"The Dynastic Hillary Bandwagon: Bad for America"

[NYC_SKP]

A voice from outside the MSM:

Published on Saturday, November 9, 2013 by Common Dreams

The Dynastic Hillary Bandwagon: Bad for America

by Ralph Nader



The Hillary Clinton for President in 2016 bandwagon has started very early and with a purpose. The idea is to get large numbers of endorsers, so that no Democratic Primary competitors dare make a move. These supporters include Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), financier George Soros and Ready for Hillary, a super PAC mobilizing with great specificity (already in Iowa).

~snip~

Everybody knows that Hillary is for women, children and education. She says so every day. But Democrats and others can’t get the Clintons even to support a $10.50 federal minimum wage that would almost equal the 1968 minimum wage, inflation-adjusted, and would raise the wages of 30 million workers mired in the gap between the present minimum wage of $7.25 and $10.50 an hour. It just so happens that almost two-thirds of these Americans are women, many of them single moms struggling to support their impoverished children. Nearly a million of these workers labor for Walmart, on whose Board of Directors Hillary Clinton once sat. Words hide the deeds.

As a Senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hillary had to start proving that women, just like the macho men, can be belligerent and never see a weapons system and its use that they didn’t like. Never did she demonstrate any ongoing interest in debloating the massive, wasteful, duplicative military budget so as to free up big monies for domestic public works programs or other necessities.

As Senator she also admitted that she didn’t have time to read a critical National Intelligence Estimate Report, which had caveats that might have dissuaded her from voting with George W. Bush to invade Iraq in 2003. War-mongering and wars of Empire never bothered her then or now. Just a few weeks ago, she was photographed giving the recidivist war criminal, Republican Henry Kissinger, a big, smiling hug at a public event. It’s all part of the bi-partisan image she is cultivating under the opportunistic banner of “cooperation.” (For more information, read the New York Times’ Collateral Damage and Nixon and Kissinger’s Forgotten Shame, or Seymour Hersh’s The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House.)

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/11/09-3

If the Democratic party is willing let the rich and powerful manipulate public opinion to drive out potential contenders and more progressive candidates this far out from the primaries, then we're toast.

Fuck that. It's an abuse of the system.

[Skink]

1. Nader should have run for Senator years ago

I agree on this point though I am confident their are going to be other formidable dem candidates in 16

[NYC_SKP]

5. I am reminded of 2007-2008 and the "inevitability" of Hillary.

Racking up electoral college votes well in advance of any chance for the people, the voters, to officially register an opinion.

[DonCoquixote]

3. I am the first person to hate Nader

I was in Florida in 2000, and I had to endure weeks of talk radio where people not only confessed they used the greens to cut Gore's throat, they documented it so that they can try this again.

That being said, Nader is ONE HUNDRED PERCENT RIGHT HERE. If Hillary was the great left hope people want her to be, she has had ample, ample chances to do it. Hell, if she were to come out and say she would do simple things, like repair Glass-Steagall, CUT the military, and tell BIBI netanyahu to stop the West Bank settlements (which is BIBI's big raised middle finger to the peace accords the Clintons themselves did) then i would cheer for her, but she has not, she will not, and instead, she makes cute little jokes about "we came, we saw, he died" about gadaffi being killed.

Again, since I have to answer this question, ala a loyalty oath, yes, if she WINS the primary, I will vote for her. However, the fact that so many candidates have been ignored or run out shows a real problem Demcorats have. In 2004, the clintons were silent when Kerry was being swift boated, that was because Hillary wanted 2008. Now, we have no Young Turks, save maybe Booker and Castro, and they are in the mold of Clinton. If we crown Hillary, we might as well say that we have no interest in any generation after the Boomers, which means we will have to spend crucial years fighting off the Rubios, Haleys, and other young wolves that can and will be back for another whack at things. We will also ignore OWS, which contrary to the myths beind sold everywhere, even here on DU, the OWS generation is the one that will win the fight, because they have the anger needed to fight. If the democrats roll out the unwelcome mat, then the energy OWS has will be bled off into several little movements, which will make the Koch brothers pleased, because it will mean that we once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and the oligarchs have another 20 years to complete their destruction of civilization.

[Walk away]

4. Ralph Nader was a really good product safety advocate....

and then he helped hand the country to the republicans along with his "oh so progressive that I don't care what happens as long as I make my point" supporters.

This man's past accomplishments can't erase his unrelenting destructiveness and self promotion.

No one is stopping anyone from running against Mrs Clinton. If her competitors can't raise campaign funds now, how are they going to run against Chris Christie?

[Maedhros]

18. I'd say Gore handed the presidency to the Republicans,

first by choosing a despicable running mate, then by running a terrible campaign. But you know this.

[pangaia]

6. I don't see how ANY true progressive can win

the Democratic nomination, much less the presidency, now or in the near future. That is just not where the money and the power are. The corporatists are in control.
Not that I won't keep trying

[NYC_SKP]

7. If she wanted to try, I think Liz Warren could have a good shot at winning the primary.

So, while I agree with your assessment that the corporatists are in control, we could have a shot at a more progressive candidate, were one to step up.

[pangaia]

11. Liz is one person I would definitely go out and work for.

Clinton? no. I would, of course, vote for her if she were the candidate. No other option.

[spin]

8. Please, no more Clintons and no more Bushes. (n/t)

[roguevalley]

9. here here. she is a corporatist, was hawk and she will bring all the bill people in.

[spin]

10. I just firmly believe that we do not need any political dynasties in our nation, period!

It turns my stomach to think of a Presidential race between Jeb Bush and Hillary. Unfortunately such a race is possible.

I also think that our nation is long overdue for a female President but I don't support coronating Hillary for that role.

[BlueToTheBone]

12. Now I like her. I'm sick of Nadir opening his

nasty mouth.

[Maedhros]

19. Nader haters gonna' hate. [n/t]

[Scuba]

13. Kick, thanks.

[rhett o rick]

14. I see the irony of a corporate sponsored Ms. Clinton getting the best of Citizens United ruling.

The corporations would love some Christie Creams but would settle for Ms. Clinton, that would give them 8 more years of record corporate profits. If you dont agree, explain what makes you think she would change the status quo.

[NYC_SKP]

15. Hillary is a solid investment for TPTB.

If she's the nominee, they can't lose.

[rhett o rick]

16. So do you get the irony? Citizens United was about corp-money to be used to torpedo her

candidacy, but now it may be that Citizens United money may be backing her.

[KoKo]

17. This!

But the bigger problem is that speculation over who the presidential nominees will be three years from now ascribes too much power to whoever tops the ticket. For example, the question of whether Elizabeth Warren will challenge Hillary Clinton is really a proxy for discussing the future direction of the Democratic party. For five years, usually warring Democratic factions have been unified in revulsion toward the tea party’s growing dominance within the GOP. But the divide between the centrist, Clintonian wing and what the late Senator Paul Wellstone called the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” still simmers beneath the surface, and there will likely be a reckoning during the 2016 nominating process.

The reality is that the fight over the direction of the party will determine the ideological lean of the nominee, not the other way around. Presidential nominees tend to hew closely to their party’s median vote in Congress. If the Democrats end up adopting a more populist platform, than Clinton, if she runs, will move to the left regardless of who is challenging her. This kind of analysis is, of course, less fun than the horse race.

[adirondacker]

20. Bizzare bedfellows. I'd love to be a miniature drone for a week. nt