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:
Elizabeth Warren 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.
Joe Biden 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.
Martin O’Malley, 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.
Bernie Sanders? 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.
Question: Is 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...
Russ Feingold. 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?
11 comments:
Instant heavyweight contender, if he would choose to enter the race: Al Gore. I presume he will not, but has he been asked and definitively declined? Bonus for him: actually got elected president once, if the refs hadn't robbed him 5-4.
XI
Hi XI.
Good to see you.
The only reason I would vote for her is because I hate her enemies more
Biden is heavily involved in promoting the false flag war in Ukraine. And his son is cashing in on the whole affair. Voting for Biden is voting for WWIII, same as Hillary.
I'm hoping against hope that Al Gore will seriously consider running.
He said in interview, some weeks ago, when asked about this that he's "a recovering politician". I guess that doesn't slam the door on the possibility of a run completely. He won't put cards on the table too early though, because...well, can you imagine the s..t just waiting to be hurled at him from both right and factions of the left?
He's the one we, and the planet, need!
Run Al, run!!!
IMO, Hillary Clinton has now moved into position as the most dangerous woman in America, a spot previously occupied by Diane Feinstein (now in second place).
Is the lack of a (D) really such a bad thing?
Some of us were asking that last time around, if you'll recall. The Lesser Evil is, after all, still Evil.
I'm with Xi - let's re-elect President Gore.
Russ Feingold is the only demodog I would vote for and since he won't run I'll be voting Green
Joseph, the problem with taxing away the deficit is that the austerity hurts the economy, and then the Republican propagandists blame the hurt economy on "socialism", and then when the Republicans take power again they find some excuse to engage in deficit spending (like a defense buildup or two wars) that pumps up the economy and then they can claim they fixed the democrats' mistakes--then dump the deficit back on the Democrats when they take power again.
Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat. The Republicans have been running this scam since the 1970s.
For four years, Clinton kept a lid on the problems now erupting in the world but you dislike her because of something she said in an interview?
I've been concerned about her performance as Secretary of State from the beginning. I said at the start that I would have preferred for her to stay in the Senate.
Post a Comment