Getting back to the issues, if you please.

[Rebkeh]

And by issues, I mean those which illustrate the philosophical differences between the democratic candidates. Income inequality, the disappearing middle class, exploitation of the poor, a pathetically unlevel playing field supported by racism, and the lack of representation of the poor among them. Writer Thomas Frank uses (so called) liberal Massachusetts' economic successes and failures to illustrate the economic problems that are at the foundation of just about every argument we are having this raucous primary season.

America is having an identity crisis. Who are we going to be?

Wealthy Liberals Don't Seem to Care About Inequality
Thomas Frank asks in his new book: What ever happened to the party of the people?

By Thomas Frank / TomDispatch April 6, 2016
http://www.alternet.org/economy/thomas-frank-wealthy-liberals-dont-seem-care-about-inequality

:big snip:

(Alternet) At a 2014 celebration of Governor Patrick’s innovation leadership, Google’s Eric Schmidt announced that “if you want to solve the economic problems of the U.S., create more entrepreneurs.” That sort of sums up the ideology in this corporate commonwealth: Entrepreneurs first. But how has such a doctrine become holy writ in a party dedicated to the welfare of the common man? And how has all this come to pass in the liberal state of Massachusetts?

The answer is that I’ve got the wrong liberalism. The kind of liberalism that has dominated Massachusetts for the last few decades isn’t the stuff of Franklin Roosevelt or the United Auto Workers; it’s the Route 128/suburban-professionals variety. (Senator Elizabeth Warren is the great exception to this rule.) Professional-class liberals aren’t really alarmed by oversized rewards for society’s winners. On the contrary, this seems natural to them—because they are society’s winners. The liberalism of professionals just does not extend to matters of inequality; this is the area where soft hearts abruptly turn hard.

Innovation liberalism is “a liberalism of the rich,” to use the straightforward phrase of local labor leader Harris Gruman. This doctrine has no patience with the idea that everyone should share in society’s wealth. What Massachusetts liberals pine for, by and large, is a more perfect meritocracy—a system where the essential thing is to ensure that the truly talented get into the right schools and then get to rise through the ranks of society. Unfortunately, however, as the blue-state model makes painfully clear, there is no solidarity in a meritocracy. (emphases mine) The ideology of educational achievement conveniently negates any esteem we might feel for the poorly graduated.

This is a curious phenomenon, is it not? A blue state where the Democrats maintain transparent connections to high finance and big pharma; where they have deliberately chosen distant software barons over working-class members of their own society; and where their chief economic proposals have to do with promoting “innovation,” a grand and promising idea that remains suspiciously vague. Nor can these innovation Democrats claim that their hands were forced by Republicans. They came up with this program all on their own.

Read from the beginning:
http://www.alternet.org/economy/thomas-frank-wealthy-liberals-dont-seem-care-about-inequality

[Buzz Clik]

1. You want to get back to the issues, and you think this is an issue?

[Rebkeh]

4. Of course it is.

[Dragonfli]

7. Not to limosine liberals, that's likely why this one doesn't get it. /nt

[TheBlackAdder]

11. Wealthy White Women co-opted Black Woman Leagues for the Sufferage, then abandoned them. nt

[Rebkeh]

23. True, and worthy of discussion

Also has little to do with the OP.

Start a thread with your own OP and I may contribute. Otherwise, stay on topic please.

[TheBlackAdder]

24. It deals exactly with wealthy (white) liberals not caring about inequality, but whatever!

[Rebkeh]

25. I see now. Okay

Some don't care, that's true. Some do, but not enough. They all should considering we all have more in common than different. People of all races and genders are voting against their economic interests, even the comfortable. This is about the status quo coming to its natural end, the semi-rich, rich and successful (black and white, male and female) are no better off, not when that time comes. We can all shore up now or swim later, this election is a big deal. When the boat is sinking, you have to rock it in order to fix it. Or start all over (I'd rather not).

The real problem is greed, and it knows no gender. A female oligarch is still an oligarch. A female corporatist, a corporatist. A female aristocrat, still an aristocrat. A female oppressor is still an oppressor. Gender parity is not enough to secure my vote.

Greed knows no race either. Actually, in terms of race, that translates into separatism, also coming to its natural end. There will come a day when we can no longer have it both ways.

Meanwhile, we are talking about shiny objects like the definition of 'is'.

Smdh

[Buzz Clik]

10. So, you're totally anti-business of all kinds? Is that the bottom line?

[Rebkeh]

13. Huh?

Where on earth did you get that?

Never mind.

Nice try, though.

[Buzz Clik]

16. Did you read the article you posted?

The author makes "entrepreneur" sound like a dirty word.

My response is hardly a stretch.

[Rebkeh]

20. Nothing wrong with it at all

What's a stretch is the either/or scenario you presented. We can have successful and prosperous businesses and a thriving economy without exploiting the poor.

It's such a disingenuous argument. As if innovators cannot innovate and succeed without abject poverty throughout the country.

[Dragonfli]

14. Stop sounding like a Republican please, I'm in no mood for it, live where I fucking live for a week

[Buzz Clik]

17. Have you considered not reading my posts?

I have zero sympathy.

[Dragonfli]

19. More often than you could imagine, more so after today /nt

[guillaumeb]

2. The Romans had a saying...

cui bono. It translates "to whom the good" and is also translated as "follow the money". Many Democrats have figured out that catering to and speaking to the very rich is an excellent way to improve their own financial prospects.

This catering to comes at the expense of the bottom 90%, of course, but the bottom 90% do not generally hire ex-Presidents and their relatives to work for them and give speeches to them.

And there is no such thing as a meritocracy when the rich basically live in a different country from the bottom 90%. They have their own schools, their own stores, their own planes, their own neighborhoods. Two countries, separate and unequal.

[pkdu]

3. Navel-gazing in front of the enemy?...you do know who the enemy is ? Right? Nt

[Rebkeh]

6. No navel gazing here

It's all relevant.

Realpolitik is a concept that can be both used and abused. I, for one, can connect the dots.

Can you?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

12. lots of dots - and they draw an ugly picture

...

[pkdu]

15. Sure can. The train is heading this way...some want to play connect "my dots" and

Don't realize they are 45% of 30% of 30% of they American population.

[Dragonfli]

5. Big K&R

[seabeyond]

8. Hands down, Clinton addresses the poor while Sanders ignores leveling the playing field.

[PowerToThePeople]

9. Meritocracy is a big lie.

Work ethic, talent & abilities, and ethics are not the traits which will propel you through the ranks of current corporate America.

[Rebkeh]

21. And that, ladies and gentlemen,

is the basic point.

Upward mobility in America is no longer the norm and it's time we stopped lying to ourselves. We can argue with the republicans about why this is the case, but we first have to agree it is the case. Only one candidate addresses the issue. Hell, only one acknowledges the problem at all.

Meritocracy? For whom, exactly?

[geek tragedy]

18. I guess Tom Franks wants people who go to colllege to vote Republican and

leave the party to the chaste and pure.

[Agony]

22. Yes please! Like her being "uniquely unsuited to epic task of confronting fossil-fuel companies"

The Problem With Hillary Clinton Isn’t Just Her Corporate Cash. It’s Her Corporate Worldview.
Clinton is uniquely unsuited to the epic task of confronting the fossil-fuel companies that profit from climate change.

Naomi Klein

"While Clinton is great at warring with Republicans, taking on powerful corporations goes against her entire worldview, against everything she’s built, and everything she stands for. The real issue, in other words, isn’t Clinton’s corporate cash, it’s her deeply pro-corporate ideology: one that makes taking money from lobbyists and accepting exorbitant speech fees from banks seem so natural that the candidate is openly struggling to see why any of this has blown up at all."


http://www.thenation.com/article/the-problem-with-hillary-clinton-isnt-just-her-corporate-cash-its-her-corporate-worldview/

I would say that this is one more reason why she is unqualified for leadership. Someone else said that too...