Democrats, too, are dancing to the rich man's tune

[KamaAina]

http://jimhightower.com/node/8590

It's futile to hope that the GOP's gaggle of corporate-hugging, right-wing presidential candidates will seriously address the issue of rising inequality in our land – but where are the Democrats?

Well, Hillary Clinton has warned that, "extreme inequality has corrupted other societies." Uh... yes, but what about our society? Clinton says: "We have to have a concerted effort to meet a consensus about how to deal with this."

Huh? That's not an answer, much less a solution – it's a political tap dance around a crucial matter facing America. Why would she dodge a chance to swing away at a down-the-middle, working-class issue that's right in the wheelhouse of her party's populist strength? After all, recent polls show huge public support for direct government action to reduce the wealth gap, from raising taxes on the superrich to raising the minimum wage above the poverty level.

But there is one tiny constituency whose opinion outweighs all others on this issue: The 1-Percenters. Clinton and other top Democrats are weaker than Canadian hot sauce when it comes to embracing the unequivocating populism that ordinary voters want, because only 13 percent of the superrich think government should take action to redress inequality. These privileged ones tend to blame America's widening inequities on the very people who're losing jobs, income, and wealth – claiming that such people should simply improve their work ethic and character.

"Canadian hot sauce" FTW!

[daleanime]

1. K&R.....

[Dragonfli]

2. Not all, but far too many, they have decided to label those in thrall to monied interests

"moderates", or "centrist". Neither describes them in any way I can see.

[bvar22]

3. This is the worst answer I can remember from ANY politician.

*
"We have to have a concerted effort to meet a consensus about how to deal with this."

[KG]

4. yep, she'll get right on this issue.

[hifiguy]

5. What does anyone expect. That HRC is a wholly-owned subsidiary

of Wall $treet, the bank$ter$ and the MIC has been as plain as a bear in a phone booth (remmber those) for longer than I care to remember. Anyone who lionizes war criminal Henry Kissinger as a defender of human rights and hangs out with the likes of him and Lloyd Blankfein, who should be swinging at the end of a rope for financial crimes against humanity, is not a friend of ordinary people. She is a wholly owned servant of the hundredth-percenters.

What part of this is so hard to understand.

[YoungDemCA]

6. Not everyone agrees with you

A majority of Democratic voters, for example, don't agree with your characterization of Hillary.

And if we take your definition seriously, no politician who has any chance of getting anything done in our system can be "a friend of ordinary people."

[hifiguy]

7. The facts are what the are.

Denial isn't pretty.

[libpride_15]

8. Hillary won't be "Mondaled"

The only real answer to income inequality is taxing the rich the way we used to before Reagan gave away the store.

Hillary's test will not be what she campaigns on, but rather how much she raises taxes on the rich.

That's the real test.

Nobody else can win and has the possibility of reversing zombie Reagan's voodoo.

I'll take another "Eisenhower", let's say, before throwing away my vote on a Nader or worse anybody with an "R" by their name

Other factors affect income inequality around the edges, but Reagan's tax rates are the elephant in the room, and sorry, only Hillary has the heft to potentially carry the water.

She just won't repeat Mondale's mistake and tell us in advance - she's a better politician.

Of course, as with FDR and LBJ, she'll need Democrats to be elected to help her, or she won't succeed any more than Obama has.