If No One Challenges Hillary Clinton From The Left, One Progressive Group Will

[karynnj]

32. Sadly, they are serious

IMO, their tactics are really unhelpful. I remember in 2009, that they had a series of really obnoxious ads - targeting Democrats - that they felt were not for the public option. However, rather than make the case their position, the ads completely attacked their integrity - mostly using campaign finance information.

I got into an email conversation with Green - because surprisingly, he responded to comments that I emailed him - as well as posted. It will surprise no one that the reason was that in addition to the people against the public option, he decided to target John Kerry. (Using the fact that his career sums of money collected was high - ignoring that it was because he had been our nominee.) In sum, he admitted that he included Kerry because having volunteered on the 2004 campaign he was angry that Kerry was not more forcibly fighting for a public option. His goal - for putting out (in his case) internet ads was to get Kerry to step forward rather than to work within the Finance committee to make the bill marginally better where he could.)

I disclose this because it seems his goal is the same here. He wants Hillary Clinton to be the candidate he wants, not necessarily the candidate that her team wants her to be to win or who she really is. To me, BOTH of these actions show a huge amount of chutzpah on his part. In Hillary's case, it also ignores that she is a known quantity. It also ignores that some of the vague outlines we are beginning to see show that Hillary may well run a more progressive campaign. Any shifts that HRC makes MUST be seen as something organic - something true to her - as seen by many comments here, NO ONE will be happy with a HRC suddenly speaking like Alan Grayson!

Two issues seem to highlight changes to the left. One is that she has tied together her advocacy as a recent Yale Law School graduate, her time as First Lady of both Arkansas and the US and her time as SoS - on her record for advocating for women and children. Although this was a theme in 2008, it seems to be far more high profile now. ( The only danger I see here is whether Republicans will push her on whether we should stay in Afghanistan - either backing an unpopular continuation of the war or being open to question on the assurances to Afghan women.)

The second is more surprising as it is not rooted in the past. She has given speeches on both green building and sustainability. These are actually closer to things that have moved John and Teresa Kerry than the Clintons - The Kerrys actually were 2 of the co founders of Second Nature, which they did right after they met before they married and Teresa was a leader in Green building and the reason that Pittsburgh has many green buildings. (I know the Clinton Foundation has done some things on green buildings - but last I read it was more talk, than action.) Bill Clinton had a poor record on the environment in Arkansas and neither were as concerned about global warming as Gore and Kerry. Because this is a new level of commitment, it is actually a sign that on this issue HRC has already moved to the left and it is believable.

It will be interesting to see how she positions herself for 2016. If Obama gets something passed on immigration, there may be two big issues central to Democrats that - because they are partly "fixed" could be less important - health care and immigration. However, it might be the Republicans may run on rolling them back - giving any Democrat very simple positions.