Staking out postitions against the TPP and for a $15 minimum wage, O'Malley

[cali]

is positioning himself solidly to the left of HRC.

He's offering specific on issues that may garner some support from Unions- not the power there once were but still a factor in democratic politics.

He's attacking not only right wing economic policies but the so called centrist economic policies that have held sway in the democratic party.

And he made a point last night of talking about leading and not waiting until polls support taking a liberal position.

Can he mount a credible challenge? I don't know, but it's good to see these issues brought up.

[daleanime]

1. kick...

[betterdemsonly]

2. Interesting. n/t

[Katashi_itto]

3. K&R!

[Omaha Steve]

4. It's a bird, it's a plane,...

[cali]

7. lol. that would be a shocker

seriously, I don't think of O'Malley as a liberal hero, but I am glad he's addressing these issues.

[yallerdawg]

5. I like Martin O'Malley.

He could be a real surprise if H stumbles or leaves some money on the table.

Myself, I have always questioned principle over polls. I want my elected officials to serve the public, to be responsive to what we want. Polls are an expression of public opinion. Nothing pisses me off more than a candidate or an elected representative who says "I don't pay attention to polls." It's like, "Screw you, I'm gonna do what I want. I have strong principles!"

For example, George W. Bush. Invaded Iraq regardless of polls and major concerns from the American people. But he stood on principle and didn't care about 'polls.' Same thing with the 'surge.' We wanted out, he doubled down. Principles.

On the other hand, Barack Obama. The Syrian government of Assad was using chemical weapons (along with conventional) to massacre men, women and children. Obama said this will not stand, and we will stop Assad with military force, at least air strikes. The American people said no, we don't want to get into another Middle East war. Did Obama listen to us? Or did he stand on his 'principles'? He listened to us. Our opinion mattered. He found another way, even though it compromised him politically.

So criticizing Hillary because the American people have evolved, and she follows our lead, is silly. Unless your preference is dictatorship over democracy.

[pampango]

8. I see what you're saying but isn't it human nature for liberals to want politicians to stand up for 'principle'

when a conservative policy (like support for invading Iraq in 2003 or for the death penalty today) is, at least momentarily, popular in the polls? Conversely don't we want them to 'listen to the public' when liberal policies poll (like a higher minimum wage immigration reform) well, rather than hide behind some questionable "principle"?

[jeff47]

9. The criticism is not for ignoring polls. It's for not moving polls.

If you believe "gay marriage" is a right but the public opposes it, the solution is to start working on moving public opinion. Not blindly doing what you want to do, public be damned.

If you believe something is fundamentally wrong, waiting for someone else to move public opinion and then exploit their efforts is a particularly craven way to operate.

For example, George W. Bush. Invaded Iraq regardless of polls and major concerns from the American people.

The majority supported invasion before the war.

Obama said this will not stand, and we will stop Assad with military force, at least air strikes. The American people said no, we don't want to get into another Middle East war.

It's pretty obvious that Obama was bad cop to Russia's good cop. If Obama had actually wanted to launch military attacks, he would have started moving the military into position to actually do those attacks.

So criticizing Hillary because the American people have evolved, and she follows our lead, is silly.

Being a weathervane means you do things that you know are wrong, just because they are popular.

[mahina]

6. I like him too. His website and clips are super weak.

Step it up, Martin,