Republicans, and then being fortunate that Coakley ran such a brain-dead campaign to lose to Scott Walker when replacing Ted Kennedy to get that opportunity of being in the Senate. Those sequence of circumstances that allowed her in to the Senate do not happen too many times.

That is why those who have great progressive credentials we need to continue to push up the ladder and not just tell them to stay where they are. If Warren steps up and becomes president, I have no doubt that Massachusetts will find another decent senator to replace her with, and perhaps we'll have more progressive options to choose from later. Given that she's not running for her Senate seat in 2016, she doesn't need to choose between running for the Senate and the presidency either.

[woo me with science]

21. Bernie Sanders 2016.

Elizabeth Warren's message on economics is important and welcome. Her policy agenda, though, does not clearly challenge the wars and the surveillance/police state that are dismantling democracy in this nation.

We don't just need to be more economically comfortable within an authoritarian state. We need restoration of our democracy.

We need reform of our elections. We need restoration of our civil liberties. We need an end to the surveillance state and the militarization of our police forces, and the private prison industry, and the endless wars for profit.

[hifiguy]

26. I am with ya, woo.

But I'd happily settle for Sen. Warren.

[Maven]

67. 'We stopped the Clinton ruthless ambition in 2008'

And instead installed someone who out-Clintoned the Clintons.

It's sad you still don't see the irony, AK.

[AtomicKitten]

74. There is no irony; it was a clear choice.

His biggest mistake was including her and Clinton flunkies in his administration. His foreign policy is more aggressive than I would like, but hers would have been way worse. I have no doubt she'd have engaged in hostilities with Syria and Iran by now. He's done some shit I vehemently oppose including no prosecutions for bankers and the Bush/Cheney crime network and promoting crap policy like the TPP, but he's also delivered on getting rid of discriminatory policy like DOMA and DADT. On balance, he was the better choice, the best choice (someone like Paul Wellstone) not on the ballot.

[RiverLover]

12. The Right is for rethugs.

We are the Left. We vote Left. We need a candidate that is Left.

Our country (& the planet) NEEDS a President who is Left.

Great article, Tierra_y_Libertad, it speaks the truth.

[George II]

19. Another anti-Hillary Clinton (aka Hillary bashing!) article appears!

[fbc]

22. Hooray!!!

Keep 'em coming!

[George II]

24. Notice that the excerpt (can't be bothered with the rest) doesn't have a scintilla.....

...of Hillary Clinton's positions on anything? Just nebulous garbage, including the offensive and false claim that "she is not as spry as she once was".

[Fumesucker]

31. I'm younger than Hillary by a few years..

"Spry" is not a word I would use to describe myself on even my best days and I'm in better shape than plenty of people I know of similar age.

[Divernan]

90. Physically fragile Clintons are wrapped in protective cocoon of 5 star luxury, 24/7.

They can only handle the rigors of their public and private lives with private jets, 5 star hotels, & entourages of handlers/servants. When the luxury private airline lounges for first and business class travelers, and the on board comforts of those classes of travel are deemed too insufficient, exhausting and/or stressful for travelers, said travelers either have too inflated an opinion of themselves (particularly when a so-called "charity" is footing the travel costs) or they are too physically fragile to hold any elective office, let alone the presidency.

It is undisputed that the presidency is the most exhausting, aging, & stressful of jobs. Bill's on borrowed time with his progressive heart disease; her medical history includes repeated blood clots of the brain and medical reports of heart problems revealed by a stress test.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/121231/hillary-clinton-has-medical-history-blood-clots

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2665825/Are-Hillarys-health-problems-severe-thought-New-book-claims-kept-medical-history-secret-fears-end-presidential-ambitions.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/hillary-clinton-blood-clot-life-threatening-medical-experts/story?id=18101213

As long as she plays this Koch-teasing game of repeated delays as to whether she'll declare, they keep raking in the $$$, i.e., anticipatory quid pro quos, for their personal speaking/consulting fees and their boutique, fully family-owned, "non-profit" corporation. If both their healths hold out until the summer, their joint, limitless and blind ambitions will result in her running. They are addicted to their pursuit of power/wealth - even when a loving couple would take their millions and retire. They are an extreme example of workaholics - I've seen the same attitude in senior partners at some law firms - they've placed their careers above healthy personal relationships w/spouses, and never taken the time to develop a passion for any other activities than accumulating wealth.

[George II]

122. And none of the other candidates will have similar entourages if elected?

I guess you forget that Bill Clinton WAS President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Divernan]

123. I don't speak argle bargle.

My point was both the Clintons are already too fragile physically to handle the strain of the White House - obviously, Bill had not required heart surgery and drastic weight loss while he was president and Hillary did not have her current health problems - and despite her earlier statements that she was "going to get in shape", her weight has increased to the current size 18 - which is a major impediment to her longevity.

[Agschmid]

51. Ageism at its best.

Watch out you old folks, you've got nothing left to live for!

[George II]

59. Age can have a suffocating presence, can't it?

[ND-Dem]

79. Because we think Clinton's too old to be head of state, we have nothing to live for?

I actually think Clinton would be liable to cut social security, and then I *really* would have nothing to live for.

[Agschmid]

87. It's sarcasm did you see the tag?

[RiverLover]

23. aka Republican bashing. nt

[George II]

121. Pile it on!!!!

[OKNancy]

120. and written by a Cato Institute creep

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Wilkinson

[LittleBlue]

27. More importantly, a destructive presence for the 99%

We are completely screwed if Goldman gets their representative into the White House.

[woo me with science]

29. Absolutely.

Corporate Republicans and the corporate Third Way are not just another flavor of politician within an essentially functioning representative government. They are building perpetual war, a police and surveillance state, and using our own laws and intelligence agencies to empower corporations over the will of the American people to dismantle democracy itself.



Hillary Clinton's leading role in drafting the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

Hillary Clinton and Trade Deals: That “Giant Sucking Sound”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016101761

Hillary Clinton Cheerleads for Biotech and GMOs
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112772326

Dissecting Hillary Clinton's Neocon Talking Points - Atlantic Interview
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209519

NYTimes notices Hillary's natural affinity toward the neocons.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025205645

Hillary Clinton, the unrepentant hawk
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024876898

More from Hillary Clinton's State Department: The fascistic TISA (Trade in Services Agreement)
http://m.thenation.com/blog/180572-grassroots-labor-uprising-your-bank

How Hillary Clinton's State Department sold fracking to the world
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251376647

Hillary Clinton Sides with NSA over Snowden Disclosures
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101695441

On the NSA, Hillary Clinton Is Either a Fool or a Liar
http://m.thenation.com/article/180564-nsa-hillary-clinton-either-fool-or-liar

Corporate Warfare: Hillary Clinton admits role in Honduran coup aftermath
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025601610#post29

The Bill and Hillary Clinton Money Machine Taps Corporate Cash
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025189257

Hillary's Privatization Plan: TISA kept more secret than the TPP
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014829628

Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama's foreign policy 'failure'; strongly defends Israel
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014867136

Some of Hillary Clinton's statements on Social Security.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024379279

Hillary Clinton's GOLDMAN SACHS PROBLEM.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025049343

Ring of Fire: Hillary Clinton - The Perfect Republican Candidate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017209285

How Americans Need Answers From Hillary Clinton On TPP, KXL, Wall St & More
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017181611

Hillary Clinton Left Out By Liberal Donor Club
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025809071

Why Wall Street Loves Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016106575

Hillary Clinton: Neocon-lite
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101684986

Interactive graphic of Hillary Clinton's connections to the Forbes top 400 (Follow link in post)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025824981#post9

[stillwaiting]

60. Won't begin to be able to turn the trend around until '24 if HRC wins in '16.

The trend being the economic trend we've been on for 3 to 4 decades. Wealth and income shifting upwards.

After 3 to 4 decades of this the middle, working, and poverty classes have lost so much ground.

It is horrifying to think where we'll be after another decade of it.

It won't matter if HRC wins again in '20, either way the trend will continue for another 4 years until '24 when maybe (?) we'd be able to get a progressive in the WH.

Wall Street, Big Business, and the .1%'s financial interests will be catered to very well. The 99%'s not so much.

Of course we need a progressive movement to rebuild a progressive Congress as well. We need that too or else the trend will continue. A truly progressive renaissance and reawakening must occur or this shit continues in the U.S.

[whatchamacallit]

28. I'm still trying to figure out when it became acceptable for two families to monopolize the presidency

Last edited Mon Feb 16, 2015, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

Shit is fundamentally broken IMO.

[Enthusiast]

58. Shit is truly fundamentally broken.

[davidpdx]

101. Very true

[Man from Pickens]

109. see my signature line

[pnwmom]

36. So some nameless guy from Tennessee writes a letter to the editor trying to scare Dems off

from supporting the Democratic candidate who does best -- by far --in polling against the Rethugs.

And we're supposed to take this seriously.

[Rose Siding]

44. Just thinking about

the load after load of subjective bullshit ahead makes me tired.

Shake it off.

[woo me with science]

71. I know! Such AUDACITY from those proles

out beyond the beltway, pretending that they have NAMES and that their opinions should count!

Thank you for so perfectly illustrating the utter contempt of the Third Way for ordinary Americans who try to make their voices heard in this country.

[pnwmom]

81. The "prole" in question is a reader of a business magazine -- not your typical prole. n/t

[woo me with science]

85. Really? How does that work, exactly?

Reading which magazines, exactly, disqualifies a prole from thinking that his opinion on our political candidates should merit any consideration, according to your rules?

[pnwmom]

136. Conservative and libertarian magazines. Since the magazine openly promotes deregulation and privatization,

they attract a good number of loyal readers who do so, too -- both conservatives and libertarians. It is possible that the writer is a progressive who occasionally reads The Economist, but the odds are he or she is not.

A person who writes opinion pieces to a magazine is likely to be a regular reader.

[woo me with science]

143. What a bizarre and disturbing argument

Last edited Mon Feb 16, 2015, 10:37 PM - Edit history (2)

to try to rationalize an ugly comment that you would never have made if the letter writer had praised Hillary instead of criticizing her.

1. First, you express the ugly, authoritarian attitude we see so often from the Third Way, that some proles are "nameless" and don't deserve to have their opinions heard or taken seriously.

2. Then you ramp up the authoritarian creepiness by asserting that such undesirable, "doubleplusungood" citizens can be identified by the magazines they read. But you didn't cite "Stormfront" or anything like that. Stunningly, you aimed your scathing dismissal and contempt at anyone who reads a "business magazine"....a bizarre gambit since lots of Democrats actually do read business magazines. But it's consistent with the recurring Third Way zeal on these boards to demand that others limit their reading material in order to "prove" political acceptability.

And then you go for the absurd, smearing coup de grace: asserting that anyone who reads a (gasp!) "business magazine" is probably a despicable conservative or libertarian and thus deserving of your utter contempt.

What an odd condemnation to make...particularly in a post that started out defending Hillary, the poster candidate for exactly the type of corporatism of which you are now pretending to disapprove.

So...in trying after-the-fact to justify your reflexive disparagement of a citizen who had the audacity to criticize Hillary Clinton, you ended up trying to hold together a tortured argument that (1) defends the quintessential business candidate who has intimate ties to the Forbes 400 and doubtless not only reads business magazines but also *stars* in them......

.....while simultaneously trying to argue that (2) only conservatives or libertarians read business magazines, and (3) merely reading or writing to a business magazine is sufficient for being deemed an inherently suspect undesirable whose political voice doesn't deserve any consideration whatsoever.

What a rhetorical train wreck. It would have been much easier, and less embarrassing, just to admit that you don't like it when someone criticizes Hillary Clinton.

[olegramps]

114. It appears to me that perhaps no Democratic candidate would satisfy many Democrats

I suppose that the observation that uniting democrats is like trying to herd cats has an element of truth. Many folks, if not the majority, here at DU are unwilling to support Hilary Clinton even though she is a strong candidate. Yes, I will agree that the Democratic Party has strayed from its basic purpose of protecting the rights of the working class and those such a Warren and Sanders better represent those ideals, however, are that actually viable candidates.

Is it not a fact that a candidate must attract substantial support from business to be able to finance a viable campaign due to the fact that Republicans control the Supreme Court and have declared that, gasp, corporations are people. This is, I believe an unfortunate fact the fault of which actually is directly the fault of Democrats to elect progressive legislators.

Although many of today's Democrats are not as dedicated as Sanders, the alternative of having the Republicans firmly in charge of state houses and the federal legislatures spells disaster for the struggling working class. For example in Colorado the Republicans have won control of the house and the bills that they have put forth are designed to satisfy their ultra-right wing base that swept them into office. Just for example they have proposed legislation to curtail sex education, abolish women's reproductive rights, restrict minors from obtaining medical treatment without parental approval, strike down any restriction on gun ownership, open carry, repeal of availability of contraception for teens, etc., etc., etc. In regard to the last example, even though it has resulted a 50% reduction in teenage pregnancy and dramatic reduction in abortion they will oppose these sensible policies to appease their evangelical and fundamentalist base.

So, I have to conclude that although Hilary Clinton does not represent my ideal candidate, unlike many on this board, I will certainly vote for her. The alternative is a disaster. However, at my advanced age perhaps, I like Hilary, don't have the mental acumen to properly judge the situation. I say good luck to my grandchildren; they will need it if the Republicans take sole control.

[pnwmom]

135. Thanks for the very thoughtful post.

And I agree -- especially about the grandchildren.

[blkmusclmachine]

38. Hillary will run to Obama's right. And lose.

[hrmjustin]

46. Warren is not remarkably younger and does not seem it.

If people in the party want someone other than Hillary they need to get a candidate that will actually run and convince the party that person is the best.

Warren is not going to run against Hillary.

[libdem4life]

62. Suffocating? AKA Overly Maternal? Sounds sexist to me. No man would be called "suffocating".

I'm neither a hater nor a lover. But I do sniff out sexism...even as a dogwhistle.

[F4lconF16]

99. Suffocating as in quickly and painfully extinguishing life.

There is nothing maternal about the way the Clinton interests suppress any primary debate.

[libdem4life]

115. Thanks, but I know the definition. It's a commonly used phrase to refer to a "smother mother" and

it is not used generally for a male. Regardless of the political use here...it's still a sexist dogwhistle.

[F4lconF16]

128. Point taken

I didn't think about whether it's used much for men. You are right. Always got to be on the watch for this crap, so thanks for pointing it out.

[Thinkingabout]

63. Oh, pleeeeeze. None of us are assured of waking up in the morning.

What do we as individuals know, perhaps only half of the people who posted here on DU may be around to vote in the next presidential election. Let's get serious and unite the DNC and elect Democrats in every position, this would come closer to getting our issues accomplished.

[dsc]

65. I am trying to imagine for a second that such a thing would be written about a male candidate

frankly I think the sun would burn out first.

[wyldwolf]

77. "insufficiently voted for"

Even without Florida and Michigan counted, Hillary's primary vote totals almost doubled those of John Kerry's

16,622,672 vs 9,930,497

In ANY OTHER primary, Hillary wins in a walk and if she'd had a better ground game in Iowa, she'd be in the White House.

[L0oniX]

83. She lost to Obama. So she gets to run now? Dem's settle for a 2nd place looser as the front runner?

[woo me with science]

86. LOL. She's INEVITABLE!!!!!!

THIS TIME!!!!!!111!

Corporatist Democrats know she is a weak candidate. I think that is precisely the goal: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6229978

[AtomicKitten]

98. she's more inevitabler than ever

[winter is coming]

97. Of course she gets to run now.

But acting like she's already got the nomination sewn up? Don't people remember how that played out the last time she had it in the bag?

[joshcryer]

100. Anyone can run.

Are you saying she shouldn't be allowed to run?

[L0oniX]

107. While yer reading into what I said here's something that could help you...

[DeSwiss]

102. There's also the issue of ascension.

- I'm against royalty.



K&R

[RiverLover]

105. *Petitions For 2016 Progressive Candidate For President* TYT

Jon Stewart has over 1000 votes

http://www.tytnetwork.com/petitions/

[whereisjustice]

113. Bush and Clinton - the rich and corrupt have nothing to fear from either one.

[OKNancy]

117. yet another Republican from the Cato Institute being posted at DU

W.W. stands for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Wilkinson

"As of 2010, he is one of the contributors of The Economist's Democracy in America blog under the pseudonym W.W."

[ProfessorGAC]

119. I'm Concerned About Her Viability to Win

While name recognition is a big deal, Jebbie has that too, so it's a push..

Problem is, the "scandals" at the end of the Clinton presidency are still going to be remembered by the folks who vote but pay far less attention to details.

So, Jeb has the informed voter on the dem side voting against him, Hillary has everybody to the right of Nelson Rockefeller voting against her, and the lesser informed swing voters are going to remember the "Lewinsky thing". It won't matter that there was no there, there. It won't matter that it was a ginned up witch hunt intended to tarnish his potential successor. They'll just remember the "blue dress".

The folks who would throw their vote to HRC as a "sympathy" vote (because her husband was such a hound), were more than likely going to vote for her anyway. Again, no advantage.

And since Jeb Bush isn't one of the crazies, he's unlikely to scare away the middle. So, i think she's got very little chance in the GE.

We need to find someone who can take on JB and even use the "no dynasties" routine, which Hillary cannot.

[stonecutter357]

124. .

[2banon]

126. Must throw the Economist Under the Bus, to join in all those other dubious sources!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

127. "dubious sources" are those that aren't "Ready for Hillary".

[dissentient]

131. For the record, the author who wrote this is not a Republican

If you read the wikipedia entry, it says at one time he formerly described his views as libertarian, but now he rejects that label.

[Beacool]

139. Was the writer of this article as concerned when Reagan ran?

He too was "not as spry" as he used to be.

The Hillary Clinton I know has more stamina than people half her age (ask any staffer). She pushes herself to her physical limits and then gives some more.

If Hillary chooses to run she will take into account, among other things, her physical and mental state. She is a pragmatist and will analyze every aspect of a potential campaign before she decides whether she wants to delve into it. Unlike Bill who needs people around him like he needs air, Hillary is quite content to lead a private life as long as she feels that she can contribute. If she does choose to run it will be because she has a need to serve and because she's convinced that she would be a viable candidate with a good chance to win the WH.

She has accomplished more than any other first lady in history, at least up to this point, and doesn't need to prove anything more. She has also already lived in the WH for eight years. She has no illusions of what the position holds. If she runs and wins, she'll be an effective president. The next president will probably have to deal with a Republican majority in Congress. Lord knows that Hillary has enough experience fighting Republicans.

[JEB]

153. Why not jump over Hillary

and go with Kissinger/ Summers ticket? Same policies.

[woo me with science]

154. kick