In 2008, the Kos crowd created a false picture of Hillary Clinton, portraying her as a corporatist DINO, even though her record was more liberal than Obama's.
You can still feel the Hillary-hate if you visit Daily Kos, HuffPo and environs. No, I will not offer any links. Suffice it to say that many of the things being said are so over-the-top as to make me feel sympathy for Hillary, even though I'm not otherwise inclined to send her any groovy vibes right now.
Nevertheless, she said what she said in that Atlantic interview and can't un-say it. No-one can claim that she was blindsided or quoted out of context. I don't know if she was always this hawkish on foreign policy, and I strongly doubt that her newfound conservatism extends to her proposed domestic agenda.
Truth be told, I suspect that her big plan on the domestic front is to find some way to return taxes to where they were during her husband's administration, then sit back and watch the red ink slowly disappear. Not such a bad plan, actually.
But war has a way of upending plans like that, and neocon ideology has a way of leading to war. That's why so many of us were disturbed to hear her talk the neocon talk. That's why Ezra Klein said that she was too hawkish for her party
That's also why Niall Stanage of The Hill has listed five polticians who can challenge Hillary from the left.
We certainly need someone who can offer an alternative to the prevailing neocon orthodoxy. It would be infuriating and outrageous if that alternative arrived on the GOP side of the aisle, in the form of Rand Paul.
So let's look at Stanage's choices:
is obviously the best choice from a progressive point of view. The big problem is simple: She won't run. She has made that clear.
would make a good president. No, I'm serious
. Behind the scenes, he has consistently pushed this administration toward liberal policies while remaining loyal to Obama. Yet he also knows how to maintain friendly personal relations with congressional Republicans (at least the ones who haven't gone completely insane). The big problem with Biden is that progressives simply don't like him very much. I think they ought to like him better, but the situation is what it is.
, a.k.a. "Dukakis II," is an admirable fellow in many ways. (So was Dukakis.) Alas, O'Malley was the mayor of Baltimore
, much of which is a decaying corpse of a city -- the kind of city that makes you want to grab a trenchcoat and go full Rorschach. It's also a city of many secrets, and I suspect that one of those secrets might bite him in the ass if he hits the national stage. Taxes in Maryland are certainly high enough to wound his chances in the general election. Yes, O'Malley seems interested in the presidency, and he might actually be good in that position. But right now we're talking about someone who can challenge Hillary from the left
, and O'Malley has shown no signs that he can ignite any fires in the progressive heart.
? Sorry. If you are going to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, you ought to have an actual (D) listed by your name. Besides, he is 72. Worse, he embraces the "S" word, which makes him an impossibility in the general election: Most Americans equate socialism with church-burning Bolshevism, and no amount of argumentation will dislodge that equation from their tiny little minds.
On the other hand, he has
said that he is interested in running. So, like, there's that
the lack of a (D) really such a bad thing? It has been said that all true Stars Wars
fans hate Star Wars
. Maybe all true Democrats hate the Democratic Party. Maybe that (I) next to Sanders' name is a plus.
But if you still want that big (D) feeling, you gotta go with...
He bought me some soup
once (without really knowing what a scurvy knave I am), and I remain loyal. Go, Russ, go! Besides, he's Jewish and thus can criticize Israel, as many liberal Jews are wont to do these days. Wouldn't that
be a teaching moment?
Those five are not the only possibilities, of course. May I suggest Al Franken? Pete DeFazio? Kathleen Sibelius?