The Nation: Can Hillary Clinton Win Over the Left?

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.thenation.com/article/can-hillary-clinton-win-over-the-left/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New%20Campaign&utm_term=daily

She spent decades seeking refuge in the center. Will progressives now embrace her?

By Michelle Goldberg


Reuters/Lucas Jackson

Earlier this year, Buzzfeed uncovered a 1979 television interview with Hillary 
Clinton—then Hillary Rodham—who had just become first lady of Arkansas. In the half-hour video, we see a young woman in oversize glasses, calm and smiling as the host grills her about whether she’s too liberal, too feminist, too career-oriented to fit into her new role. The host tells her that she probably cost her husband votes by keeping her last name. (She would later give in and change it.) “You’re not a native,” he says. “You’ve been educated in liberal Eastern universities. You’re less than 40. You don’t have any children…. You practice law.” (She assures him that she and Bill plan to have children and adds, “I’m not 40, but that hopefully will be cured by age.”) After nearly 20 minutes of this sort of thing, the host asks Clinton what she finds attractive about Arkansas—a place to which, her biographers have made clear, she moved with great reluctance to further her husband’s political career. Outsiders, he notes, complain that “We’re so unprogressive here. We’re just not as progressive as they are up North.” Appearing eager to finally ingratiate herself, she replies by pouring scorn on urban America: “You know, if it’s progress to default on your bond obligations so that your city’s going into bankruptcy, or if it’s progress to have such an incredible crime rate that people don’t venture outside their doors, or if it’s progress to live in a city whose air you can’t breathe, well, then I hope we are unprogressive, and I hope we never get to the point where that’s our definition of progress.”

This exchange exemplifies a dynamic we would observe over and over for more than two decades. For the first half of her political life, Hillary Clinton was consistently painted as so far left—so feminist—that it threatened her husband’s political viability. Whenever that viability was in doubt, she would overcorrect, trying to convince a skeptical mainstream press that she wasn’t nearly as liberal as she seemed. Eventually, the strategy of triangulation—using the left as a foil to prove her moderate bona fides—became nearly reflexive.

In recent years, however, America’s political context has been transformed. With the white South becoming solidly Republican—something that happened during Bill Clinton’s administration—the Democratic Party has become more reliant on the votes of women, people of color, and those who wear the “liberal” label proudly. This means that elections have become less about wooing swing voters than about turning out the base. Meanwhile, policies once supported by a smug centrist consensus—from Wall Street deregulation to military adventurism in the Middle East—have proved themselves failures, pushing the center of gravity in the Democratic Party to the left. Triangulation has become passé.

This means that, in a historical irony, Hillary Clinton now needs to convince progressives that she really is who she was once widely believed to be. She is running for president as a progressive feminist, something that would have been utterly quixotic when she entered public life. In a major address on the economy in July, Clinton emphasized the importance of women’s equality in a way that no mainstream candidate has done before, describing equal pay, accessible childcare, and fair scheduling as key to economic growth. She’s making paid leave a signature issue. “I am well aware that for far too long, these challenges have been dismissed by some as ‘women’s issues,’” she said. “Well, those days are over.”

FULL story at link.

[onehandle]

1. Yes. nt

[cali]

17. no. she may get reluctant votes, but that's not the same thing.

[daleanime]

54. And that's kind of the problem....

not after our support, just wants our surrender.

That is of course, just my opinion. I'm sure a lot of people disagree with me, but I think even more understand where I'm coming from.

[DanTex]

59. I agree, although it depends what "the left" is.

Plenty of "the left" is already on board with Hillary, but there is definitely a part of the left that, at best, is going to vote for her reluctantly. Although I think that even the strongly anti-Hillary left will warm to her a bit once the GE comes and the contrast between her and the GOP becomes a lot clearer.

[hifiguy]

81. /\THIS/\

There is no reason for anyone who is a genuine liberal to be enthusiastic about a candidate who stands firmly on the status quo ground of plutocratic neoliberal economics and the MIC's War Forever, Wherever platform. None.

[beam me up scottie]

2. She supports the death penalty.

That's not progressive.

[Maedhros]

3. She supports and profits from the private prison industry.

That's not Progressive.

[MaggieD]

11. No she doesn't

[marble falls]

16. Well yes she does, she supports the death penalty and takes money from CCA, supports fracking....

Keystone, three strike laws, minimum mandatory sentences, the Patriot act ........ not very progressive at all.

[MaggieD]

21. 49% of Dem voters support the death penalty

The private prison, keystone issues are just false, made up stuff. She voted no on extending patriot act wire tapping provisions back in 2005.

Here is what she has said for years and years about "mandatory minimums" and three strikes.

"We have to do all of these things:
We do have to go after racial profiling. I’ve supported legislation to try to tackle that.
We have to go after mandatory minimums. You know, mandatory sentences for certain violent crimes may be appropriate, but it has been too widely used. And it is using now a discriminatory impact.
We need diversion, like drug courts. Non-violent offenders should not be serving hard time in our prisons. They need to be diverted from our prison system."

I'm not sure where you get your info, but it's not accurate.

[jeff47]

38. And if the question was "party overall", that statistic might be relevant.

But the question was about the left of the party. Not the majority of the party.

The private prison, keystone issues are just false, made up stuff

She and her PACs have received lots in contributions from CCA and other private prisons.

As for Keystone, just link her opposing it. That will totally demonstrate "the left" wrong in thinking she supports it.

She voted no on extending patriot act wire tapping provisions back in 2005.

Psst...the patriot act has a lot more than wiretapping provisions. She also voted for the original bill. You kinda left that out while attempting to claim she does not support it.

Here is what she has said for years and years about "mandatory minimums" and three strikes.

You mean back when she lobbied for such things on behalf of her husband?

I'm not sure where you get your info, but it's not accurate.

Irony.

[MaggieD]

43. Can you back any of that up with links?

I just don't think you can.

[jeff47]

45. Seriously?

You want a link to the OP to demonstrate the OP is talking about the left of the party?

Are you paying any attention to what you read or write?

[MaggieD]

46. No. I want you to link to all your HRC allegations.

[DanTex]

60. You're right in that a portion of the left is impervious to facts, and that portion is probably

not going to get on board with Hillary.

For example, there are certain people who think Hillary is in favor of expanding prisons in order to increase profits for the private prison industry, even though this is obviously the opposite of what Hillary stands for, as she has made clear repeatedly. People like that are driven by hatred and not reason.

[jeff47]

64. The difference in opinion is based on the value applied to her statements.

She says she wants to reform some of the criminal justice system.

You accept that as what she wants to do.
Others look at her record and note the lack of "I was wrong" in her statements.

[DanTex]

66. Sure, and by that standard, Bernie wants to force everyone into collective farms.

I mean, who cares what he says or what platform he's actually campaigning on, he honeymooned in the Soviet Union!!!

[jeff47]

68. No, he never supported laws requiring people to work on a kibbutz.

On the other hand, Clinton lobbied for a lot of Bill Clinton's "tough on crime" legislation according to her books. She also did not challenge any "tough on crime" legislation while Senator. She also did not talk about it in her 2008 campaign.

So either her opinion on the subject has recently changed, or she is just saying what she thinks will help her campaign the most.

Since the latter is an incredibly common event in politicians of both parties, I am looking for something that indicates when, why and how she changed her mind. And there isn't anything. So I'm going to assume it's the latter until Clinton demonstrates otherwise.

[DanTex]

69. But he did idolize Eugene Debs, he did honeymoon in the USSR, he was a member of the fringe left

Liberty Union party, etc.

Clinton has called for an end to mass incarceration, and couldn't possibly be clearer about it. It's obvious that nothing she says or does will deter you from hating her -- like I said, there is a segment of the far left that is completely impervious to facts. No more than people who really think Bernie wants us all in collective farms are going to change their minds about that.

Hillary Clinton To Call For 'End To The Era Of Mass Incarceration' In Major Speech

...

"I think that the results -- not only at the federal level, but at the state level -- have been an unacceptable increase in incarceration across the board and now we have to address that," she said. "At the time, there were reasons why the Congress wanted to push through a certain set of penalties and increase prison construction and there was a lot of support for that across a lot of communities."

"It’s hard to remember now, but the crime rate in the early 1990s was very high," she added. "But we’ve got to take stock now of the consequences, so that’s why I want to have a thorough review of all of the penalties, of all the kinds of sentencing, and more importantly start having more diversion and having more second chance programs."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/29/hillary-clinton-mass-incarceration_n_7166970.html

[jeff47]

70. And?

You'd have to actually have a point to your laundry list for it to be meaningful.

Clinton has called for an end to mass incarceration

Now. This is the opposite of her previous position, which was supported until at least after her 2008 campaign.

It's obvious that nothing she says or does will deter you from hating her

Well, on this particular issue, "I was wrong to support it, and I changed my opinion in _____ because ______" would. (Assuming the because clause was something remotely believable)

And quoting more and more of her making speeches does not actually provide "I was wrong".

[DanTex]

73. And nothing. Bernie's not into collective farms any more than Hillary is into mass incarceration.

The fact that he's been linked to the USSR and Debs the fringe left in the past doesn't mean he actually wants to end private industry. This is completely obvious.

As is the fact that Clinton wants to reform the criminal justice system. She has pointed out quite clearly that circumstances now are very different than in the 90s and that the law that Bill Clinton passed (and Sanders voted for) had negative consequences.

But, if you ignore what the candidates actually stand for then you can conclude anything you want. Which is why Clinton is not going to win over all of the far left.

[jeff47]

74. Again, Sanders did not lobby for collective farms. Clinton lobbied for mass incarceration.

As is the fact that Clinton wants to reform the criminal justice system.

Again, politicians lie. Frequently. As a result, their actions create far more weight than their words.

Clinton pushed for mass incarceration during Bill's presidency, did not oppose it as Senator, and did not oppose it in her 2008 campiagn. Those are actions.

Now she says she opposes it. This also happens to be the popular position now.

To believe she is sincere, I'd like to see an explanation for why she was wrong up to at least 2008.

that circumstances now are very different than in the 90s and that the law that Bill Clinton passed

The circumstances are nearly identical to 2008. She did not oppose mass incarceration then. Why?

But, if you ignore what the candidates actually stand for

I do not believe a speech indicates what a candidate stands for. I believe it is a marketing opportunity. And marketing is often packed with saying whatever the target wants to hear. Did you know drinking a Bud Lite won't make a party packed with attractive people appear?

To find what a candidate stands for, I look at what their actions. Up until this campaign, Clinton has supported or not opposed mass incarceration. So either I need an explanation for the change in position, or she's just saying what the target wants to hear.

[DanTex]

75. And Clinton didn't lobby for "mass incarceration".

She supported the crime bill that Bernie voted for during an era where crime rates were twice what they are now, and the bill passed by huge margins in both houses. Now, decades later, we can see some of the negative consequences and Hillary wants to correct them. It's really not very complicated.

And by the way, that quote from two posts ago -- the one about the "unacceptable increase in incarceration across the board." That was from the 2007 campaign. So I don't know where this 2008 idea of yours comes from.

As for Sanders, no, he didn't actually lobby for collective farms, but he was definitely an actual socialist (not a "democratic socialist" but a means-of-production-seizing socialist) back in his days of Liberty Union and that fawning documentary of Debs. What changed his mind? When did he decide that private enterprise is OK? What has changed? If anything, the disparity of wealth due to capitalist excesses has gotten worse since the 60s and 70s. You're trying to tell me that the last 40 years have convinced him that capitalism is OK after all?

[djean111]

4. "Win over? No". Enough to peel votes from Bernie? Nope.

And, if she gets the nomination, she will go back to not caring what the Left thinks.

[short circuit]

5. The ex-Senator from Punjab?

No thanks.

[sadoldgirl]

6. Are we supposed to get

back now to accept her "evolution", which only
shows up during her present campaign?

[MaggieD]

7. She already has according to the polls

[hrmjustin]

8. +1

[Metric System]

9. Well, she's no Biden. Oh wait, his Senate record is to her right. Yet I don't see DUers piling on

him the same way they have Hillary. In fact, I've seen Sanders supporters right here on DU who have said they'd consider voting for him in the primary.

[sabrina 1]

14. He isn't running, yet. When he does, his record, like Bernie's and Hillarys' will be a huge issue

for voters. This campaign is going to be all about issues, even if some people would prefer to make it about something else.

[tularetom]

15. If Biden and Clinton were the only choices I'd vote for him in the blink of an eye

I don't know if Biden's Senate record is actually to the right of Clinton but I will concede he's made some fairly serious boo-boos, namely his conduct in the Clarence Thomas confirmation process. But even considering that plus the fact that he's almost as much in bed as Clinton with the banks, I believe he's basically an honorable person, which I definitely can't say about her.

But I don't think it'll even be an issue for me. I live in CA, our primary is late in the process and I believe she will have dropped out by then. She really doesn't seem to really want to be POTUS, somebody else has talked her into it.

[L0oniX]

32. Did Biden vote for the Iraq war?

[Andy823]

37. Yes he did. nt

[Metric System]

48. Are you joking?

[JackInGreen]

33. Let him get in the race

We'll all hear we're Biden haters when we state our objections. It'll be fun, I'll bring cake.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

10. Nope.

Bernie's increasing popularity would tend to indicate that "the left" isn't much interested in her. And the more I see of her, the more I like Bernie.

[6chars]

12. Can Hillary Clinton ever ...?

People have asked a lot of questions starting with those four words over the years.

[Indepatriot]

13. No.

That ship sailed in the 90's. By Thanksgiving they'll be asking if she can mount a comeback against Sanders...

[Catherina]

18. No. n/t

[Motown_Johnny]

19. Not a chance, but if she wins the nomination we will vote for her in the GE

That isn't winning us over. It is us cutting off our finger because we don't want someone else to cut off our arm.

[abelenkpe]

51. +1 nt

[PowerToThePeople]

55. "we" meaning "you" because you can not vote for anyone else.

Correct?

[Motown_Johnny]

58. I assume that anyone who is actually on the political left

will vote against the Republican. That equates to voting for Hillary.

As I said, it is like cutting off a finger to save an arm. Still, it is voting for her.

[PowerToThePeople]

65. You know what they say about assuming.

eom

[Motown_Johnny]

72. OK then, most of us on the left then.

But when push comes to shove, I can't see people not turning out to vote against Bush III or Trump or whatever clown ends up driving the car.

[Juicy_Bellows]

20. No. I don't think she has had the progressive's ear in decades, if ever.

I live in a blue state so I don't have to fall on the sword anymore with regard to my vote. Vote my conscious.

[MaggieD]

22. So most Dem voters are not progressive?

Because most do support her.

[Juicy_Bellows]

25. I suppose so.

The party has left me, not the other way around.

[beam me up scottie]

30. I don't think it's progressive to support the death penalty.

Do you?

[hifiguy]

83. Same here. My state is reliably as blue as can be in presidential years.

I too intend to vote my conscience if HRH is the nominee.

[Zorra]

23. No. There is no trust. nt

[NorthCarolina]

24. In a word...

No

[MaggieD]

26. So what's your theory on her polling dominance then?

[HappyPlace]

28. You mean THIS dominance?

;

:shrug

[MaggieD]

57. Yes, that kind

Exactly.

[Dawgs]

71. LOL!!

[Armstead]

56. Bernie Who? Martin Who?..i thought she was running unopposed.

[Skwmom]

27. No. n/t

[HappyPlace]

29. No. She won't even come out for a $15/hr minimum wage.

So, nope.

[beam me up scottie]

31. +1

[RiverLover]

34. No

nt

[Purveyor]

35. Some perhaps but not enough to win in the general... eom

[jeff47]

36. Triangulation means routinely sacrificing the liberals

in order to fail to appease the Republicans. And "the left" has received nothing but scorn in return for being sacrificed.

So no. She can't.

[L0oniX]

39. OMG Perry Logan posted in the comments. Still a clown. Got the TS here a long time ago.

[dionysus]

42. Perry!! ROFL

[HassleCat]

40. Probably yes

She sometimes calls herself a progressive now, and that's pretty daring for a mainstream Democrat. Her record is, with a few notable exceptions, solidly liberal. Most voters on the left have no real beef with her, overall, although there are some problems with specific issues. I know some Democrats say, "I will not voter for Clinton, no matter what!" When they say that, they usually cite a particular issue where they think Clinton bailed on them. But you can say the same thing about any politician. I have heard people say they line up with Bernie Sanders on everything except gun control. OK. Is that a deal breaker? For some people it might be, if they consider that some kind of litmus test. Clinton may fail some litmus tests, but she'll be OK for most Democrats.

[elleng]

41. Social substance-wise, probably;

otherwise (foreign policy, corporate/financial matters) no.

FWIW.

[Garrett78]

44. It's sad what we call "the center" in the US

Kucinich was best described as a "European Centrist." In the US, you can be a neoliberal (free trade, deregulation, end big government, etc.) with a humane position on a few social issues and you're a "centrist."

Eisenhower and even Nixon were, in many ways, to the left of today's mainstream Democrats. Sad.

[PADemD]

47. NO, not in 2008 or 2016.

[LuvLoogie]

49. She is going to run her campaign

and build a Democratic coalition that would put her at the helm. The endorsements of Tom Harkin and Tom Vilsack are going to go a long way in helping Hillary to secure Iowa for the nomination.

Her doors are open to the Left, but the campaign is focused.

[jfern]

50. Not a chance

[Bonobo]

52. Win over? Not a chance. Get their votes? Sure...

With bowed and broken backs signaling both disgust and frustration, many of them will vote for her.

She will not get their heart or their trust in large numbers though.

That chance was lost some time ago.

[Buzz cook]

53. It really depends on the media.

If they report what she says instead of what the latest right wing talking point is about her, then she very well might convince leftists that she isn't Ronald Reagan in drag.

[TheKentuckian]

61. Dubious, you act like she is an unknown quantity or that she is even at present doing anything

Last edited Tue Sep 1, 2015, 06:55 AM - Edit history (1)

besides trying to run out the clock, secure the nomination, and then depend on "who else you gonna vote for, chumps?" while appeasing the money people and the security state?

Good Lord, she is a cofounder of the DLC what is the purpose in pretending she is a liberal?

She just ran for President in 2008, how are her positions some mysterious but pleasant surprise? She was still standing tall for her Iraq war vote then, well past the "I was tricked" expiration point and she only quietly walked that back in preparation for another run demonstrating quite clearly that the only thing she learned is that in this party the rock skulled and stupid position is a tough sell and opens up her left flank but she has sided with and even lead the Hawks about every time since see Honduras, see Libya, see how Mrs."Loyal to the Administration" about broke her neck to get on national TV to get on Obama's right on arming "moderate rebel factions" in Syria.

She isn't even borderline acceptable and depends on the Republicans getting tea - ed up and focus on a couple of demographic areas to even pretend for a television audience.

The Turd Way is conservative and only can pretend to be otherwise because the TeaPubliKlans are openly radical regressives.

[Buzz cook]

77. You're making an assumption

1. that the left is fully informed. Just because a person claims to be of the left doesn't mean that they know all the relavent details or even that those things they are certain of are factually correct. Such a person may be open to persuasion if they are allowed to hear the person in question.

2. That Clinton is not a liberal. Clinton is to the left of Obama, while I admit that's not saying a whole lot, it does position her in an area that is attractive to some people who claim to be leftist.

BTW you forgot to include Hillbeast or Hitlery in your post.

[TheKentuckian]

79. I forgot no such things, I've never once said either. My forgetting seems to span her entire time on

the national stage.

The cure for ignorance is knowledge, if you have any share it. If the record is inaccurate then set it straight.

While I'll disagree Clinton is to Obama's left, I will agree it says precious little but if you have arguments about who is the least conservative then make them.

[Buzz cook]

80. What? I made I argument, you must have missed it.

If the media allows a candidates words and positions to reach the public without being a filter for the right or the village; then that candidate will be better able to persuade members of the public that are persuadable.

Really it's not that difficult is it?

[TheKentuckian]

85. I said IF you have an argument then to make it, namely in support of your assertion that Clinton is

less conservative than Obama (not that it is significant enough to be trajectory changing either way).

What that point has to do with your previous remarks and dishonest poo flinging at me, I don't know.

[Buzz cook]

86. Surely you jest.

HOLC as opposed to HAMP, Obama believes right wing talking points about FDR and the Depression,...

But wait why, should I waste my time with a long form reply when you don't care about the answer and certainly haven't shown any interest in writing your own.

so here's a link you probably won't click on.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate#

BTW poo flinging started with "turdway". You must have missed that as well.

And on edit you haven't responded to my argument. Too complex?

[DonCoquixote]

62. No but sadly

she does not need them. The Lynn Forester Rothschilds and Alice Waltons will pump as much money as they need to make sure she finishes off the FDR left.

[HereSince1628]

63. I think the syntax of that question raises hidden questions. n/t

[Skwmom]

87. You are right. n/t

[olddots]

67. no never

Never

[fredamae]

76. I am not "the left"

At My age I am still a member of what Used to be the majority Dem Wing of the party......aka: the Dem Base.

So, can she win us over? I can only speak for myself/friends/family whos positions are no secret: NO, she cannot.
Lack of trust based upon her own current and previous connections, voting history and policy positions.

[AtomicKitten]

78. Nope. <nt>

Last edited Sun Aug 30, 2015, 05:42 AM - Edit history (1)

[Autumn]

82. No. Some might hold their nose to vote for her.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. Free torque wrench nose-holders?