Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Progressive 3.0: Beware the Latest Version of Hillary Clinton
Some thoughts on watching last night's Democratic debate
by John Atcheson
Listening to Hillary last night trying to pass herself off as a progressive is like watching a chameleon change colors to match its surroundings. Not quite the same, however. The chameleon’s move is defensive. Hillary’s is strictly offensive.
The poll-tested, focus-grouped phrases like “a progressive who gets things done” come right out of the Madison Avenue mold. Or take her contention that the “Wall Street guys are working against her.” They’re doing this by contributing to her Super PAC, apparently, because the week prior to saying this Hillary was meeting with the likes of Bain Capital and Blackrock. It can't denied, Wall Street money was and is pouring into her campaign.
Look, let’s get this straight.
It wasn't very long ago when Hillary Clinton favored the TPP, the Keystone XL Pipeline and the death penalty. She also opposed gay marriage and reinstating Glass-Steagall. Her foreign policy is closer to the neocons who got us into Iraq (which she voted for) than what the American people favor. She’s flipped on immigration, gun control, and NAFTA.
That’s not progressive.
She attributes her changes towards progressivism to “evolving” as a result of “new information.” But as Politico points out, for most of these issues, there was no new information. For example, what’s changed on gay marriage, other than public opinion? It also begs a question: if Sanders could see the folly of invading Iraq, or the stupidity of repealing Glass-Steagall, or the gross inequity of trade pacts, why couldn’t she?
Either she has bad judgment, or she’s being disingenuous about flip-flopping.
But now it’s apparent that the American people are taking a progressive turn and so, Hillary is shedding her moderate coat, and donning her progressive one.
When Mrs. Clinton – filled with righteous indignation – says let’s talk about issues and let’s look forward, what she’s really saying is let’s not talk about my campaign financing, or my policy history, because it won’t bear the scrutiny my new, new, new progressive brand demands.
As for whether the money she takes buys influence, the American people have their own opinion. In a groundbreaking study of American beliefs called "the Smith Project," here’s what they had to say:
The Smith Project is one of the most comprehensive analyses of what Americans believe about the political process and their government, and they’ve concluded that money buys favors.
Could Hillary be taking Wall Street’s money and not being influenced? Well, maybe. But I guarantee this: they will have access to a Clinton White House that you and I don’t.
by John Atcheson
Listening to Hillary last night trying to pass herself off as a progressive is like watching a chameleon change colors to match its surroundings. Not quite the same, however. The chameleon’s move is defensive. Hillary’s is strictly offensive.
The poll-tested, focus-grouped phrases like “a progressive who gets things done” come right out of the Madison Avenue mold. Or take her contention that the “Wall Street guys are working against her.” They’re doing this by contributing to her Super PAC, apparently, because the week prior to saying this Hillary was meeting with the likes of Bain Capital and Blackrock. It can't denied, Wall Street money was and is pouring into her campaign.
Look, let’s get this straight.
It wasn't very long ago when Hillary Clinton favored the TPP, the Keystone XL Pipeline and the death penalty. She also opposed gay marriage and reinstating Glass-Steagall. Her foreign policy is closer to the neocons who got us into Iraq (which she voted for) than what the American people favor. She’s flipped on immigration, gun control, and NAFTA.
That’s not progressive.
She attributes her changes towards progressivism to “evolving” as a result of “new information.” But as Politico points out, for most of these issues, there was no new information. For example, what’s changed on gay marriage, other than public opinion? It also begs a question: if Sanders could see the folly of invading Iraq, or the stupidity of repealing Glass-Steagall, or the gross inequity of trade pacts, why couldn’t she?
Either she has bad judgment, or she’s being disingenuous about flip-flopping.
But now it’s apparent that the American people are taking a progressive turn and so, Hillary is shedding her moderate coat, and donning her progressive one.
When Mrs. Clinton – filled with righteous indignation – says let’s talk about issues and let’s look forward, what she’s really saying is let’s not talk about my campaign financing, or my policy history, because it won’t bear the scrutiny my new, new, new progressive brand demands.
As for whether the money she takes buys influence, the American people have their own opinion. In a groundbreaking study of American beliefs called "the Smith Project," here’s what they had to say:
The Democratic and Republican Parties are essentially useless in changing this situation. Americans overwhelmingly agree (78%-15%) that both political parties are too beholden to special interests to create any meaningful change.
The Smith Project is one of the most comprehensive analyses of what Americans believe about the political process and their government, and they’ve concluded that money buys favors.
Could Hillary be taking Wall Street’s money and not being influenced? Well, maybe. But I guarantee this: they will have access to a Clinton White House that you and I don’t.
Continued: http://commondreams.org/views/2016/02/05/progressive-30-beware-latest-version-hillary-clinton
This final point in the excerpt is key: money is not only about buying influence (which, again, is demonstrable in Hillary's case, as Elizabeth Warren has pointed out), but extraordinary levels of access. That's something I hope Bernie's campaign will highlight (though I'm not holding my breath).
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
