Barack Obama will be the last President of the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton with her choice for Tim Kaine as VP has declared war to the Progressive side of her own party. Donald Trump could benefit from this situation by using a "divide and conquer" strategy. Clinton just made a Trump presidency more likely, because she choose to divide her party instead of trying to unite blue. Progressives are wise enough not to let Trump exploit this situation. Progressives are also wise enough to hold Clinton accountable for her decisions at the right time.
It is up to Progressives to first defeat Trump, and then Clinton. This means with all the pain in their hearts Progressives will have to vote for Clinton. And not forget this declaration of war of Clinton, but wait with fighting Centrist Democrats until 2017. In a militant non-violent way; in the good tradition of Martin Luther King Jr.
The Clinton/Kaine ticket is a Centrist Democratic ticket aimed to please "Moderate Republicans". To give the friends of George W. Bush a place to go, to vote for Clinton, now that the GOP is falling apart. This is a strategic choice by the Clinton team.
Besides from the GOP falling apart there is another reason why Clinton has chosen to go after "Moderate Republicans". The Libertarian Party is doing a lot better in the polls than the Green Party of Jill Stein. Or, in other words, the Progressives will not cause much trouble for Clinton come November. And there is everything to gain at the side of "Moderate Republicans". So, in the eyes of Clinton Kaine is a logical VP pick.
Unfortunately for Clinton a new era of politics is arising in which trust is your main political capital. Not opportunism. Can voters trust a politician on the ideas that matter to them? Not only in election times, but much more importantly when politicians are in power after the elections.
Tim is so progressive, just like Hillary. The Clinton team is off course not going to concede that Kaine is a Centrist Democrat. No, the Clinton machine will pretend he is a real progressive choice. Because this strategy worked so good for Clinton herself in the primaries. Not! As you cannot sell Hillary Clinton as a real Progressive, you cannot sell Tim Kaine as a real Progressive. That is not an honest approach. It is a distortion of reality. Kaine may have some progressive views, but overall Tim Kaine is not a Progressive. Not by a long shot.
Progressive ideas in the Democratic platform are useless if they are not executed in a Clinton government. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren have similar views on trade, big banks, regulation with regard to climate change, campaign finance and the minimum wage. In short: the agenda on which the campaign of Sanders was based. How does Tim Kaine score on those issues?
Sanders and Warren are against the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Clinton and Kaine are for it. Sanders and Warren want to break up the big banks, Clinton and Kaine do not. Sanders and Warren want strict regulations with regard to climate change, Clinton and Kaine do not. Sanders and Warren want to go towards public financing of campaigns, Clinton and Kaine do not.
On the minimum wage for now I will give Clinton and Kaine the benefit of the doubt: that they will support a minimum wage of $15/hour instead of $12/hour, as campaigned for by Clinton in the primaries. And that they will really give Republicans a fight on this topic as President and Vice-President of the United States of America.
The Intercept reported that hours before his nomination as VP Kaine praised the TPP. The Huffington Post reported that before his nomination as VP he called to deregulate banks. In 2015 the Huffington Post reported: "Four Senate Democrats are working with Republicans to help the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other GOP-affiliated lobbying groups undermine financial and environmental regulations." One of those Democratic senators was Tim Kaine. In 2013 Kaine supported offshore drilling for fossil fuels. Clinton and Kaine, yes so Progressive!
On campaign finance on first sight things look a lot better for Progressives with Clinton and Kaine. Until you focus in on the reality of the situation. Let's start with the good news. Kaine is against "dark money", or as Clinton calls it "unaccountable money". "Dark" in "dark money" refers to the fact that you're in the dark where the money came from. High donations are not such a problem as long as it happens in a transparent environment. The problem is not that politicians are bought: it is that you don't know who the buyer is. That's how I would summarize the position of Clinton and Kaine.
It is good that Clinton and Kaine, at least on paper, are against dark money in politics. It is a huge problem that goes further than buying politicians without you knowing about it. It is also buying academics, think tanks and journalists to get certain political ideas mainstream. And if you have a lot of money you can coordinate all those activities. If you want to understand how this ecosystem of corruption works read the book of Jane Mayer called "Dark Money". It is an eyeopener and I highly recommend it.
The solution is not to legalize corruption. It is never right that people can buy politicians, academics and journalists. Also not if it is done in accordance with a possible new law of "Accountable Money". On a moral level it is still corruption. Allowing big money to influence the public domain in such a gripping way is the beginning of the end of independent thinking and a healthy functioning democracy. Therefore Clinton and Kaine should also support a public campaign finance system, next to ending dark money practices.
On the core ideas Progressives and Centrist Democrats differ a lot. If you're a Progressive Clinton's choice for Kaine signals that she has no intention of building a bridge to the other side. Clinton has chosen a VP who more or less has the same political ideas as she does. Not someone who would challenge her thinking and force her to compromise, like Elizabeth Warren. Clinton is in her political views closer to "Moderate Republicans" than to Progressives, like her husband Bill Clinton. Clinton had a great opportunity to start to build some trust with Progressives and she didn't take it. Don't be angry about it: don't resist reality, accept it.
Resisting reality is a waste of energy and only succeeds in making you feel frustrated. It does not get you closer to your goals. Only continuing fighting for the ideas you believe in will do that. Just as Sanders proclaimed: "The struggle continues."
Vote for Clinton anyway. And as important vote for Progressives down the ballot to create the much needed opposition for the hopefully coming Clinton government. As I see it you can divide the American political scene in roughly four groups: Progressives, (Centrist) Democrats, Conservatives (Moderate Republicans), and the people of the Tea Party (Extreme Republicans). Trump is to the right of extreme Republicans.
In their ideas Democrats are closer to Progressives than the Trumpies. For Progressives it would be a lot easier to make "great deals" with Democrats than with Trumpies. A Trump presidency would be a disaster for Progressives, America and the world. That's why you will vote for Hillary Clinton in November and start fighting her in January of 2017.
The father and mother of a new Progressive Party in America might turn out to be Sanders and Warren.
If the current Democratic Party should have had a last President. I am very happen it was Barack Obama. In my lifetime, I was born in 1979, he's by far my favorite Democratic President. Overall, and taking into account that Republicans had a majority in Congress for almost the whole period, he has done a lot of good, even if Progressives wanted him to do even more. Maybe Progressives expected too much of Obama and too little of themselves. Progressives won't give Hillary Clinton the love they have or had for Obama, which gave him the room to maneuver on progressive ideas.
The next question will be how are Progressives going to set up a constructive and inclusive Progressive Party for the years to come. Or is it still possible to transform the Democratic party in that direction? Or even better yet is there a strategy in which you can do both?