The Primary Obama Movement Begins Today
The 2010 electoral massacre is over and Democrats are licking their wounds.
Let me put it simply, what went wrong went wrong from the very top of the party. In both political and policy terms, the President of the United States, the head of the Democratic party, created this disaster.
Nothing tracks electoral success better than the economy. Barack Obama did not do what it took to pull the economy out of the doldrums. This is true both with regards to the stimulus, which was too small, too larded up with tax cuts and too ineffective and with regards to the Federal Reserve, where Obama’s chosen chairman Ben Bernanke is about to drop stimulus (nicknamed Quantitative easing 2) on the economy after the election instead of doing it before the election. There was no economic reason not to do it months ago, when it would have helped both struggling Americans and Democrats.
Barack Obama took pains to let down or gratuitously harm virtually every major Democratic constituency. Whether it was increasing deportations of Hispanics, whether it was putting in a Presidential order against Federal money being used for abortions which was more restrictive than Rep. Stupak had demanded, whether it was wholesale violation of civil rights climaxing with the claim that he had the right to assassinate American citizens, whether it was trading away the public option to corporate interests then insisting for months he hadn’t, whether it was not moving aggressively on card check (EFCA) for unions, or whether it was constantly stymying attempts to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Barack Obama was there making sure that whatever could be done to demoralize the base was done.
Meanwhile, the majority of Americans think that the policies Obama pursued were socialistic, progressive or liberal. They think this is what left-wing governance looks like. In 2 years Obama has managed to discredit the left, possibly for a generation.
Oh no, Republicans!
The argument against running a 2012 primary challenger against Obama should be familiar to all of us. It is the argument of fear. The argument of the lesser evil. Primarying Obama makes a Republican win more likely, and if a Republican president gets in, it will be so much worse for you! No matter how bad Obama is, President Teabag will be worse.
That’s the truth. The stone cold truth. Republicans will be worse and a primary makes it more likely that Republicans will win.
Here’s another stone cold truth. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Obama and Democrats had a historic chance to fix America. The rich who run America, whom the Supreme Court in Citizens United gave permission to outright buy elections, could have been broken when Obama took power. All that was necessary was to force them to take their losses. Contrary to what apologists for wealth have told you, this would not have meant disaster for the economy, there were ways to protect regular Americans while making the rich take their losses.
Instead Barack Obama, as in so many other ways, continued Bush’s policies, and kept the rich bailed out. The end result has not only been the tsunami of foreclosure issues which still threaten to swamp the banks, has not only been trillions in dollars of taxpayer money being used to keep rich people rich (much more money than was spent on the stimulus), it has been the wholesale transfer of money from poor to rich: an absolute decline in total wages, average wages and median wages of ordinary Americans, while Wall Street pays themselves even higher bonuses than before, gives record money to Republicans and the rich pay themselves more.
America has been in long term decline for between 30 and 40 years, depending on how you count it. It is no longer enough for Democrats to simply accept the new Republican norm every time they take power. Accepting Bush’s wars, Bush’s economy and Bush’s civil liberties violations meant that Bush won. Obama institutionalized Bush.
This long term decline is in danger of becoming terminal. The banks are still bankrupt, States and cities are in constant crisis, the housing crisis is nowhere near over. Wages are dropping and jobs are being offshored.
The status quo of Democrats coming in after Republicans and accepting Republican policies as a fait accomplit must end. If it does not, the US will experience a full-on meltdown. Not a great depression like in the ’30s (though the US is in a Depression) but a meltdown like that which occurred in Russia after the collapse of the USSR, where the population actually declined, food was hard to find, brown outs were common, medicine was in short supply, and so on.
Any suggested policies or electoral politics which does not act to stop this terminal decline, this end of America’s golden age is unacceptable.
The price of this may well be that a Republican president gets in in 2012. That will be bad, but if it happens it is a necessary sacrifice, because until one of the two major parties is one which will propose and then execute solutions which work, all Democrats do is slow down America’s terminal decline. Better that President teabag gets in in 2012 and then there is a chance at a good President in 2016 than that the US have to wait till 2020 at the earliest. And hey, a successful primary could cut this short four years, the primary candidate could win the primary and the election. 47% of Democrats want Obama primaried. That’s not because he has rock-solid support.
Obama must be primaried and he must be primaried from the left
The left must be seen to repudiate Obama, and they must be seen to take him down. If the left does not do this, left wing politics and policies will be discredited with Obama. This is important not as a matter of partisan or ideological preference, it is important because left wing policies work. It is necessary to move back to strongly progressive taxation, it is necessary to force the rich to take their losses, it is necessary to deal with global warming, it is necessary to deal with the fact that the era of cheap oil is over, it is necessary to stop the offshoring engine which is destroyin the American middle class.
Only left wing solutions to these problems will work. America has spent 30 years, since Reagan, trying to fix its problems by going more and more right wing, and it has been a disaster. Each additional step to the right has made the problem worse.
The first step to fixing America is fixing the Democratic party, and the first step in fixing the Democratic party is fixing Barack Obama and destroying, forever, publicly and in the most high profile way possible, the idea that Democrats can ignore and abuse their own base. The lies spewed by corporate media figures who earn millions of dollars a year, that every time the Democrats lose, it is because they were too left wing, so more tax cuts are necessary, must end.
If you love your country, or if you’re concerned for the future of yourself or your children, primary Obama. If you don’t, you may never get a chance to elect someone who will do what is necessary to save your country.
from → 2012 Elections, Barack Obama
This election is relevant insomuch as it illuminates beyond any doubt, how fractured the country is, really. Beyond that I don’t see anything factually changing. More of the same from the last 10 years (probably far longer); the past now moving into the next few years looking forward.
This is really an opportunity for those cogent individuals to sit down and make some serious decisions about their future; because the future seems pretty clear for once (the direction). There shouldn’t be any doubts remaining about where we really stand: With that fully in mind make your decisions and then go do the thing decided.
Cheers. And good luck.
Truth.
So, has Elizabeth Warren felt slighted enough by her advisory position (strange demotion to soothe Geithner’s feelings, as I see it) to actually go for it? Though I suppose it depends on how Social Security fares to really gauge this kind of sentiment in elite circles.
If not, I’ll take Bill Black anyday.
Thanks for posting this. I posted a diary on the same topic (if with some variation in the reasoning) at Daily Kos here, if you are interested in another take:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/3/914662/-9-Reasons-Obama-Has-Earned-a-Primary-Challenge
So who is our primary candidate? I’ll drive to Iowa and live out of my car to help them win, but there needs to be someone to rally behind first. Elizabeth Warren would be fine; I hear rumblings of Russ Feingold, too. Who else? Seriously, who?
It is logically impossible to make any progress by voting for the lesser of two evils.
Ian, I know left lefties want a true liberal like Kucinich in office but it ain’t going to happen. The working class will never vote for someone like that. I’m not saying that you would suggest someone like Kucinich but that is what the delusional left want.
There is only one person with the cojones and the support of the public who could win the nomination and the presidency and that is Hillary Clinton, who in my wildest dreams would never have screwed up an opportunity that Obama was handed.
If the most liberal person you’re going to get is Hillary Clinton, go with Clinton. You need to yank people back to the left of center before you go any further.
Of course, the left will ignore this. They’re good at that. It’s a secret death wish, I think.
Sigh
I already see that some of your commenters are passing up the savvy politician for a dream candidate like Elizabeth Warren who has never run for public office in her life. Or Russ Feingold who just lost. (Actually, I never can figure Russ out. He’s a bit of an enigma. His constituents must have thought so as well.)
This is going to be harder than I thought.
How can any progressive can rise to national popularity in two years? Is there any progressive figure widely enough known? In political strategy, two years is a short time; in tactics a long one. In turbulent times, political conflicts are tactical; more than ever “all politics is local” and short-term. It is too early to plan strategy; we are going to have to wait our moment, and the wait may be long.
Obama must be primaried and he must be primaried from the left
Hillary 2012
She won’t primary so let’s draft her.
DRAFT HILLARY.
Good stuff, but I just don’t get continuing to rue the “public option.”
At the point Obama and Congress dropped it, the “public option” plan of record (such as there was one) was for a tiny percentage of Americans to have access to something with an undefined (and surely farcical) competitive advantage over plans sold by the companies whose interests ruled the entire HCR process.
“Public option,” like the Great Man himself, was a tool for diverting attention from meaningful reform. Obama’s, Baucus’s, and Daschle’s HCR sins were lying about openness and transparency, and keeping real reform off the table. Let us cry not for the “public option” placebo, a bait-and-switch that helped keep lefties from noticing or caring about the planned failure (except for healthcare profiteers) that is ObamaCare.
Hillary will govern with the same agenda as Obama. Most of the bad people in his adminstration are Clintonistas.
If Hillary is the “Left” candidate to primary Obama then this country is well and truly fucked.
Her weak-ass health care plan was not much better than Obama and the main difference was in negotiating strategy (she would have sold the sell-out better). On foreign policy Hillary is as bloodthirsty as Obama.
I don’t know what’s worse: seeing the utter collapse of the political left in this country or seeing the last remnants of the left throwing around Hillary fucking Clinton as the answer to their problems.
Give me a break.
To keep the hillary half of the dlc from spamming this board could we make it clear that we will not nominate anyone from that organizations. We are specifically anticentrist. All centrists not just some of them. This would extend to all members of the blue dog coalition, the new democrats, and the third way.
Let’s also point out that the whole personality contest between Obama and Clinton was just the dlc playing divide and conquer with blacks and women so they would win which ever one came out on top. There was virtually no ideological disagreement between the two. She would not govern one degree differently from Obama on policy issues. Identity politics alway, always always helps conservatives not liberal. Ideology is more important than gender, color or creed.
Well remember how Johnson was forced out… Eugene McCarthy mounted a primary challenge, did unexpectedly well and Johnson announced his retirement, only then did Kennedy and Humphrey (who basically took over LBJ’s campaign team) jump in.
Likewise, any left wing challenger would likely be Hillary’s stalking horse (whether they liked it not. McCarthy didn’t appreciate Kennedy stealing his anti-war thunder). If the challenger make inroads on the President’s support leading up to Iowa and New Hampshire you might see party leaders urge Obama to not seek re-election. Whether or not the President decides to continue, Clinton could jump in at any point to make a friendly takeover of the stalking horses’s campaign or easily start one from scratch if, say, a Gene McCarthy-like Feingold wants to keep on campaigning.
One thing in Feingold’s record that would play very well in a primary challenge is his record on fair trade. He sponsored (with Byron Dorgan) a bill to create Warren Buffett’s import certificate plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import_Certificates
If he ran against the endless war on terrorism, Wall Street banks and free trade while endorsing single payer healthcare (he could recycle Bob Shrum speeches written for Kennedy’s 1980 challenge to Carter or Bob Kerrey’s 1992 primary campaign), Feingold would pick up an absurd amount of party support… plus money from Republicans who just want to stir the pot. Whether Obama moves left to counter or stands pat and lets Feingold takes his shots knowing he’ll still be re-nominated, it will crush Obama in the general.
Ian is 100% right, unless the left blocks (and is recognized for having blocked) Obama’s re-election bid, nothing is going to change.
Oh bollocks! Y’all just want to keep the status quo.
Rebellion is something else entirely; and no commenter is up for rebellion!
So, where’s the change?
No where to be found I’m afraid.
Sorry, I’ll get me hat.
Here’s an issue we’re going to have to deal with: do we primary Obama to push him over to the left, or do we primary him to BEAT him?
Here’s why I’m asking: I doubt that black voters are ready to abandon Obama yet, and they may never be, so whom would we offer as an effective primary choice against him?
Maybe it’s a little premature to ask the question, and maybe I’m over-interpreting the degree to which black voters may be attached to Obama, and obviously a lot depends on how his administration acts on these election results.
It seems to me that the only alternatives available to Obama are: become a real leader with real vision (not bloody likely) OR throw in with the R’s, drag the Dems further to the right, and piss off your activist base even further. (By doing so, you can build yourself a “moderate” coalition, not nearly big enough to stand up to corporate money, and further marginalize your activist base–which is kind of how I see Obama going.)
As to the larger question: Primary Obama? Hell yes!! Demarcate “liberal/progressive” from “mainstream Democrat”? Hell yes, and with every opportunity, including letters to the editor, social networking, whatever!!
Until progressives sing with a single voice about the principles that matter, and present an alternative as compelling as the blood & guts narratives the R’s offer up, we’re toast, and so’s the country. Right now we’re singing in dozens of different “micro” voices, and that has to change.
It looks like Ian is doing this more because he wants the left to publicly disown Obama so liberalism and progressivism are in no way associated with him. I personally think the Presidency is lost until 2016 baring a Jesse Ventura like independent run.
I agree with VastLeft that the public option was nothing other than a (very successful) bait and switch operation, that came to nothing because there was nothing there to begin with. I also think that, as the only HCR policy option on offer that can be shown to work, it’s going to be useful in a Soviet-style collapse situation. Finally, people will vote for it, given the chance. I can’t understand why Ian seems to have a blind spot here; the so-called public option is nothing to have a lingering affection for. Now’s the time, when the situation is fluid, to get “Medicare for All” on the table at last.
* * *
That said, a fantastic post. Thank you!!!!
Jonathan Turley for President.
Typo: “it’s going to be useful” “Single payer is going to be useful.”
Y’all already know what I think about this idea. (ie, crazy.) So, rather than inveigh against it, let me ask a couple of questions:
1. How will this turn out any better than, say, the primarying of Carter or the Nadering of Gore? I don’t mean, “How will we avoid a Republican president?” I mean, why would the party move further to the left when history shows it moves right when its base abandons the leadership? (Moves right to whatever new baseline the Republicans set after they’ve had their presidential turn.) What would make this different?
2. In the likely event of the failure of this gambit, what effect do you think it would have on the party leadership’s behaviour?
I don’t think, at this early stage, it’s a question of “Who do we run” so much as it is a question of “what do we run ON?”
By this I mean not ‘what policies/programs do we want’ but rather what OUTCOMES do we want for people. A list of five or six bullet points: the outcome, and how to get there. (e.g., “Fair tax policies that let everyone pay a fair share into a pool that grows the economy, creates jobs, and ensures fairness for all.”)
Really, the Dems, the left, progressives, we’ve all been miserable at messaging. That’s a shortcoming the nation can no longer afford.
Five or six bullet points, that we can all agree on. Then, run on THAT.
You’ll notice, the Rs all seem to speak with one voice, even though they have their little fringe of useful crazies to keep people distracted.
I’d love it if each progressive blog articulated their own “vision”–again, five or six points (brief, outcome-oriented) to run on. Then, we can figure out who we run. (Hint: you’re down with our points, or you’re not–and if you’re not, you’re out.)
THIS. They may have the occasional Perot moment, but they usually remain very cohesive for at least a few election cycles. Just wait: the Republicans will fail to repeal the PPACA or ban abortion, but their base will still stick with them. In the meantime, the base would have gotten something out of it: moving the discourse to the right in time for the next Democratic ascendency.
And here:
http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2010/11/what-all-the-hot-air-boiled-down-to.html
You think it’s bad now. Just wait until ORahma and the Lame Duck Dems complete the destruction of the Democratic Party by rushing into law the SS cuts due from the CatFoodCommission.
Is Obama a tool, or just a political moron? Does it really matter?
“The first time is luck, the second time is coincidence, the third is enemy action”
added note: heard someone on Democracy Now last night explaining that much of the pathetic piece of lukewarm spit that is Obamacare, is going to depend on funding passed by Congress. Which may work out to mean, NO insurance reform to speak of, and a tarnished brand identity for healthcare reform for the next generation.
Man, if there was ever a reason for progressives to step away from Obama, that little nugget will do just fine.
There is an interesting column in today’s Financial Times by John Kay about regulatory capture. He quotes from a RR president writing to a congressman about legislation to establish the ICC: “What is desired is something having a good sound, but quite harmless, which will impress the popular mind with the idea that a great deal is being done, when, in reality, very little is intended to be done.” In the case of Obama and the current congress, the ju-jitsu had the opposite effect intended.
@ dougR
“Here’s an issue we’re going to have to deal with: do we primary Obama to push him over to the left, or do we primary him to BEAT him?”
I think he needs to be beaten. If we just push him over to the left, well…
Take his (stated and apparent) positions on certain issues while he was running for office vs. what he actually did, or didn’t to, once in the White House. Except that he should have given away his true intentions with that FISA vote, he appeared during the campaign to be to the left (though, perhaps not as far left as we would have liked) of where he actually turned out to be (once he was elected). No reason he wouldn’t try to APPEAR to move left in 2012, though he would have a hell of a lot of backtracking to do, then move back to where he is now, once back in office.
Love the idea. And for the commenters, I suggest putting more energy into the WHAT than the WHO right now, because thinking about the WHO is just down right depressing.
I mean seriously, Clinton? Warren? Feingold? Dean? Kucinich? Just the fact that these names are listed as potential flag-carriers for the left/progressives tells your just how badly our country is screwed.
Focus now on the substance and rebuilding the “progressive”/”liberal” brand that Obama has tarnished. Spend a year planning a national convention and smaller state and community conventions to build up to it. Then maybe, just maybe, or really hopefully someone emerges. It will likely be someone no one is thinking about right now. They more likely will be from a state house, but possibly not a governor. Or a former politician with a good story to tell like a Byron Dorgan. Regardless, they almost certainly will make fair trade, ending the wars, and a massive public works program at the forefront of their platform. They will have to appeal best to whites and latinos, as the African-Americans are unfortunately too caught up in beaming with praise to see in the White House this this half-white raised by white people “black man.”
In my previous comment I said Obama has to be beaten in the primary.
On the other hand, I think that the Rs and Ds, the legacy parties, the two sides of the same counterfeit coin (heads I win, tails you lose), are just about useless. Running a candidate against Obama in the primaries may have its good points (whether you are trying to beat him or move him left), but really the Democratic Party is NOT going to be reformed by this. They won’t learn squat. And they are owned as certainly as the Republicans are.
Third party candidate? Don’t know. But I do know that no third party has, or soon is going to have, a visibility or identity and respect that would allow it to win much of anything nationally (locally, maybe). A strong candidate would have to come first. How is she or he going to get out there and be visible without a party organization (and, sorry to say, a press that actually covers that person’s campaign)? I haven’t the scraping of a clue. I just dabble in this stuff.
Absolutely Obama should be primaried- win or lose the left will have taken their stand. And it is not to move him left – that ship has sailed – the only thing he is looking for now is how to get himself a cushy job when he loses in 2012.
I completely disagree with some commentators that Hillary is a centrist – she would have done things completely differently and dems would not be in this position now. Do you think Hillary would have left the writing of the healthcare bill to congress? Or bailed out the banks without making them take losses ? if so you do not have a clue about the difference between an empty suit and a leader of substance.
Having said that I am not wedded to Hillary being the candidate to primary him – lots of CDS all around – so a fresh (though experienced) face might be the way to go. Count me in primary the big O (as in zero) the sooner the better.
I have to quibble re: QE2. It’s merely going to give free money to speculators who will use it to attack a developing country’s infrastructure & currency. Brazil is a good candidate, though they are taking small steps to forestall these types of attacks. QE2 won’t help ordinary Americans. At best, in this country, it will simply be hoarded by the banks, who still have no real assets.
Five or six bullet points, that we can all agree on. Then, run on THAT.
That list was written long ago in 1944:
The country was actually moving in the direction of that list (with the exception of the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act) up until the 1970s, when it paused and then began reversing starting in 1980, diverging from all of the other social democracies. Read through the list and note how ,one by one, they have been systematically been opposed and legislated against.
My goodness… so many familiar names here!
Having been banned from both Corrente and TalkLeft during the primaries, let me say here that although y’all were right about Obama, that doesn’t mean you were right about Hillary.
Wipe Iran off the map? Gasoline tax holiday?
Are you fucking kidding me?
She is now – as she was then – a perfect exemplar of the institutional rot that Ian’s post is decrying.
I nominate: Kendrick Meek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Meek
First of all, those of you nominating Hillary Clinton as the person to beat Obama in a primary: what is wrong with this picture?
Second: “Do you think Hillary would have left the writing of the healthcare bill to congress? Or bailed out the banks without making them take losses ? ”
My answer to that is: what does Chelsea Clinton do for a living?
Joe, why such weak ammo?
“Wipe Iran off the map”? What was the question that (paraphrased) response was in answer to? Who cares? Context never matters to propagandists.
Gasoline tax holiday. Oh, noes — what a terrible thing that absolutely required 100 economists to take to their fainting couches — a populist windfall profit tax that would redirect a little oil money to working people! The humanity!
Anyway, I’d love to see someone far to the left of HRC run a primary challenge to Obama.
I think we need to quit thinking in terms of electoral politics. Yeah, Eugene McCarthy challenged LBJ but ONLY after a very visible, active and demanding anti-war movement had been hitting the streets for some time. The movement — and the visible action and demand — has to come first. Otherwise we’re just hoping for some white knight or another to ride in a white horse, and no single individual can be that powerful.
As an aging boomer who did my share of marching I get tired of hearing young people assert so confidently that protesting and demonstrating is to no purpose. They should read about the October Moratorium. Even more recently, the success of Act Up in getting the federal government to finally get one inch of its ass in fighting the AIDS crisis.
You lose you lose you don’t get noticed you get ridiculed you get bigger you get noticed you start getting traction. It takes TIME and it takes RISK.
It’s not enough to shout Yes We Can. There really is nothing so vile as the Obama fans shouting that slogan without being willing to take any of the physical risks that Dolores Huerta or Cesar Chavez or any single farmworker took in that struggle.
Power does not yield without a fight, and the thing that makes me saddest and angriest is that it seems that “liberals’ or “leftists” or “progressives” really don’t have the stomach for a fight; ultimately the white-collarization of the “left” has left us middle-aged too comfortable, where the younger seemed so saturated with irony it’s hard to value anything strongly enough to take any risk. And since nothing is of value, everything can be stolen — and is being stolen.
I think what it all means is that we’re going to have to hurt more, a lot more, before sufficient anger arises on the left. Unfortunately, the right seems to have beat us to it.
Republican policies don’t work. It’s very bad politics when Democrats enact Republican policies that don’t work. Democrats then get the blame. Republicans will soon enact more bad policies that won’t work. Obama believes he can get re-elected by acting as the bouncer at the door, rejecting the worst ideas (though he may even let a few of them in – Catfood Commission). As Ian says, it is best if he loses in 2012 so that Republicans can take full responsibility for the mess they have created. The duopoly loves a corporate hack, though, and they will do their best to ensure his victory.
There actually are huge differences between Clinton and Obama wants you get beyond the superficiality of campaign platforms. Very simple, Clinton has a very long resume of working on issues that provide healthcare, access to education and innovations to help small business (in many, many cases, micro-business) prosper. it’s very clear, if you look at what she actually does, that she is primarily interested in providing access to health care and economic opportunity to lower classes and to stabilizing the middle class. The bills she writes, the policies she advocates, don’t benefit corporate America. The fact that it’s easy to be cynical and write her off as a pro-corporate tool (though no one can make that case based on her actual voting record) doesn’t mean that it’s a productive thing to do.
The fact of the matter is that every constituency that deserted the Dems last night is a constituency that Clinton easily won in the primary.
I doubt Feingold is much to the left of Clinton – and remember, he endorsed Obama and justified Obama’s pro-FISA vote. He’s either a total hypocrite or Obama already has something on him – who knows. But he won’t be the one to take Obama out because Obama will just play clips of Feingold endorsing him.
Clinton is a lefty and she can win. I’m not voting for anyone else for president and considering how thoroughly Clinton’s base deserted the Democrats yesterday, you should figure there are a lot of people like me.
As a very late boomer “I get tired of hearing aging boomers assert so confidently that protesting and demonstrating has a purpose. ”
It worked back then because the media picked it up, they don’t anymore. The 80,000 strong “Beck spits on MLK” rally got more image time than the millions that protested the
I think what it all means is that we’re going to have to hurt more, a lot more, …
We should expect this in 2011 as more draconian cuts (both public and private) take place in the name of Fiscal Responsibility ™. It’s the early ’30s Hoover Program all over again. They are determined that “this time, they’ll get it right” now that they’ve sealed their control of the propaganda machine (expect more “black is white”, “up is down”, “let them eat adjectives and adverbs”).
Clinton is a lefty and she can win.
This is a lie, no matter how often it is repeated. An actual left/progressive would have resigned at one of many times in the past 18 months (after a six-month benefit-of-the-doubt period), and publicly criticized the policies put in place and legislation that has been enacted. No one gets to say “I believe in left/progressive principles” and then act contrary to that.
jeer9,
The catfood commission is not an example of obama letting a bad republican idea slip through the door and into the club, it’s obama purposely sneaking in an obnoxious bully drunk to do his dirty work. He created the commission and he did his best to stuff it with social security opponents while disguising it as a bi-partisan panel that reflects the range of interests of common americans.
The democratic co-chair, erskine bowles, he selected is no friend of 99% of americans and especially for those that want to keep social security benefits just the way they are. Fuck, he brokered a deal between the big corporate lap dawg and gingrich to cut benefits back in the late 90s that apparently was only derailed by the lewinksy situation.
And neither is that fucking nut alan simpson a friend of those that want to keep the benefits as they are. Or is brooking institute’s alice rivlin. Or honeywell ceo david cole. And not even that goddamn labor sellout andy stern. obama appointees all …
Z
HRC’s top 5 contributors from 2005-2010 via opensecrets.org
Contributor Total Indivs PACs
Citigroup Inc $205,510 $205,510 $0
Goldman Sachs $169,670 $159,670 $10,000
Morgan Stanley $141,910 $138,410 $3,500
New York Life Insurance $139,900 $103,400 $36,500
Time Warner $138,640 $131,140 $7,500
And Bill has received millions more in speaking fees from many of these same groups.
Chelsea worked for a distressed assets hedge fund, and I’m assuming the only reason she quit was because it would have looked bad for her mom’s presidential candidacy. Chelsea’s husband is an investment banker who did a stint at Goldman Sachs.
The whole clan is this neoliberal cabal, and is in no way, except sometimes in rhetoric, liberal, like any other “centrist” Democrat. Yeah, Hillary would have really laid into Wall Street – just ask Steve Rattner, who writes her fat checks and fundraises for her, coincidentally. She is bought and paid for just like most prominent Democrats.
If those on the nominal left cannot agree on what politicians are on the left, we’re doomed to repeat the last 2 years over and over.
Don’t fall in love with politicians.
Picking a candidate should come after choosing a platform.
anon2525 permalink
November 3, 2010
>>Five or six bullet points, that we can all agree on. Then, run on THAT.
That list was written long ago in 1944:
FDR’s “Economic Bill of Rights” as the platform, now that’s an interesting idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=effDfpKYcVo
Barbara Lee proposed a bill a few years ago to legislatively enact it.
“Updating the 1944 Economic Bill of Rights- The Congress reaffirms the responsibility of the Federal Government to implement and, in accordance with current and foreseeable trends, update the statement by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the State of the Union message of January 11, 1944. The Congress therefore proclaims the following rights as continuing goals of United States public policy…”
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-h1050/text
The country likes to elect governors and former governors to be president. They get to say “I have executive experience”, “We should do X just as I did while governor in my state”, “I’m not from Washington D.C. — I’m an outsider”, and “I’m a Serious, Professional Politician who has shown that I know how to win.” That last one means a lot to the don’t-rock-the-boat, keep-the-status-quo crowd who have a lot of money (the status quo is fine with them).
Anyone have knowledge of a good former or current governor who might want to go after the king? (machiavelli’s rule applies for these people: “If you decide to go for the king, be sure to kill the king. If you do not, the king will come after you.”)
1. Howard Dean
2. Elliot Spitzer
3. Other current or former Democratic governors?
Anyone who runs will be up against the DLC and the existing power structure. No one inside the power structure is going to mount a challenge to Obama. That includes that famous DLC insider, H.R. Clinton.
anon,
It’s not really aipac and dlc darling hillary clinton’s fault though … she had to be pragmatic in order to have some influence in the administration. And you can see it was worth it by all those wonderful things she’s been doing for our foreign policy.
Again, there is little difference between the obamabots, the bushites, and the true cdsers. All that changes are the brand names on their excuses.
Z
Brian Schweitzer, the democratic governor of Montana is a name that you don’t hear too much about, but who has “one of the highest approval ratings among governors in the nation” and he lives is a red state, although one in which max baucus is a senator.
If you want to give it a full read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Schweitzer
Z
Again, there is little difference between the obamabots, the bushites, and the true cdsers. All that changes are the brand names on their excuses … and their attacks on those that don’t drink their kool-aid.
Z
The democratic co-chair, erskine bowles, he selected is no friend of 99% of americans and especially for those that want to keep social security benefits just the way they are.
Bowles came to Washington to be Clinton’s chief-of-staff after the ’96 election. One story told about him is that a pre-condition for his accepting the job was that Harold Ickes had to leave. Harold Ickes was the son of Roosevelt’s Sec. of Interior, Harold L. Ickes. (Ickes and Sec. of Labor Frances Perkins were the only two members of Roosevelt’s cabinet who served the entire time that Rooselvelt was president). Sec. Ickes is generally considered to be responsible for implementing much of the New Deal. Bowles spent more than 15 years working in the financial sector, i.e., he is owned by Wall Street.
“Bowles spent more than 15 years working in the financial sector, i.e., he is owned by Wall Street.”
No wonder he and the big corporate lap dawg got along so well.
Z
” The rich who run America, whom the Supreme Court in Citizens United gave permission to outright buy elections, could have been broken when Obama took power. All that was necessary was to force them to take their losses.”
That’s really the crux of it right there. All he had to do was let the “free markets” work. And something like 80 to 90% of the American people were behind that too. They’re not dumb, they knew it would mean a certain amount of economic calamity, but it would have put a fork in the economic masters of disasters on Wall St that have been gutting the country.
If Clinton was in any way a lefty she would immediately resign from her position in Obama’s administration. Obama has expanded illegal and immoral wars throughout the world. He is using cluster bombs to kill innocent civilians in countries the United States has not declared war against. Obama is using drones to kill innocent people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere and bribing dictators in Africa and militarizing regions throughout the world (like Mexico). Hillary Clinton is fully participating in this institutionalized murder and theft otherwise known as American foreign policy. The United States military is active all over the world and the Democrats are legitimizing the state of endless and global war. The United States is a huge war machine–and Hillary is serving as one of the main organs of that machine. She chooses to be one of it’s top defenders and actually neutralizes left-wing resistance to the war machine.
As the United States’ top diplomat, Mrs. Clinton also chooses to defend some very grotesxque actions and policies. The United States spends more than $80 billion spying on the rest of the world (more than the next largest military spends in toto on the military). The United States is actively trying to subvert and bring down governments. It is committing war crimes and uses things like cluster bombs and drones on civilians. Hillary Clinton has also indeed threatened Iran.
And VastLeft, the exact word Hillary Clinton used was “obliterate”. As in killing all the inhabitants of Iran. I don’t know how else to interpret her use of that word in this context. Maybe you know of a more benign context for the future top diplomat of the Obama administration openly talking about destroying all the inhabitants of a country. What exactly is the context? How heinous coming from the country that is responsible for fomenting more wars in the world than any other. This may not be an explicit threat to “nuke” Iran, but it certainly qualifies as a military threat to me, much more of an obvious threat than Amhadinejad’s “threat” to Israel.
It’s not really aipac and dlc darling hillary clinton’s fault though … she had to be pragmatic in order to have some influence in the administration.
As Ian Welsh said, “The left must be seen to repudiate Obama, and they must be seen to take him down.” If H. Clinton simply waits for her “moment” as the economy deteriorates, a campaign by her would not be seen to be the left/progressives taking Obama down. It will be seen to be what it is, opportunistic. And if she does not wait until the economy deteriorates, but instead announces today, tomorrow, this month, or this year, then that will still be viewed as opportunistic, given the election results. Her “moment” was in the second half of 2009. That was when she needed to resign and begin providing a principled rejection to Obama’s carrying out Bush’s third term.
If she is to be seen as having a “moment” again it will only be after a failed republican presidency.
They’re not dumb, they knew it would mean a certain amount of economic calamity,
This is the public myth that continues to be used to justify TARP and the much larger actions that Bernanke&Co have taken. Economists Dean Baker and James Galbraith have, among others, argued that this is a false choice (“Save the banksters or the economy dies!”). And we have the results, namely, the current situation is economic calamity.
Accepting Bush’s wars, Bush’s economy and Bush’s civil liberties violations meant that Bush won. Obama institutionalized Bush. — Ian Welsh
Agreed, given what “institutionalized” means.
the Democrats are legitimizing the state of endless and global war
I disagree. They may have institutionalized bush’s policies, but those policies are not legitimate. What they are doing is destroying the U.S.’s international legitimacy that it had spent (at least) a century building.
Yes, Obama must be primaried! Especially since the fauxgressives deeming him “the most liberal president evah” has sullied the reputation of FDR policies, even.
Have to mention that being a Wisconsinite myself, there is no way that Feingold would win POTUS. He would have too much explaining to do as to why he supported the monstrosity of ObamaCare, and he couldn’t even convince college kids that he should be supported in his re-election bid. Plus, Feingold is divorced, and we know how that plays out in voter’s minds who mostly vote from emotion and not their intellect.
Hillary is the only truly viable option out there. And for the Hillary-naysayers who say she’s ‘just like Obama’ … have you forgotten that Hillary was working hard to get mortgage relief in the bail-out plan and temporary moratorium on foreclosures, while Obama did nothing?
And don’t even get me started on issues concerning women and gays. Between Hillary and Obama there is NO comparison.
If you want to give it a full read: Brian_Schweitzer
Looks like some potential, but, based on that article, it’s not clear that he’s going to propose left/progressive economic or social policies. He’ll have to begin getting outspoken, both with proposals and criticisms.
Sorry, but if the Progressive Left ACTUALLY thinks that turning Left MORE …in order to challenge Obama…is going to win them the White House or even the support of the people at large, then you must be doing some seriously good drugs.
America is still a center right country. And even if you believe the time has come for the country to cross the dividing line, it would still — at best — only shift slightly left of center. Because if history has shown one thing, it’s that the average American votes for (1) their personal pocket book and (2) their personal pocketbook. Followed only by (3) their personal pocket book.
Oh, yeah — and they also DON’T like major change.
Because that might upset…yes…their personal pocket book.
So, someone above hit the nail on the head. With the Republican gains, where exactly does the Progressive Left think it’s going to create or craft an ultra left progressive candidate in under 2 years that can actually draw enough attention to withstand a national election? Hell, even the idea of running or drafting Hillary cracks me up. Even if she challenged Obama in a primary and won, it wouldn’t be because she was “progressive”. It would simply be because she got an overwhelming female vote, with so many women wanting to elect the first female president.
And even then to win the election, Hillary would clearly shift BACK to being centrist… taking the same path as Bill after he got hammered in his midterm elections…realizing she’d need middle of the road people and certainly Independents to actually win. And just another reality check for the Progressive Left: no one is buying what you’re selling. A recent Gallup poll showed that MORE people called themselves “conservative” (be it Republican or blue dog Democrat) over “liberal” by a whopping margin. Like 40-plus percent to under 20.
So, sorry, but wake up and smell the roses. Proudly declaring how Progressive you are…to this day…is still the best and most sure fire way to LOSE a national election.
Hillary is the only truly viable option out there.
If that is a fact (that Clinton is the only viable option), then there is no left/progressive option to Obama.
And for the Hillary-naysayers who say she’s ‘just like Obama’…
I don’t say that she is just like him, although she is much like him. I say that she is not a left/progressive candidate. If she was, then she would have resigned in 2009, criticized Obama’s foreign and civil rights policies, and begun making speeches presenting alternatives to his foreign and domestic policies. Instead, she is serving in the third Bush term.
Sorry, but if the Progressive Left ACTUALLY thinks that turning Left MORE…
I stopped reading your comment once I got to the “MORE.” The fact that you ACTUALLY think that Obama&Co ARE Progressive Left demonstrates that you do not know what it means to be Left or Progressive.
How about a primary challenge to explain the message. No shaking hands or kissing babies or soccer mom demographics. Get somebody on the left on the ballots then you get stages/podiums/cameras and the like. Somebody who can articulate what the left is. Oh you want a suggestion …….Chris Hedges. Hillary and her baggage? Never.
Having self-identified as a social democrat, around election time I sometimes imagine a social democrat saying to a person of some authoritarian stripe: “Why do you hate democracy? Wait, don’t answer that …” The whole voting-from-emotions thing, especially, gets me.
I could probably be persuaded to campaign for some Democratic primary challenger, even though I also voted for Nader and sometimes have anarchist sympathies and in any case believe that by now the entire planet is royally fucked within the next century, no matter what.
The left, such as it is, should take that stand just because it is the right thing to do, and give the finger to Fate or God or whomever. We will not vote for murderers any more and we will publicly disown them. Even though it be too little, too late.
Also, as has been noted, you really need the movement in place before you have the white knight. And probably you simply cannot ever have the movement anymore when most every would-be leftist under age 30 (incl. me) is locked into an unprecedented postmodern-medianet haze.
Voting based on vapid “image”, I mean. Emotions are not bad per se, they just need to be based on truth and not marketing.
Let me put it simply, what went wrong went wrong from the very top of the party.
You forgot to mention the Electoral Genius, R. Emmanuel. His strategy of getting legislative “wins” (at the behest of Obama) worked out brilliantly. He has not been given enough credit for the results of this election.
First off, what Dandelion said.
And I have to say that this burgeoning conversation (about how to defeat Obama) would be far more productive if we could stop rehashing 2008 ad nauseam.
>>If you want to give it a full read: Brian_Schweitzer
Looks like some potential, but, based on that article, it’s not clear that he’s going to propose left/progressive economic or social policies. He’ll have to begin getting outspoken, both with proposals and criticisms.
Compare and contrast:
A. As Gov. Brian Schweitzer warmed up the crowd Friday for President Barack Obama, he paid a lengthy compliment to a health care system that leading Democrats, including the president, have declared “off the table” as a reform here: the Canadian single-payer system.
“Did you know that, just 300 miles north of here, did you know they offered universal health care 62 years ago?” he said, referring to Canada’s system of providing government-funded health insurance for all citizens.
B. Minutes later, Obama made it clear that he does not favor adopting such a system in the United States.
“I’m not in favor of a Canadian system, I’m not in favor of a British system, I’m not in favor of a French system,” he said. “What we’ve said is let’s find a uniquely American system.”
Obama said the majority of people in America get health insurance through their employers, and “we want to build on that.”
“For us to completely change that, it would be too disruptive,” he said. “Max (Baucus) and I agree, that’s not the right way to go.”
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/article_02d665da-8955-11de-94f2-001cc4c002e0.html
Russ or Alan in Iowa tomorrow would be a good start maybe the DFA could get stalking horses in every state now to set the ground work for progressive coalitions to build a movement for local survival with an eye on the prize
Walt Wit Man,
Indeed “obliterate” was the correct word. As noted, I was reiterating Joe Beese’s paraphrase.
Interesting that you, too, are unable to mention what the context was.
Correct, as in the correct quote, that is.
Oy vey. It figures that someone who pooh-poohs “soccer mom demographics” would buy into the Hillary baggage meme. Well, here’s a news flash: those “soccer moms” are a key constituency that any Dem/left/progressive candidate would need to turn out in droves. As for Hillary’s “baggage” – its all old news that voters have heard a million times before. Nearly half of all 2008 Dem primary voters signaled that they Do. Not. Care. Its time people like you stop shooting all of us in the foot by giving that sad, sexist myth a rest (sexist because the people who use it give Hillary no credit for Clinton administration accomplishments, but tar her with blame for all of its shortcomings).
There is one big, fat, electoral fact that cannot be denied: Hillary is the only Democratic potential candidate with a nationwide list, a nationwide fundraising operation and a network of supporters positioned for logistical and political support in every state. That is a HUGE advantage. We’d be idiots not to recognize that and build on it. She came within a hair’s breadth of winning the nomination despite having the entire mainstream media and all the Daily Kos=ite Blogger Boyz aligned against her. And there is nothing – NOTHING – about her we don’t already know.
As someone who works in the field of international development, I tell you Clinton has done more good as SoS than you know – more good than most people do in a lifetime.
@ LA Screenwriter
I think people identify as conservative, but when it comes to the issues, they are more progressive than you think. When polled, the majority of Americans underestimated wealth inequality and wanted an economic system more like Sweden of all places. I think if we found a good enough candidate, we could pull this off, but I agree there are certain risks. However, I find it alarming at how afraid we are of doing something bold and how afraid we are to sacrifice.
Wow, somebody opened a big can of CDS in here.
Americans have no idea what ideological identity markers mean. They say they’re conservative, then a majority support single payor and a supermajority support the public option, for example.
The problem is that the people who vote are more right wing than the people who don’t, and the reason for that is largely (though not entirely) that left wingers have no one to vote for.
I’m not sure who suffers from CDS more – the Republicans or the creative class progs. I don’t agree with all of their policies – but I do believe they really tried – and there is no doubt that they took a massive beating for it. Just like now, it’s from the left and the right. and btw – no, Hillary’s plan for healthcare was not the same as Obama’s – I’m sorry but it just wasn’t and if you don’t know that then you weren’t paying attention. You may not like them, but the Clinton’s kicked some Republican ass – and they don’t compromise without getting something for it. Honestly, I am so fucking tired of people blaming them for absolutely everything.
Back in 2000, the left self-righteously dismissed Gore too – claiming he and Bush were the same – which is complete and utter bullshit – and in my opinion – that is why we lost and ended up with eight years of Bush. Gore got treated like shit – and no one defended him either – not even his own damn party – even when it really mattered. We are fucked now – really really fucked. I have no idea who has the money, power and competence to pull us out of this nosedive. Right now, it’s going to take a lot of cash and serious juice. I don’t like it either – but that is where we are. I highly doubt that Hillary Clinton will run – even if drafted – but give her a little damn credit. She works hard, knows her shit and is competent – and she fights. You may not like her or her policies – but personally I admire her resilience – and the Big Dawg’s too. All I’m saying is that they deserve a little damn credit and respect – because they earned it.
My wife (retired) tells me that Michael Moore was on Democracy Now today speculating about a four way race in 2012: a real Progressive, the two duopoly hacks, and a Tea Party rebel. While the Left might have a chance in such a race, I don’t see it happening. The Republicans will nominate a crazy town loon as their nominee, ensuring a disastrous loss which will put them in their place. That’s the deal that has been made with Obama. Do what we want, Wall Street will whine obsessively about your non-existent socialism to convince people of your sane centrism, we’ll oppose you with a moron, and the corporate gravy train continues on unimpeded. He’s been promised eight years and he’s made good on the first part of the bargain: slap the progressive base hard, discourage activism, increase voter apathy and cynicism, proclaim your Big Business sell-out legislation a rebirth of the New Deal. And if we do get a spoiler from the Left to challenge him, look for a repeat of the 2000 Nader-bashing that will those days seem tame in comparison.
Vast Left,
What possible context could Joe or I be missing that excuses Hillary’s threat to “obliterate” Iran?
In fact, the context makes it worse. She was in race for president in which Democrats, as she had done, usually try to prove their hawkish bone fides by talking tough. There was no real crises that precipitated her warning to Iran other than the general warmongering that U.S. politicians have engaged in against Iran for years now. It had all the appearance of being a politically motivated bit of warmongering.
In fact, it may also violate international law to threaten another country in the manner she did. It was certainly not language most diplomats would use (and I know she was only a Senator and not Secretary of State yet, but still).
The people that have Clinton Derangement Syndrome (hey–just like the right-wingers the Hillary partisans belittle those that disagree with them by making it a clinical diagnosis) are the so-called leftists that think Mrs. Drone Bombing and Endless war is a “liberal”. In fact, someone that doesn’t have CDS would be able to call a war criminal a war criminal.
Anyone with any conscience at all would resign from the Obama administration. How can any liberal support the drone bombing of innocent civilians in countries we are not at war with? If you support Hillary Clinton then you support the massive killing of innocent people and you are just as evil as any tea party person.
Seriously, if this is the left’s response to Obama then we are really screwed.
Hillary’s health care plan might have been a smidgen better than Obama’s, but like Obama, all the facts showed that she was simply making promises to liberals in a primary campaign and had every intention of caving in, just like Obama. In fact, she made the explicit argument, rather well I thought, that she was a better negotiator than Obama and she would be better at negotiating the terms of the Democratic surrender. She dissed Obama for leading with his compromise position. She argued that the Dems should lead with a liberal position, something like single payer (or universal health care). Everyone knew she would compromise with the Republicans.
Obama and the Dems did treat Hillary poorly, and she may be slightly more liberal than Obama, but they are both neoliberal Washington Consensus Dems.
Walt, once again you refuse to state the context.
What question was she asked that it was in answer to? What bad thing would happen if you included that information?
I agree that it doesn’t speak well for Ms. Clinton that she’s willing to be part of this administration, and I’d much prefer that someone well to her left were a/the primary challenger to Obama. But I also think she’d be (and would have been) a considerable upgrade in many respects to the current president.
I’m disinclined to ever vote for another Democrat again, especially in an election (I’m less adamant about not trying to tip a major-party primary one way or the other), so I don’t expect to be voting for her.
Well, maybe *you’re* really screwed. But I’m pretty sure that the working class and all of the people who voted for her in 13 of the largest, most Democratic states would embrace it.
Here’s the point that you seem not to be grokking: you need the working class to vote for your candidates or you’re not going to win. As Ian has pointed out, a lot of Democrats stayed home yesterday. Their votes were wiped out in 2008 and the guy who was forced upon them sucks. That goes for the rest of the party too.
You are not seeing an abiding love for the GOP. You are seeing learned helplessness from the Democrats. If you want to reverse that, you have to give people what they wanted in the first place before the racism guns were brought out to mow them down. They wanted Hillary. They wanted to reset the clock by 8 years.
Ok, fine, don’t believe me. Just keep on keepin’ on. Deny, deny, deny. And come 2012, the very same thing will happen again. You’ll run some guy no one wants and Democrats will give up and stay home. You must like to lose.
Repeatedly.
I am sorry about the soccer mom and Hillary comments. Maybe it was Freudian and I am a sexist. Anyway, I meant all demographics and anybody jaded by Washington. How would any former SoS make any point about foreign policy.
I’m only about ten comments into this thread, but can we just laugh HAHAHAA these Hillary suggestions out of the universe please.
I, for a couple of short months, after voting for Kucinich in my primary, supported Obama over Hillary. I was wrong! I admit it… and it didn’t last a couple of weeks past the end of the primary season… with Rahm at O’s side every day and FISA lost. I never actually voted for either O or C last round. But that in no way means supporting Hillary is/was right at all.
Have you Hillary supporters been watching her neo-liberal ways as Sec of State? I mean her Iran rhetoric alone should horrify you. Have you not been watching Bill support Christ, Specter, Lincoln and Ross to name four of many egregious and blatant familiar warnings?
The Clintons are hundred millionaires who won positions of power and profited off of destroying Glass-Steagall, NAFTA, a myriad of neo-liberal errors… all with a DLC and Southern strategy. For Dogs sake, we don’t need Bill and Hillary taking the party back to fight for a return of Blue Dogs… it’s (losing 26 of them last night) the one big victory you have going into the next phase.
There is NO reason to think the Clintons would possibly lead us away from the quagmire Ian so eloquently describes with every post.
The Democratic party left me.. I am now a Green. If Dems want to fight in a manner which brings old and new blood into the arena… you must drop both Obama and Clinton from consideration.
I do think a strong (not meaning neo-liberal or centrist) female candidate would be a great idea.
Riverdaughter,
I think you’re confusing me with an Obama partisan. I dislike Obama and I did not (do not) prefer him over Hillary. I don’t “support” any Democrats at this point. I grant you that Hillary may be a tick to the left of Obama and that she was a “victim” of media bias and poor treatment from Obama and the Dems. But Hillary is not anywhere close to being on the left. I mean, have I been sleeping these past 10 years or so? It’s like arguing about the political differences between Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman.
If the argument is this is the most left we can expect a leader to be, then I totally disagree and think that the Hillary partisans are no better and not much different than the Obama supporters that claim Obama is the best we can get in a center-right country.
And newsflash, Hillary doesn’t represent working people. She is a neoliberal Washington Consensus Dem that does a decent job of using the Democratic tradition of helping working people to pretend that she is “fighting” for them. In reality, she’s “fighting” for the same 1% that Obama is. She just has a slightly different schtick.
If you, and substantial numbers of liberals, get snookered into voting for a center-right candidate then you are correct, we will be setting the clock back. We will get another go round of promised change that wasn’t.
We aren’t going to stop rehashing 2008 because it’s the Clinton base that stayed home. It’s that fucking simple. And it’s not just women she did well with – it’s the white working class, hispanics, labor unions. The people who, in Bill’s formulation, need a president. We’re pissed and there is no one else that I’ll vote for. Yesterday’s election results suggest I’m not alone.
The problem with primarying Obama is that it may alienate African Americans and if they stay home, its unlikely a candidate could win.
Hillary Clinton is so pro-labor that she hired union buster extraordinaire Mark Penn as her chief campaign strategist.
She is so pro-main street that her top 3 campaign contributors from 2005-2010 are Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley.
And she benefited from the millions more in speaking fees Bill collected from all of these same companies.
Imagine the sternly worded letter she would have sent about those Wall Street bonuses.
——
The left is truly screwed if we still cannot be honest about neoliberal Democrats. If we cannot establish that the Democratic Party is not really leftwing.
Vast Left,
I am not intentionally leaving out any context re Hillary’s threat to “obliterate” Iran. I told you what the context was: Hillary was running for office and Democrats often make warmongering threats against the enemy du jour in an effort to look tough. If anyone is failing to engage or provide a context it is you. How does someone asking her a hypothetical question about Iran attacking Israel excuse her response? Don’t most aggressors claim that they are acting defensively? Hasn’t that been the contrived “Iranian issue” for the last few years? Isn’t that the very excuse the right-wing warmongers are using to attack Iran? That Iran might get the bomb and attack Israel? She knew she would get questions about Iran as Iran had been a top issue for years so it’s not like she didn’t have time to think of a humane or diplomatic response.
Plus, Hillary could have challenged the assumption of the question, i.e. that Iran has a nuclear bomb and is likely to attack Israel with it. She could have used diplomatic language when war and human life are at stake. Instead, she was more than happy to stoke fear of Iran for her own political benefit and to lay the groundwork for yet more war.
I somehow doubt that you would view this threat as innocuously as you apparently do if it was coming from Bush or even Obama. That’s the context you’re missing. Clinton Derangement Syndrome is making excuses for the U.S. Secretary of State that has threatened to “obliterate” the people of Iran because the creative class boys in the Democratic party were mean to her.
Two things after reading through the rest.
We do need a platform. one page – ten point or less form which can be stapled and thumb-tacked all across the land…. and a full progressive party platform. I’ve wondered for years why progs won’t do this. I know several folk have solid drafts now. But the drafts thru final forms should be contributed to, edited, voted upon in an open source environment of some sort.
I’m confused by Ian’s support of more QE as well. Isn’t it the ultimate in trickle down? 600b at begins at the top and stays there?
Help me out Ian, I need to be able to explain this to others. I think reading Zero Hedge has clogged my pipes with gold and guns. 🙂
This thread seems to have degenerated into a “Hillary! Yay!” — “Hillary! Boo!” discussion.
I don’t care about personalities at this point, I care about saving the country & turning it around, getting our message straight, being clear and simple about it, and THEN maybe hunting for candidates that reflect it.
Y’all can debate Hillary Yay/boo till the cows come home. We’re not THERE yet. It’s a waste of horsepower.
I blame Hillary for not quitting when it was time to do so. If she had we wouldn’t have been subjected to as many recriminations over her loss. It’s all your fault Hillary!!!@#@!@!!@!@!!!!“`11
Now how is that for CDS?
Keep in mind that the big wins are Republicans but they are also masquerading as Tea Party people in terms of messaging. If they don’t deliver, they will be shown out at the next election.
Jim
http://www.neocontext.com
Blog at: http://blog.neocontext.com
I got a nail in my tire today, and the first thing that came to my mind was: dammit, hillary! I hate youuuuuuuu!!!!!!!!
Z
Mandos,
So, you ain’t got it nearly as bad as I do.
Z
P.S. Have you tried any antibiotics? Coz the strain I got don’t even respond to that.
Do we agree that the worst option is (D) another term for Obama and the second worst option is a (C) GOP wins WH (say, Huckabee)?
Any serious challenger is better than none since challengers sink re-election bids. If Hillary ran, she might run the table and win, giving us (B) possibly more progressive Democrat beats Obama and wins WH. Even if she lost to Obama or loses in the general we’d very likely get (C). If a solid progressive like Russ Feingold or Howard Dean runs we might have (A) a definitely more progressive Dem beats Obama and wins WH. However its more likely we’d get (C) since I doubt anyone but Hillary has the legs to win both the nomination and the general. In other words, if there is a nomination fight:
A (Russ) is better than B (Hillary) is better than C (Huckabee) is better than D (Obama)
but B is more likely C is more likely than A is more likely than D. So yeah, Hillary is the optimal pick.
Ian Welsh, May 2008:
“Neither Clinton nor Obama is a progressive or a liberal. They are both centrist democrats with the voting records of centrist dems. However, between the two of them, Clinton is the more liberal.”
Z: But mine is more meta!
jcapan: I, for one, agree 100% with what you quoted from Ian. Actually, more importantly, Republicans have had a long history of hating Hillary passionately. That’s inherently a major plus point for Hillary—bipartisanship nonsense would have been impossible whether she liked it or not.
So yeah, Hillary is the optimal pick.
Let’s re-write and summarize:
Option A: The duopoly
Option B: Someone who would represent the interests of the majority of the country
Option C: There is no Option B
Republicans have had a long history of hating Hillary passionately.
Yeah, let’s nominate somebody the Republicans like instead.
/snark
They hated Bill too, but he did a pretty good job anyway.
At this point it is not necessary to know who the candidate will be, what is necessary is to make it clear that there is a constituency for a challenge, people who will work for a challenger. That will make politicians (including whoever you think should be the challenger) much more likely to step forward.
Start draft movements if you like.