Hillary Clinton "Will Make Rahm Emanuel's HIPPIE PUNCHING Look Like Kids Stuff.."

[Segami]

Tea and pastries are on Wall Street



Yesterday I was upstairs putting on my shoes and socks and MSNBC was on. Andrea Mitchell was in the middle of an interview with Kirsten Gillibrand, the upstate New York politician who was appointed to Hillary's Senate seat in 2009 when Obama gave Hillary the Secretary of State job. Wikipedia correctly defines her politics with this description: "A member of the Democratic Party's relatively conservative Blue Dog faction while in the House, Gillibrand has been seen as a progressive since her appointment to the Senate. In both cases, her views were significantly defined by the respective constituency she served at the time-- a conservative congressional district versus the generally liberal state of New York. For example, while quiet on the U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy when she was in the House, during her first 18 months in the Senate, Gillibrand was an important part of the successful campaign to repeal it." That's a nice way of explaining that she panders and isn't a values-driven leader.


In 2006, when she first ran, I got to know her pretty well. I liked her a lot and Blue America took an active role in helping her raise money and working out messaging against John Sweeney. We even got Rickie Lee Jones to record a little campaign jingle for her. And it certainly wasn't just Blue America backing her. She ran as a progressive and had the backing of the Working Families Party. Both Hillary and Bill Clinton campaigned for her in the very red district. She probably won because Sweeney was a drunkard and a wife-beater and his wife called the police on him during the campaign for battery. As soon as Gillibrand entered Congress she joined the Blue Dogs and started voting with the Republicans on almost everything. By the time she was up for reelection there wasn't a trace of progressivism left in her and Blue America would have been more likely to back a primary opponent than to support Gillibrand for anything.


When I watched her on MSNBC I was chuckling at the irony of Hillary using her as a surrogate against Bernie. After all, the main thrust of Hillary's absurd and deceitful attacks on Bernie is that he's an NRA-shill. Bernie's NRA score is a D-minus. Gillibrand was an NRA heroine who was graded an "A" with a 100% perfect score on their issues. She's since flip-flopped into a vaguely anti-NRA stance. She's actually perfect for the job of Hillary surrogate-- a dishonest political hack speaking for another opportunistic careerist with no strong values beyond personal advancement. This morning Gillibrand claimed Hillary will be releasing the transcripts of the paid speeches she made to the Wall Street banksters that she's been hiding all through the campaign and insisted during last night's debate that no one will see them unless they're pried out of her cold, dead hands-- or if Ted Cruz releases his first. Yesterday Nate Roberts shared some thoughts on a Bernie reddit page, A Hillary presidency will not be more progressive because of Bernie's primary challenge and watching Gillibrand on TV made me want to share it, especially with the DWT contingent from New York. "Bernie supporters," he wrote, "who keep repeating the comforting line that 'even if he loses he will have forced Hillary to take more progressive positions,' are in for a rude shock." Nate's got that right!

First, if she wins she'll be even more indebted to her corporate investors, who are the only ones sticking by her and keeping her campaign afloat in the face of a democratic revolution.

Second, the idea that Hillary is some kind of weather vane, who adopts whatever positions poll well is a complete myth. She tailors her public pronouncements to what focus group research is telling her, but her core values and inclinations are thoroughly elitist, militarist, and conservative (with only a few exceptions, like her being pro-choice).

Third, she is a HIGHLY vindictive person, who is known to nurture grudges for decades over far smaller affronts than progressives daring to thwart her lifetime ambition. Not only will she screw progressives over, she'll go out of her way to do so. She'll fuck them even when she doesn't need to. She'll make Rahm Emanuel's hippie punching look like kids stuff and she'll have the power to make it really hurt. And the first thing on her agenda will be killing net neutrality, because that is not only the source off all opposition but her personal Achilles heel.

If she is elected there will be very dark days ahead. This election really is a matter of life and death. Not just for the Clintons, but for any hope of a progressive future. Even Trump or Cruz, as bad as they are, do not represent the threat to progressivism that she does.

This is just some of the reasons it's truly "Bernie or bust."

https://www.reddit.com/r/Kossacks_for_Sanders/comments/4er9bh/a_hillary_presidency_will_not_be_more_progressive/

But... she's better than Trump or Cruz. Neither of them, though, is in the Democratic primary.



cont'

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/04/hillary-better-than-trump-better-than.html

[Segami]

1. Hillary invites only the best hacks into her group....

[AzDar]

2. K & R

[amborin]

3. powerful post! please circulate widely! and that blurb about releasing the transcripts is just for

tuesday

[farleftlib]

4. A wolf in sheep's clothing

She hates progressives. When I heard her slam Moveon.org I knew she was poison. Everything she's said or done since then only confirms my belief that she doesn't belong in the Democratic Party. Her husband got away with murder and all the true progressives left in the party support Bernie.

[bbgrunt]

5. ...and she will destroy the party for the sake of her ambition.

[Dragonfli]

6. K&R

[senz]

7. I agree it's naive to believe Hill has actually moved left during the primary.

There's very little in her history to support this conclusion. She says what she needs to say in order to win the votes she's after, but it's no indicator of how she actually feels. If she gains the presidency, she'll reward her friends, punish her enemies, and do whatever it takes to protect her position and burnish her legacy.

If she tries to kill net neutrality, I hope a newly invigorated public will fight her tooth and nail.

Better yet, let's so everything we can to elect someone who actually cares about the American people.

[Segami]

9. Killing Net Neutrality is how they plan to control future messaging.

Its affecting their bottom line.

[Joob]

8. I was just thinking this today. A "Lesser two evil scenario"

She would be more evil... she has blood on her hands, is backed by corporations. What out OF GOOD NATURE? Her promises to them will come before the people. Horrible at making decisions, THAT ARE CORRECT.

If I played out that whole who's more evil scenario, Hillary wins. Trump's stupid, not evil.
I don't like to play those games though, would likely find a third party candidate else where and find a new party.
One actually for people, not corporations. If she wins election.

[me b zola]

10. K&R

[BernieforPres2016]

11. Wow, I didn't know how craven Gillibrand is

But I have been saying that if Hillary wins the Presidency, she will give Gillibrand a position in her administration to clear the NY Senate seat for Chelsea in 2018.