Hypothetical Question: Would Obama and the Clintons be as successful if they were actually Liberal? [View all]

[Armstead]

Reading about Obama's unvarnished support for the TPP and the rest of these awful "free trade" scams raised this question.

Speaking personally, I am sick and tired of Democratic leaders who I really, really want to support, and in many ways do support -- but who contradict their good deeds and wonderful words with awful stuff.

Put another way, leaders who talk a good game, but on many issues that count seem to be Trojan Horses -- bringing the usual cabal of Corporate and Wall St. Oligarchs into the city disguised as a gift to us all.

The most egregious examples -- but not the only ones-- are President Obama and the Clintons.

I am not going to blame this solely on corporate control of the media and political process. The Democratic Corporate Liberals who rise have political talents and a sense of personal decency that the public responds to.

I often agree with Obama when he speaks. I think in his heart he believes the same things I do as someone who is "moderate" but clearly liberal and progressive. He's tried to hold the tide against the attack of the GOP/Koch alliance.

But ultimately I can't trust him. On the real issues of Money and Power, he slides over to the Oligarchs position. He appoints elitist insiders. he helps to sekll shit like "austerity." He turns to Wall St. for advice and pats the progressive " base" on the head saying "Trust me I've got this." And then goes against everything I believe in....Even though I am just a Moderate Liberal and Progressive (not a radical).

The Clintons are the same way. Bill has inspired me on many occasions with his speeches and off-the-cuff remarks. He professes to believe what I believe...But as president, just when i was about to relax, he metaphorically pulled out the knife and pushed crap like Corporate Globalization, NAFTA, Deregulation, etc.

Likewise Hillary. She hasn't been president, but in her own way does the same thing.

Therefore most of the times over the last 30 years, when there have been Democrats in control I have felt like part of me really wants to feel good about them and support them wholeheartedly. But the otehr part gets mad and frustrated when I see thenm doing things I would expect from a Republican.

CONTRARY TO THIS, there are Democrats that I do feel comfortable with and/or agree with much more. Elizabeth Warren being the most visible current example, but many others too, such as Tom Harkin, Sherrod Brown, Barbara Lee and others too numerous to mention. And of course the best non Democrat Democrat Bernie Sanders.

Whenever one of these gets too close to being truly influential, or even making noise about running for president, they are ignored and/or dismissed. Sometimes for personal reasons. Dennis the K has been proven absolutely right on many issues, but he's not considered presidential -- he's kind of funny looking, he doesn't play well with others, he's occasionally too woo-woo, etc. Howard Dean (whose somewhere in the middle) was branded as temperamental and unstable. Or Bernie Sanders is considered s schlubby Jewish professor from a whacky green state....etc.

On paper, President Obama might have fit in that category, because of his ethnicity and lack of time in DC. But, with his considerable political gifts he overcame that, and proved to be a masterful politician. Bill Clinton also overcame a tough background to rise in the ranks because he was a master salesman and smart as hell beneath his Bubba exterior.

How much of their ability to rise to the top was based on their considerable personal abilities, and how much was their willingness to sell out their core principles along the way?

If they had remained true to their liberal instincts, could they have been successful? Or were they allowed to take their brand of Duplicitous Corporate Liberalism to the top because it was phony underneath?