To DEFEAT The Tea Party, The LEFT Needs BOLDER LEADER Than Hillary

[Segami]

~snip~


I remember asking a Republican friend over dinner to name a single policy of Bill Clinton that they opposed and seeing them stumble (oral sex in the Oval Office isn’t a policy). The left has far more to despise about Bill than Republicans: he deregulated the banks, thereby setting the stage for the financial crisis; he passed the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, shredding the social safety net and forcing many poor women into the workforce; he signed into law economy-crushing free-trade agreements without environmental or labor protections; he escalated the War on Drugs, flooding American prisons with poor blacks and funneling billions to law enforcement agencies that abandoned practical policing in favor of SWAT-like tactics.




Hillary is not her husband, but there is reason to fear her presidency would devolve into the same govern-by-polls center-right market-friendly neoliberal toxic sludge her husband dumped on the left. The left must ask itself some crucial questions: Could Clinton really tackle inequality by strengthening unions, raising the minimum wage and instituting a highly progressive tax system? Could the a member of the family who rented out the Lincoln bedroom to donors really tackle campaign finance reform? Could the woman who made the case for Iraq keep us from the next neo-con fraud? Will Clinton’s work undermine the overwhelming power of corporations and regulate the big banks that have financed her campaigns? America doesn’t need more establishment candidates; we need a fearless leader who will turn us away from the greedy consumerism that is tearing apart our society, in favor of empathy and sustainability. This isn’t to say that Hillary Clinton would make a bad president — simply that she would be another centrist establishment candidate at a time when the country needs much more.




Democrats used to stand against big banks and big corporations and stand for the little guy. Democrats used to talk about expanding social security, not cutting it. Democrats used to regulate big banks, not suck up to them for campaign cash. George McGovern may have gotten trounced, but at least he knew a shitty war when he saw one. Michael Dukakis may have lost to H.W. Bush but at least he defended the rights of prisoners. Bill Clinton flew home to Arkansas during the 1992 primary campaign to oversee the execution of a mentally ill prisoner. Has the left been so castrated that we run directly into the arms of the most banal corporate candidate without even considering the possibility of Warren or even a Bernie Sanders? The first has fought tirelessly for a higher minimum wage and a new Glass-Steagall. The second has spent decades tacking on amendments to bills and the Constitution (among his goals: protect undocumented workers, undermine the Patriot Act, and strip corporations of First Amendment rights). They both would have passed a financial reform bill with actual teeth and guaranteed a public option.




It’s time to move away from the “New Democrat”/Third Way-style of governing. Americans are thirsty for real change. Dukakis and McGovern lost because they tried to sell peace to a war-hungry society. Now Clinton and Obama are selling neo-conservatism to an America ready to cede control to the international arena. We need a new New Deal, with full employment, strong unions and a powerful role for government. We need to question whether brutal free-market capitalism will erode liberal democracy, whether the short-termism of greed should be replaced by a sustainable economy. Can Clinton legitimately lead such a radical re-envisioning of American society?



cont'



http://www.salon.com/2013/10/12/to_defeat_the_tea_party_the_left_needs_bolder_leader_than_hillary/

[gordianot]

1. We need to clean out the House of Representatives and State Houses.

Until that is done it does not matter who is President.

[randome]

2. So what's 'Plan B'?

I don't want Hillary as President, either but I agree with you it's time for new blood.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Agschmid]

40. We have a somewhat weak bench...

There are some great players out there but they are mostly regional players... No one commands the national stage quite like her (that is both good and bad).

[randome]

46. I hear you. But Obama was a regional player, too.

2014 comes before 2016 so we should worry about that first.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[Agschmid]

54. Amen.

[geek tragedy]

3. She's not my ideal candidate, but she would destroy any Teabagger they threw against her,

Say what you will about Hillary, she plays to win.

[MFM008]

30. Thank You!

perfect.

[Orsino]

39. She will make them all look mean and stupid.

No, not my ideal choice, but...

[Agschmid]

41. I'd like for people to start naming their ideal choices...

She may not be yours... But bring something to the table?

[Orsino]

97. You could just say "electability" right now, and save us the trouble. n/t

[Agschmid]

108. That is absolutely not what I said.

I just want people to share who their choices are... That would only help their electability.

[pinto]

4. LOL. From Sean McElwee, a Reason Foundation alumnus.

http://reason.org/about/faq/

[grantcart]

11. ah the libertarians, thanks

[DURHAM D]

17. lol I see David Koch of Koch Industries is on the board along with other insane folks.

One must wonder why this piece of crap was posted on DU.

[Agschmid]

42. Valid question...

Always good to vet your source.

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. One must wonder....but not for very long...

[Beacool]

60. I see, a Libertarian.

[Pab Sungenis]

5. Hillary has never been a leader for the Left

and in office would promote the same disastrous DLC policies as her husband and Obama.

The Left needs a REAL leader, not velociraptor in sheep's clothing.

[ScreamingMeemie]

13. Well said...

Every once in awhile, I feel like I am in pre-'04 GD. You just did that for me. Thank you Pab.

[DonCoquixote]

34. very well said

I cannot help but think that Hillary is already the one percent's "plan B" to continue feeding the wealthy after the GOP implodes. The Clintons already saved the right once...

[xchrom]

37. if i count right -- i am +3 on your comments. agreed. nt

[TheDebbieDee]

55. But who on the left can we develop to stand up to these Tea-partiers

AND compete for significant portions of the voting public that has the star power of Hilary? Got any ideas?

[alarimer]

69. I agree with you; I just don't know who that would be.

I'm tired of DLC centrists, or middle-of-the-road types.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. To get a true progressive agenda, probably true. But to defeat the Tea Party, No.

I actually think on a character level Hillary is about as tough as they come, and she is not in the slightest bit naive about what is involved to go against the right wing extremists. I think Hillary would be far better than most Democrats at dealing with the Tea Party Republicans. Her issue is whether or not she would push back against the corporate more mainstream Republicvan agenda which, while not as crazy as the Tea Party "platform", still harms the interests of middle class, working class, and poor Americans.

[busterbrown]

7. I think Hillary would govern center-center based on the momentum the left has now.

And the fact that I believe she is one pissed off woman like every dem. who once thought that deals had to be made.

I’m not a big Clinton fan ( Hillary or Bill). But we have got to roll with the one who stands the best chance.

Utmost of importance... Must keep the ACA on track... Thats the game changer...

[Pisces]

8. Your concern is noted.

[Agschmid]

44. I had to scroll quite far down to find it!

[Stallion]

9. Don't Know What You Are Thinking

This is gonna be a Clinton rout-because the Republicans are going to nominate an unelectable clown and Democrats are going to own the middle-that's a great place to be in politics.

[msongs]

12. the democrats' "middle"has moved so farright it is barely recognizeable sometimes nt

[beachbum bob]

10. clearly mistaken

Absolutely no democrat would garnish more support than hillary...to judge her governing style I suggest we wait.

[ScreamingMeemie]

14. "garner"

I am hoping that Hilary would neither withhold support, nor add paprika to it.

[dionysus]

47. don't cast asparagus at new posters, k thx

[ScreamingMeemie]

48. It was a rather unseemly jester on my part...

[Zorra]

15. Yes, it is definitely time to move away from the “New Democrat”/Third Way-style of governing.

Otherwise RW extremists will hold our country hostage forever.

[alcibiades_mystery]

16. The Left doesn't need a leader...it needs a constituency

[WilliamPitt]

18. Someone who SPEAKS in CAPS at ALL TIMES.

[Segami]

23. Nothing to say...

....I guess NOT.....(speaking in caps...just for YOU)

[Shankapotomus]

19. If there is a stronger Democratic candidate

they will rise to the surface, just as President Obama did, and sub-plant Hillary. If Hillary ends up being the bigger wave, I'd rather give my money and vote to her campaign than risk splitting the vote for a "third party" candidate who couldn't get the nomination.

[RC]

77. How is a Liberal 3rd party worse than a conservative 3rd way?

[VanillaRhapsody]

83. "Good Morning President Ryan...Vice President Cruz....coffee?"

[RC]

84. So we are to continue following the Right-wing ever farther to the Right, till we go over the cliff?

What do you propose?
More 3rd way just because they have a (D) by their name is not the answer. That is how we got here in the first place. We need to start doing some thing different.

[Shankapotomus]

87. It wouldn't be worse

But my point is it would divide the liberal vote and that could allow republicans to win elections.

[RC]

90. We just keep following the ever Right ward march of the Democrats till we all go over the cliff too?

With that mind-set, we are all doomed.

BTY, it wouldn't be the Liberal vote that would be divided. We know better on who to vote for. It would be the people that think we have to vote for anyone with a (D), regardless of how far to the Right they are, because everyone knows (D) are not Republican. How do we know they are not Republican? Why, they have a (D) by their name, so therefore they must be Liberal because they are Democrats.
Sorry, I don't do lock-step.

Democrats never agree on anything, that's why they're Democrats.
If they agreed with each other, they would be Republicans.

You've got to go out on a limb sometimes because that's where the fruit is.
Will Rogers

[Shankapotomus]

94. I agree

But in a country of 350 people you are not going to get 100% high information voters. I would personally like to see the Democratic party evolve into what we want it to be. And I know that's not so easy a wait for many who have waited all their life.

however, if a political party came along that was just as strong as the Democratic party but with higher political standards, count me all in.

[AtomicKitten]

20. a question from Senator Edwards

Last edited Mon Oct 14, 2013, 02:32 AM - Edit history (1)

&list=PLE5D8905A1366ECF9

[tularetom]

21. I think she's too enamored of the Washington cocktail party scene to be effective

I can't say I agree with everything Obama has done but I am impressed with the way he seems to be unimpressed with how he is received by the DC insiders, lobbyists, consultants and pundits who think they run things.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid Hillary, like Bill, craves acceptance by these assholes and won't do anything to piss them off. Which means no waves, business as usual, the 99% gets screwed while corporations, the pentagon, and Wall Street pretty much get everything they want.

If she is the nominee I'll almost certainly vote for her. But I'm not expecting much.

[tavernier]

45. Yes, she's had loads of time to swan around in the Washington cocktail scene

...while flying around the world dozens of times negotiating, mediating and mending the hottest spots on the planet.

Really???

[Beacool]

49. The Washington cocktail scene?

Please, when has she been gallivanting around doing the DC social scene? At what point did she have the time or interest?

[DURHAM D]

96. As I recall Sally Quinn totally trashed her for NOT being part of the cocktail crowd.

[Beacool]

98. Yes, I remember.

That was back when she was First Lady. Hillary had better things to do than to be the premier D.C. hostess. Sally was very catty about it.

[frazzled]

22. Tea Party favorability is at 21%: any Democrat can "beat" that

I don't know exactly what you're talking about, regarding a Democrat "beating" the Tea Party. I assume you mean a Democratic presidential candidate beating a Tea Party presidential candidate in the future. Not too worried about that.

What is needed to "beat" the Tea Party in general (which is not the president's job), is for the Republican Party to get its own house in order. Only they can tame the monster they've created. They need to primary these jokers from the left--that is to say, run more moderate candidates against them.

Otherwise, it doesn't matter who we elect as our next president, be it Hillary or the ghost of Che Guevarra: if the House remains in Tea Party-controlled Republican hands, not a single progressive or liberal agenda item will be enacted.

[Thinkingabout]

26. K & R, exactly, the Tea Party needs to go, the GOP leadership is too weak to help

Themselves, many of the dumb votes going for TP candidates are votes against themselves but they
just don't understand and get past their KKK thinking of doing everything against a black president is not in their best interest.

[wyldwolf]

24. How about letting primary voters decide?

Wow! That's a novel idea.

[Rstrstx]

25. I've already seen an "It's time for Hillary" bumper sticker down here

Just sayin'

[JHB]

27. Who? Who is this leader? That's where the rubber hits the road.

I completely agree with ending the party leadership's love affair with neoliberal economics, but it has to be accomplished by actual people, not "somebody". And since you mean for 2016, you should already have names in mind. Who are they, and what do they need to rise to the top?

If you can't answer that, then your goal isn't supplanting Hillary but in finding the person to come after her.

If nothing else, pushing the party away from the Third Way direction can drag her in that direction. And at least she'd come out of the gate understanding that the Republicans are being driven by ideological billionaires and hallucinating zealots. There wouldn't be any learning curve on that point.

[Turbineguy]

28. The Ahmadinejad Postulate

We need a nutcase to face down another nutcase (GW Bush)

[cui bono]

29. Well yeah... like maybe someone who is actually on the left!?!?!

Clinton is center-right ffs.

If we could get someone who is actually a liberal, who will actually stand up for what's good for the people and not big business I think we could win in a landslide and get this country back on track. But as long as we keep getting handed compromised center candidates it's going to be business as usual.

[coldmountain]

61. Hillary is hardly center right. If you want to beat her fine but don't make stuff up

From Daily Kos

"I've always thought that if you want to see where a candidate will take us, look at where they've been. To that end I’ve tried to provide links to Hillary's voting record in any diary I post about her – which by the way is one of the MOST PROGRESSIVE RECORDS IN THE SENATE. But I suspect that many don’t follow the links. They’d rather wallow in their ignorance rather than look at the facts – it allows them to continue under the misperception that Hillary is the devils spawn or something.

So rather than post yet ANOTHER link to her record I’m gonna lay it out in all its progressive glory - make the jump with me if you wanna be an informed citizen of this community...

Contrary to popular belief, she vote against CAFTA – twice. She did NOT support the bankruptcy bill but in fact spoke out against it. (She only missed that vote because Bill was having heart surgery at the time). That's setting straight just a couple of the many misperceptions regarding her record, which is nearly identical to Obama's (just 2 votes separate the two) and it's more progressive than Edwards was. If spoon-feeding her record to folks is what it’s gonna take then here ya go..."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/08/06/367618/-Why-Let-the-Facts-Get-In-Your-Way

[northoftheborder]

63. Excellent recording of true facts. Thank you for this. I'm tired of hearing....

.....that Hillary Clinton's opinions on policy are identical to her husband's. If I know nothing about her, I know this: she is an intelligent, strong-minded, independent woman, with a heart of compassion. This is a different world that she would inherit now, not the world Bill Clinton faced. I believe that Hillary Clinton has the capacity to see things as they are, and make efforts to move our nation towards a more equitable and just society.

[cui bono]

67. While all that may be true, it doesn't put her on the left or make her a liberal.

See this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3843816

[cui bono]

65. She is hardly a liberal or on the left.

And when I say center-right I'm taking into account how far to the right the entire political spectrum has moved. What was once left is now considered center-left, what was once the extreme right is now just vanilla-right.

H.Clinton voted for the Iraq war, for one thing. Here's more:

Published on Thursday, June 5, 2003 by the Madison Capital Times
Hillary Clinton Hardly a Liberal Icon
by John Nichols


Hillary Clinton's status as a liberal icon has always been based on leaps of logic, as opposed to her record.

As the first lady, she actively supported Bill Clinton's anti-worker, anti-environment, anti-human rights trade policies, from the North American Free Trade Agreement to permanent most favored nation trading status for China.

She defended the Clinton administration's draconian welfare reform schemes, which her old allies at the Children's Defense Fund correctly identified as the shredding of the social safety net for America's poorest children.

And she took the lead in drafting a bureaucratic health care reform plan that rejected the sensible single-payer model in favor of a scheme to funnel federal money into the pockets of some of the worst players in the for-profit health care industry.

At a time when Democrats like U.S. Reps. Marcy Kaptur of Ohio and Maxine Waters of California were battling the corporate-sponsored free trade agenda; when Nydia M. Velzquez, D-N.Y., and Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., were battling to defend the interests of low-income families; and when Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, and Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., were championing real health care reform, Hillary Clinton always refused to ask the tough questions, take the tough stands or abandon the risk-averse course set by the Clinton administration.

When Clinton was elected to the Senate in 2000, there was a brief flurry of hopeful speculation that she would emerge as the liberal her most ardent supporters - and her silly right-wing critics - believed her to be. But, in the Senate, Clinton has generally served as an uninspired, if competent, moderate.

With other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee, she has stood up to some of the worst of President Bush's judicial nominees, and like the vast majority of Senate Democrats she has voted against the worst elements of the Bush economic agenda.

But no one is going to confuse Hillary Clinton, who has cozied up to the conservative, corporation-funded Democratic Leadership Council, with a progressive reformer. She remains the conventional inside-the-Beltway pol who angrily shouted, "Russ, live in the real world," after U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., tried to explain why Democrats should embrace campaign finance reforms he had proposed.

<snip>

"I will take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible," she declared.

Twenty-three more skeptical senators chose not to take the president at his word. Among them were Bob Graham, D-Fla., who then chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Carl Levin, D-Mich., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee. While Clinton was praising the president's pronouncements, the skeptics voted "no."

more...
https://www.commondreams.org/views03/0605-07.htm

[coldmountain]

70. Liberal activists warm to Hillary Clinton for president

Liberal activists warm to Hillary Clinton for president

"But times have changed. And progressives are ready to give her another shot. The war in Iraq is over, and the economy is the dominant issue; she has established herself as separate from her husband, and is viewed as more progressive; and much of the old political team does not appear to be in Clinton’s inner circle any longer.
And, of course, Clinton would be an historic candidate – the first woman president, following the first black president. What’s more, according to the polls, she gives Democrats the best chance to retain the White House.
“The fact that she makes 2016 uninteresting makes that attractive,” said Markos Moulitsas, founder of the popular blog Daily Kos. He added, “The reason I’m willing to give Hillary a pass is because the political climate today looks nothing like 2000. … There’s a realization that she has evolved with the times.”
For Clinton, it has always been something of a love-hate relationship with the activist left.
“This might surprise some of you, but not everybody says nice things about me,” Clinton said to a wave a laughter in remarks at this conference in 2007 in Chicago when it was known as Yearly Kos, named after Moulitsas’ blog. “It is a burden I have to bear. Let me say something a little unexpected: Thank you.”

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/22/19092548-liberal-activists-warm-to-hillary-clinton-for-president?lite

[cui bono]

71. That says nothing about her actually being on the left. n/t

[coldmountain]

72. “The fact that she makes 2016 uninteresting makes that attractive,” said Markos Moulitsas

Beating Hillary will be much harder this time. I think she is of the left and many other people will also. You can throw all the litmus tests you want out there be she is consider by most of the country to be a pragmatic leftist who governs from the middle.

[cui bono]

73. Most of the country doesn't know what a real liberal or lefty is any more.

Look at who they allow on TV to represent the left. They are usually center, save for Senator Sanders and Elizabeth Warren for the most part. The term left is being applied these days to mean Democrat, which is far from the truth in this day of the Democratic Party being so far to the center. Hillary is a DLCer and they are center and tell liberals to fuck off, like Rahm Emanuel did.

Making 2016 uninteresting isn't a good thing in my book. That to me says business as usual.

[coldmountain]

75. That says keeping another Bush/Cheney or even worse out of the White House

[cui bono]

85. That's an entirely different issue than whether or not Hillary is a liberal or left. n/t

[coldmountain]

95. Liberal is in the eye of the beholder. Just electing a Democratic woman is liberal at this point

Something must be done to fight the RAPEpublican war on women and Hillary is certainly liberal about that

[cui bono]

100. No it is not! Liberal actually means something.

You are conflating who the liberals are now. If people elect a woman president it might be considered liberal only in the sense that they are electing a woman for the first time. However, it would really be more feminist than liberal when you consider that the person they are electing is not a liberal.

The person being elected could be a female right wing nutbag. What if Palin were elected president? Would that be liberal? Would that make her liberal?

I don't know why you are so determined to find a way to legitimately describe Hillary as a liberal. She simply is not a liberal. Being a liberal means something, it is absolutely not in the eye of the beholder. If you believe that then you are giving power to the right wing has making liberal a dirty word and using it to make Obama and every Dem less desirable to their followers.

I don't even know what to say about the body of your post. Your use of the word liberal in that sentence makes no sense to what we are discussing. Yes, she's a ball buster/clit crusher, but that makes her strong and not afraid of conflict. It does not make her liberal.

[coldmountain]

101. Hillary's Wellesley speeches are liberal

[cui bono]

103. Did you read the Common Dreams article at all?

She's not a liberal. Get over it.

Why is it so important for you to try and convince me (or yourself) that she is? Why do you want her perceived as one?

Also, both of those speeches are more than two decades old. So that hardly says anything about who she is. We can pretty much discount the one from 1969 as being ancient history for a politician. And the 1992 one, was that during campaign season? Bill Clinton campaigned as a liberal and we saw how he governed, from center-right. We're still hurting from a lot of his policies.
(Full disclosure: I did not watch any of the videos. I do not care to watch her/listen to her. If it's really important to you you can take the time to write a post with your own words rather than keep responding with links and videos only.)

We need a real liberal, not someone who talks like one when they want you to vote for them. I suspect that is your motive here, trying to win her some votes early in the process. Not fooling me.

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. I don't doubt her boldness in defeating the Tea Party - Can we get beyond just defeating the crazies

and get back to moving the country forward and seeking a newer world?

Does the Democratic Party have to forever run on the meme of, "We're pathetic - but the other guys are downright batshit crazy"

[BluegrassStateBlues]

32. I will side with whomever OFA gets behind.

Because their ground game is amazing.

[BlueCaliDem]

51. Me, too. eom

[Coyotl]

33. The Tea Party has already defeated itself, plus half their old white guys will be dead by 2016.

People don't change, but 8% of the old ones die between each Presidential election

[99Forever]

35. That woman is NOT left or even close to being.

If Clinton is nominated, I vote 3rd party or write in. No more Turd Way capitulators.

[Recursion]

36. This article seems to confuse "bold" with "farther left"

It may be that we need a farther left candidate, but that's not an issue of boldness.

[Orsino]

38. We need bolder and more benevolent leadership to survive the coming decades.

Trouble is, bold doesn't tend to win elections.

[Silent3]

43. At this point, defeating the Tea Party may require little more than a candidate with a pulse. n/t

[Beacool]

50. Sure, Hillary will just rollover for the Tea Party.

Boy am I sick of the Left and its perpetual hand wringing!!! Hillary is tougher than Bill, always has been. She would have no compunction in ripping Rafael's balls off if he got in her way. Ditto for the rest of the Tea Party kooks.

[BlueCaliDem]

53. I agree. If ever there was a woman who could stand her own against any politician, it's Hillary.

I hope she runs. She'll be a powerful candidate and make minced meat out of any Republican. Without breaking a sweat.

[Beacool]

57. Goodness knows that she's taken enough abuse from the Right and the Left too.

Despite it all, she's still standing and thriving. When adversity hits, she dusts herself off and goes on. She's also extremely bright and tenacious. We could do far worse than Hillary.

[BlueCaliDem]

74. No doubt about it. And the thing is, the Right is afraid of her, that's why they're trying

to get at her this early in President Obama's second term. They know they don't stand a snowball's chance in Hades against Hillary when she runs.

I agree that we can do far worse than Hillary. FAR worse. But I doubt we can get a candidate superior to her. When she runs, she'll be in it to win it - and there's no doubt in my mind she will. I look forward to eight years of Madam President Clinton.

[Beacool]

79. Me too.

[underthematrix]

105. Hillary is tough as nails and she will WIN 2016

[Iggo]

52. Who you got?

[JoePhilly]

91. Same candidate that ran in the 2012 primary against Obama.

[LittleBlue]

56. After Kerry lost, I tuned out politics for 3 years.

If Hillary is the nominee, I have no problem going back to an apolitical existence.

[arely staircase]

58. president obama is doing just fine nt

[Lil Missy]

59. I don't know about that. Hillary has her some brass ovaries.

I wouldn't want to take her on.

[Phlem]

62. Please O Please!

No more third way!

I'm tired of the "new" Democrats.

-p

[Comrade Grumpy]

64. Hillary is not a person of the left. She does not represent the left.

[knitter4democracy]

66. Like Dr. Dean!!

Just sayin'...

[Gore1FL]

80. I could get behind that candidacy. n/t

[IDemo]

68. The Teapers have quite effectively worn out their own brand

The question isn't (or shouldn't be, anyway) how can we defeat them, but why not use the significant advantage that Democrats have gained to shift things left of center instead of continuing the march further to the right?

[Skittles]

76. Hillary would never have wasted time trying to appease these teabagging bastards

not at ALL

[MannyGoldstein]

81. Well...

http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/4385-did-senator-hillary-clinton-face-sniper-fire-when-talking-with-richard-mellon-scaife

[Skittles]

86. Clinton fabulists

mmmmmm kay

[Beacool]

99. Snarky article.

Mellon-Scaife is one of the donors to the Clinton Foundation. So what? It's an apolitical organization that receives monetary commitments from people of all political stripes. If someone has a problem with it, they can go pound sand.

[Old and In the Way]

78. If she is our candidate, I'll happily endorse her.

She's not my 1st pick now...but she could be be. Who knows where we'll be a year from now? She could be dead. But I'll happily vote for any Democrat who is elected at the convention. it's a 'no-brainer'...unless you're a teapublican.

[scheming daemons]

88. she has been dealing with these fucks since 1992

I have no issue with Hillary's ability to take on the TP

[LWolf]

89. Hillary is not a leader of "the left."

She IS the "New Democrat"/Third Way politician.

We need the actual left to lead.

[silvershadow]

92. That's the truth. nt

[NCTraveler]

93. Hillary is a fighter and stands behind many progressive issues.

She also takes a very centrist stance on some issues. She should always be welcomed with open arms to enter the democratic primary for President. She is good for our side. If she enters the primary, so be it, what's it to ya. Don't vote for her in the primary. There is a very good chance I won't vote for her in the primary depending on who else is in the ring. May the best person win.

Sometimes I wish people would spend as much time going after republicans as they do going after democrats.

[Phlem]

106. Sometimes people know every R is a POS, that's why

we try to prune the fakes out from the left. For me that includes *centrists* as well. Why don't we all try leaning to the left for a while because it seems to me all we've done is lean towards the right, with the help of *centrist* in sheep's clothing.



-p

[NCTraveler]

109. I agree that the party needs to try leaning to the left.

I think we have been on a rightward trajectory over the last couple of years. And you won't hear me disagree that Hillary, on many issues, is a part of that.

"That's why we try to prune the fakes out from the left." Hillary is not a fake on the left. I feel that she is on the right edge of what should be acceptable in the Democratic party. She is great for the left on many issues. So many of the issues she supports fall right in line with progressives. I also can't figure out why any Obama supporter would not be a huge supporter of hers. They are almost identical, with her being just to the left of him. "Prune" people like Hillary out of the Democratic party and you will end up with not much of a party at all.

[Phlem]

110. Bill Clinton, Obama, and I would expect Hillary are 3rd way Democrats.

DLC'ers, the *new* Democrat. I'm done with that. I want a traditional left leaning Democrat but yes, I know that will be tough to find especially with all the money floating around DC. But It's like anything, if your going to sell something, you ask for more than you think you can get, that way after all the bargaining is done, you get something that you wanted or better.

That's why I'm holding out for something better and if we do get Hillary I'll support her 100%.

Howard Dean looks promising, unless he's been bought and paid for too.

Bernie Sanders would be great, I think we have time to see what floats up to the top when presidential elections get closer

-p

[NCTraveler]

111. Agree with everything in your post. nt.

[Blue_Tires]

102. DU tried to run Kurovski/WetzellBill in '08

and this forum did a *stellar* job of supporting them, might I add

[ms liberty]

104. I'd really like to see Bernie Sanders run. A lot...n/t

[charmay]

107. After getting stuck with Koch puppet Wanker and Teabagger Duffy, I'll vote for any democrat

on the ticket. I know first-hand the damage inflicted by republicans. The thought of a president Ryan makes me sick.

[Phlem]

112. PS..

Excellent post!

-p