A recent post I wrote with James Boyce, defending Hillary from a racist Republican attack, has evoked e-mail and comment "accusations" that I am a "Hillary supporter."
OF COURSE I AM A HILLARY SUPPORTER -- I'M A DEMOCRAT!!
I also support Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and John Edwards! Duh!
I think I prefer Edwards and Dodd right now, because their polices and thinking and approach lines up more with my own. Obama sure is winning me over, too. I am more progressive-oriented than Hillary.
But let me suggest something to you -- If Hillary Clinton becomes president, she will be the most progressive president America has ever had.
So relax. We have a great group of candidates this time.
Follow Dave Johnson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dcjohnson
The good news is that these views are outliers in the real world of progressive voters (though I certainly wish those voters preferred Obama, Edwards, Richardson or Dodd).
The bad news is that the overrepresentation of those outlying views in the blogosphere does the same disservice to progressives' image in the general population that call-in listeners of talk radio do to the public's perception of conservatives.
Above all solid progress will be made on the desecration of our Constitution and the attempts to pervert the Oath of Office to the role of pageantry rather than a contract between We The People and a PUBLIC SERVENT.
So yes you are right Dave Johnson she will be a very progressive ruler.
Progressive? She appears to be the status quo candidate, if you ask me.
If HRC is the Dem nominee and some fool R is up on their side, I'd predict a serious 3rd candidate (a la Perot, only not tanking toward the end) could win in the general. There are a lot of R's who are fed up with R candidates - but many of them will not vote for HRC. A General Clark or someone of that ilk could get tons of R votes, ending up like a lieberman-type finish.
And as a woman, I can't abide her "stand-by-my-man-since-he-can-help-me-politically" aura. Her husband humiliated her in front of the whole world and she barely lets a peep out? That doesn't show me a tough woman ready to take on the Presidency, it show me a desperate opportunist who wants to "prove" she's as good as Bill was. No more dynasties, thank you.
Hopeful Obama supporter
Willing Edwards supporter
(gay) NOT supporter of Richards
longshot Kucinch supporter.
She is smart, witty, knowlegable of the subjects, etc.
We as a country have a plate overflowing with things that need doing. We have to build bridges with other countries taken down by Bush, we need to bring our troops home safely, we need to reverse this drainage on our economy and the jobs that go with it, our infrastructure needs addressing, health care, so many things need to be done.
Obama is an anomalie he is a nice guy, he is sharp he has a great way about him, but he is green, he has a fantastic future but he is not yet ready for prime time.
We need someone who can hit the ground running and Hillary is ready for that.
Lou
We need to unite this country, and Obama is the only one running who has a real chance of doing that. He's the only one getting significant crossover numbers.
Obama has been driving the debate on foreign policy by saying things that are true. Hillary simply takes the opposite positions--even though they are Bush/Cheney positions (don't talk to enemies, maybe use nukes to take out a campground, don't attack Bin Laden, keep Bush's Cuba restrictions intact). That's divisive--her usual instincts.
"Stong Heart" posted a quotation from Goethe on the Obama site this morning:
"Divide and rule, the politician cries; unite and lead, is watchword of the wise."
I love Obama, by the way, and his politics line up with mine more than Hillary's. I'm just saying, it isn't Hillary that is divisive, it's the right's machine, which was created with the PURPOSE of dividing us.
Come on now. Do we have to resort to revisionist history on Senator Clinton's behalf to make her acceptable? There are many examples to the contrary. I'll take just one.
In the **1940's**, FDR wanted to implement a true public health-care system in the United States. He got Social Security, and Medicare, about two thirds of what he wanted. THAT'S progressive.
When it was the Clintons' turn to tackle health care, Paul Wellstone plus ninety other members of Congress said, "let us finally implement FDR's dream, and give Americans a right enjoyed by every other developed country on Earth." And what did Hillary propose? A system which would have enshrined large health insurance companies as public utilities, guaranteeing that a for-profit middleman would forever be a part of the system. That's NOT progressive.
I'm suggesting that, as long as you're going to fight, you fight for something that you actually want. And that the progressive goal, one that was advanced by an earlier President, was single-payer health care.
Big biz has a funny way of predictably playing the game as most play at home with "Deal or No Deal." Why take $10,000 when there's millions left on the board? Go for it all!
Besides, the bigger initiative was behind the scenes with wheeler-dealers looking for ways to prevent the Bubba admin from having any accomplishments. Regardless, as we can see today, the health care companies are flourishing very nicely, so it would appear to have worked well for them.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/lbjsm.html
..."Don't sit cryin' for good times you had
There's a girl right next to you
and she's waiting for something to do
If you can't be, with the one you love, love the one you're with"...do doot do doot do doot da-doot, do doot do doot do doot da-doot, do doot do doot do doot da-doot, do-do-da-doot, do doot!"
In the last eight years, anyway. Anyone's better than what we've had these last eight years.