"The Dynastic Hillary Bandwagon: Bad for America"
A voice from outside the MSM:
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 cant 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 didnt 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 didnt 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. Its 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 Kissingers Forgotten Shame, or Seymour Hershs 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
(10,122 posts)I agree on this point though I am confident their are going to be other formidable dem candidates in 16
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)Racking up electoral college votes well in advance of any chance for the people, the voters, to officially register an opinion.
Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)
BootinUp This message was self-deleted by its author.
DonCoquixote
(13,711 posts)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
(9,494 posts)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
(10,007 posts)first by choosing a despicable running mate, then by running a terrible campaign. But you know this.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)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
(68,644 posts)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
(24,324 posts)Clinton? no. I would, of course, vote for her if she were the candidate. No other option.
spin
(17,493 posts)roguevalley
(40,656 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)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
(3,747 posts)nasty mouth.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)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
(68,644 posts)If she's the nominee, they can't lose.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)candidacy, but now it may be that Citizens United money may be backing her.
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 partys 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.