The demands for Hillary loyalty are loud and clear on DU.

[JDPriestly]

And many of them are accompanied by confessions that the demander is really wanting a more progressive candidate but has resigned him/herself to supporting Hillary out of fear that the only alternative to supporting Hillary is a Republican president.

Not so.

First. The nation will not become more progressive unless those of us who are progressive get our message out and struggle to make our message understood and accepted.

It took years of failure by the progressive movement of the late 19th century to finally result in the election of a couple of presidents who, for a short time, realized progressive policies. And then, the presidents who put those policies into action were not the most progressive possible. They were converts who became emboldened to progressive action by the pressure of the many, many Americans who demanded it.


But, the assumption that at this point, a year before the primaries, that we should all support the candidacy in the primaries of Hillary Clinton, perhaps one of the most right-wing among our potential candidates (if her donor base reflects her convictions), is based on what I believe to be a false assumption: that Hillary is the only potential candidate we have who can win in the general election.

That, may I say, is THE FALLACY OF THE INEVITABLE HILLARY.

First, although she is doing well in the polls, we have no assurance, no proof, not even much evidence that Hillary will survive the primary, much less win in the general election.

I was a child when Adlai Stevenson ran and ran again for president. He was a nice person running on a good platform, but he did not have the personality or charisma to win.

Later, in his first race for the presidency, Nixon lost. When he ran in 1968, Nixon played every dirty trick in the book to win against a candidate who would have made a far better president than Nixon did.

Nixon was viewed by many as inevitable. And the country was deeply divided and depressed by the Viet Nam fiasco.

Then, Democrats succumbed to the temptation of offering what they thought was the most electable candidate: a great guy and the heir apparent, former Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

Humphrey was a great guy, but he was the wrong candidate for the time. He could not separate himself from the establishment types running the Democratic Party.

In addition, the Democratic Party made a demon of itself with the treatment of demonstrators and war protestors at the Party's convention in Chicago. Voices that needed to be heard within the convention hall were excluded. And Democrats lost to a weak candidate, Nixon, in the general election.

We should not repeat those mistakes. We should allow all voices to be heard in the convention hall in 2016. And we should not mindlessly, emotionally nominate the inevitable heir apparent without a primary process that tests him/her.

We should not, at this point, assume that Hillary will be our candidate or that she will win.

We should be encouraging other candidates to stand up and run in the primaries. Primaries are not just popularity contests. They train and test the candidates. They help them hone their messages. They put candidates in the limelight and submit their personalities, their character, their ideas and their purposes to criticism and public appraisal. They help us choose our best candidate, put our best foot forward. Primaries are an essential part of the democratic process.

The assumption that Hillary will be our candidate may prove true. It may not. It is far too early to tell.

Hillary has a huge campaign fund. That is an advantage if you look at it from a superficial point of view.

But a huge campaign fund has to have come from somewhere. And that can be a trap for well funded candidates. Hillary is no exception. Her biggest donors include people who work for large financial institutions and major law firms as well as big corporations. Those donors will be scrutinized and examined inside and out. Their relationships with the Clintons will be analyzed and publicized. Their relationships with foreign countries and foreign interests will be analyzed and publicized. And their relationships with people who have sought or received favors or advantages from the Clintons will be analyzed and publicized. And what is discovered may be very unpleasant for Hillary Clinton. Maybe not. Maybe. It's one of the big unknowns in this election cycle.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. We do not know who our candidate will be. It is too soon to start marching in goosestep with the brass Hillary band. She has a long trek to complete before she is nominated, much less elected.

So relax. Anything can happen between now and November 2016. Give all the primary candidates a good listen to and a good look at. 2016 is an important year. We don't want to mess it up. The future of the earth depends on our care in selecting our candidate.