'I am a progressive, I like Hillary Clinton and I do not feel remotely conflicted about that'

[bigtree]

Robert Sandy ?@frodofied 2h2 hours ago
A Progressive Case for Clinton - In These Times: http://inthesetimes.com/article/18942/why-progressives-should-support-hillary-clinton … BY Sady Doyle


Hillary speaks at a ceremony on Aug. 26, 1995, marking the 75th anniversary of the 19th Amendment. (Luke Frazza/AFP/Getty Images)


In the 'In These Times'' Hillary vs. Bernie roundtable last July—oh, what a faraway, innocent time July was—I was aware that I was making nice rather than making my case. My reticence was due to a fear that I voiced at the end of the conversation: that “Sanders vs. Clinton will become ugly, and we’re going to get to the finish line unable to get behind the nominee, and then I am going to wake up one day and Ted Cruz will be president.”

Now, the ugliness has arrived. So here comes my full-throated case for Hillary Clinton for president of the United States.

First, it is impossible to analyze Clinton—her policies, her career path, her hair—without understanding how gender bias operates. Bias plays a role in all of our reactions, no matter how feminist we are. As progressives, it is our duty to resist these stereotypes, and, if we are journalists, to help our readers understand how gender bias operates at an unconscious level.

When you hear that Hillary Clinton is unlikable, be aware of the study that shows competent women are generally seen as unlikable; when you hear that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, know that this same study shows women in power are generally seen as dishonest. And know that when the same imaginary job candidate is presented to two groups, with the only difference being a male or female name at the top of the résumé, the female candidate is seen as less trustworthy than the man. In each study, these biased reactions were found in both women and men.

And realize that when women seek power—for example, by running for the nation’s highest office—a Yale study reports that “participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e. contempt, anger, and/or disgust) towards them” and that “women were just as likely as men to have negative reactions.” In the very same Yale study, when “participants saw male politicians as power-seeking, they also saw them as having greater agency (e.g. being more assertive, stronger and tougher) and greater competence.”

That is not to say that there cannot be specific, convincing arguments against Hillary Clinton, or that there are not arguments against her. It is to say that people who criticize Hillary Clinton, especially from the Left, should be aware of how these stereotypes may distort our perceptions, and how we can frame criticisms without feeding into the very real misogyny that has dogged Clinton throughout her career—an antipathy once expressed in a “Hillary Clinton dismemberment doll,” complete with detachable limbs.

Once one cuts through that misogyny, one is forced to confront the reason the GOP has fostered hatred against her: For much of the early portions of Clinton’s career, beginning when she arrived on the national stage in 1992, Hillary Clinton was presumed by the Right (and many Democrats) to be too far left to be in politics. She was Bill Clinton’s left-wing liability, a Saul Alinsky-hugging, Children’s-Defense-Fund-working, non-cookie-baking, mouthy feminist, attacked on the stage of the Republican National Convention for supporting “radical feminism” and “homosexual rights.”

It was in part because of this hatred that Hillary Clinton became the person we know today: a candidate defined by her caution and her frustrating self-contradictions, seemingly torn between challenging the power structure and gaining enough credibility within that power structure to survive. Clinton believes that you need to be in the system in order to change the system, and I think that is true. Clinton’s path has given her tremendous impact, and in many ways, her politics—left sympathies combined with a survivor’s instinct for using the system, and a lawyer’s love of the fine detail—are reminiscent of Obama’s. While leftists have critiques of Obama, too, I think he’s been the best president in my lifetime, which started with Reagan. I also remember that second Bush a little too well to ever believe that the two parties are “basically the same” (though I have been told this many times).

When I hear claims about Hillary Clinton, the money-grubbing shill for Wall Street who thinks just like a Republican, I don’t recognize the woman who once snapped at her husband for not fighting hard enough for universal healthcare, telling him, “You didn't get elected to do Wall Street economics.” Similarly, I see no shifty dishonesty in the Hillary Clinton who, in 2005, pushed for a 9/11-style commission to investigate the Bush administration’s failure to respond to Hurricane Katrina, and who today is the woman making the administrative negligence in Flint, Mich., central to her campaign.

Similarly, the Hillary Clinton who traveled to Beijing in 1995 against the wishes of her husband’s administration to declare that “women’s rights are human rights” is entirely recognizable as the Secretary of State who helped to create the Office of Global Women’s Issues and declared that “the United States must be an unequivocal and unwavering voice in support of women’s rights in every country on every continent.” In short, this is the same Hillary Clinton who is today stressing equal pay for women as a racial justice issue, given that the women who are most penalized by the pay gap are black women and Latinas.

And the Hillary Clinton who is “Republican lite,” “more like Reagan than FDR” and “to the right of Nixon” does not seem remotely the same Clinton whose votes aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 93 percent of the time during the two years they overlapped in the Senate. They famously parted ways on the 2002 decision to authorize the war in Iraq—a vote that Clinton acknowledges was a mistake. That doesn’t undo the war, or make her right in retrospect, and it doesn’t even defuse the idea that she voted for the war specifically to protect her reputation; many Democratic politicians with presidential aspirations, from John Kerry to Joe Biden, made that same vote. I respect that for a serious and thoughtful person, the Iraq vote might rule Clinton out; it ruled her out for me in 2008. But this is not 2008, and this year, her opponent’s lack of interest or expertise in foreign policy worries me more than her record. We got into Iraq—a quagmire that has lasted, literally, for my entire adult life—not only because of U.S. interventionism, but because the commander in chief didn’t understand the region well enough to know how profoundly we would destabilize it, or how that would trap us in a conflict that would last for generations. I may not always agree with Clinton, but at least I believe she knows her stuff.

So, yes. There are problems with her record, and I recognize them. I could also criticize Sanders. I could go on about, for instance, his tendency to bring every single question back to economic inequality (an outdated, single-axis analysis that, as Andrea Plaid noted in these pages, is as myopic as #whitefeminists trying to make everything “all about gender”). But I won’t. I want to talk about the woman who has survived 25 years of misogynist hatred and GOP attacks, and came out unbroken and unbowed.

I want to talk about the woman who, knowing full well how bad it gets, signed up for anywhere between a few months to another decade of hideous treatment. It doesn’t hurt that she was the first candidate to advocate overturning the Hyde Amendment on the campaign trail, or that she has been vocal and insistent on equal pay and reproductive rights, or that she has responded to pressure for her campaign to demonstrate a serious commitment to racial justice by reaching out to women affected by police brutality and giving lengthy public statements about the need for white people to recognize their own privilege and take part in resisting and ending racism.

I do not believe she would do all this if she simply wanted personal power. We’ve seen what a candidate who wants personal power looks like: Donald Trump. If you are a narcissist, ways exist to make people like you; a lifelong career as a highly visible feminist is, trust me, not one of them. Working for a legal fund that provides free defense to the poor, or going undercover as a civil rights operative to uncover racial discrimination in schools, are not things the power-hungry do, but Secretary Clinton has done them.

I am a progressive. I like Hillary Clinton and I do not feel remotely conflicted. The qualities she’s exhibited over her long career—practicality, resilience, the ability to use the system to improve the lives of the least powerful within it, the ability, above all, to survive—are not just admirable. They’re exactly what progressives need if we are to carry the White House.


read: http://inthesetimes.com/article/18942/why-progressives-should-support-hillary-clinton

[cali]

1. What palaver. Redefining progressivism to the third way.

[Go Vols]

6. :/

In the late 1970s, as large corporations turned into transnational giants, they pumped huge amounts of cash into the political system. This largesse lured, first, the Republican Party, in the 80s, followed by the Democratic Party in the ‘90s, and precipitated a rightward political shift as both parties rewrote their policies to compete for the same corporate contributions.

Before this, from 1932-1976, the Democratic Party as a whole was far more progressive. The issues and approaches advocated today by Bernie Sanders were considered mainstream Democratic ideas by Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson, and even many moderate Republicans. It was common to support strict financial regulation, liberal immigration, social services for the poor, and progressive tax policies.

[dchill]

28. +1 *No We Can't!*

[immoderate]

81. She's a progressive — Republican!

--imm

[NCTraveler]

2. K&R nt

[Iliyah]

3. K & R

[LondonReign2]

4. Ah, another claim it's all sexism

We needed another one of those.

[bigtree]

5. if that's what you read into that

...you might also need to re-read 'those' other ones.

[LondonReign2]

7. Read "into" that?

Here are the first three paragraphs:

First, it is impossible to analyze Clinton—her policies, her career path, her hair—without understanding how gender bias operates. Bias plays a role in all of our reactions, no matter how feminist we are. As progressives, it is our duty to resist these stereotypes, and, if we are journalists, to help our readers understand how gender bias operates at an unconscious level.

When you hear that Hillary Clinton is unlikable, be aware of the study that shows competent women are generally seen as unlikable; when you hear that Hillary Clinton is dishonest, know that this same study shows women in power are generally seen as dishonest. And know that when the same imaginary job candidate is presented to two groups, with the only difference being a male or female name at the top of the résumé, the female candidate is seen as less trustworthy than the man. In each study, these biased reactions were found in both women and men.

And realize that when women seek power—for example, by running for the nation’s highest office—a Yale study reports that “participants experienced feelings of moral outrage (i.e. contempt, anger, and/or disgust) towards them” and that “women were just as likely as men to have negative reactions.” In the very same Yale study, when “participants saw male politicians as power-seeking, they also saw them as having greater agency (e.g. being more assertive, stronger and tougher) and greater competence.”

Yeah, you're right, it wasn't making the sexism case at all.

[bigtree]

10. I think she made that case well

...and you do not.

Got that.

Yet, her argument is not 'it's all sexism,' and the fact that you can't acknowledge anything beyond those prescient points she made about sexism and attitudes towards this woman running for an as yet unattainable office for women really defines your argument and brings into question your own understanding of those issues she raised.

[apnu]

16. Really...

... the article talks about sexism as a factor not the whole thing.

But, on the Internet, people do not discuss what is actually said, rather their expectation of what they think is said.

[Sparkly]

24. There's no question this is a factor, and it's a big one.

She's been hit with misogyny her whole life, and don't think it isn't part of the equation now.

What's wrong with pointing to studies that demonstrate bias? We are NOT "post-sexist" any more than we're "post-racist."

Further, the main thing the author presents here is her own understanding of Clinton's life and work, which for whatever reason -- sexism or other -- are not known or understood by many.

I think it's an excellent essay, and I wish Sanders fans would read it -- if only to understand where many of Clinton's supporters are coming from.

[KPN]

36. Spot on!

[moriah]

96. Guess you didn't read the next paragraph.

Or the one below it, supported clearly by this article from 1992.

[Doctor_J]

9. Yep. "She's a woman, so conservative = liberal"

Or maybe, "She's a woman, so she has to ct conservative but she's really liberal. And that makes her even better".

So much for making a case. Yeesh

[XemaSab]

93. Sarah Palin's a woman, too

But my issues with her run deep.

[farleftlib]

8. All that blah blah blah

could be summed up in this sentence: "So, yes. There are problems with her record, and I recognize them."

There is no misogyny involved in my decision. I would not vote for a man with her record and likewise I will not vote for her.

Whether a candidate's genitals are innies or outies makes not an iota of difference to me.

[Chan790]

11. No. They're not. (progressive, that is.)

Supporting Hillary, by definition, excludes one from progressivism; if you vote for a candidate, you're endorsing that candidate's platform...and Hillary's is anti-progressive.

She's a sine qua non of anti-progressive Democratic policy and has been since her involvement in the DLC in the mid-1980s.

[bigtree]

12. nonsense

...presidential politics has NEVER been a zero-sum contest. The choice in this election isn't going to ultimately center on these two Democratic primary candidates. Voting for Hillary as nominee, against the republican choice, will be essential to the future advancement of progressive ideals and initiatives.

If you're not joining Democrats in opposing the republican nominee you're essentially irrelevant to any progressive interest or agenda in government. That's not just irresponsible, it's an anathema to everything progressiveness represents.

[Chan790]

13. no, tree...that's the horseshit right there.

The GOP and the GOP's positions are fully and entirely immaterial to what is or is not progressive. That is a determination that is fully internal to the Democratic party and has been since the GOP crushed its progressive wing out of existence at the end of Teddy Roosevelt's presidency.

Of course we should all rally around the Democratic nominee...but that has nothing and fuck-all and not a damned thing to do with progressivism.

[bigtree]

18. it's your argument

...vote Hillary and relinquish your progressiveness - I assume that applies to anyone, not just those insightful enough to already support Hillary.

Nonsense.

[Chan790]

40. No, just don't mistake Clinton for a progressive...

as opposed to a bitter pill we need to support now while already starting work to give her a hostilely-progressive Congress ASAP and primary her ass into retirement in 4 years.

There is a difference between voting for her and supporting her...I'll never support her, I'll vote for her if I have to. I reserve the right to call anybody who would enthusiastically support Hillary, by-definition, not a progressive.

[bigtree]

74. like I said, presidential politics isn't a zero-sum contest

...and you can call people whatever you want, but logic and reasoning should tell you that you won't know much of anything significant about those with whom you disagree if all you're doing is judging them by your own bias.

The 'voting for, but not supporting' sounds exactly like several prominent republicans on Trump this week. It's as ridiculous a notion as their own rhetorical hedge.

Again, it's your own posit that voting for Hillary negates any progressiveness. That's absurd, on it's face, and betrays any understanding of what voters base their support for these candidates on.

[uponit7771]

31. Privileged: having special rights, advantages, or immunities ex. the "privileged" think they can...

... define to progressive what is a progressive

[Chan790]

42. Yup. Actual progressives are privileged to define what is and is not progressive.

Also to bulwark against those who illegitimately claim the label.

Absolutely. I'm glad you understand.

[uponit7771]

69. The privileged progressives are, the rest of us know there's degrees of progressiveness and

... don't disparage people for having them

[Bluenorthwest]

14. Progressives do not smear LGBT with history revised to offer praise to anti LGBT Republicans.

" It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV/AIDS back in the 1980s and because of both president and Mrs. Reagan — in particular Mrs. Reagan — we started a national conversation, when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it, and that too is something I really appreciate with her very effective low-key advocacy. It penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, hey, we have to do something about this too."

That's the verbiage of a Reagan Democrat and I am not one.

[Sparkly]

26. That red herring is getting old and smelly.

It's been debated to death already.

Mrs. Reagan DID urge her husband to address the HIV/AIDs epidemic and it WAS the first time cabinet members started talking about condoms and it was NOT a terrible thing to say at the woman's funeral.

For cryin' out loud, I was in NY at the time and lost friends to AIDs. Let's not assume any among us cares more about it than anyone else, or less.

[Chan790]

46. I'm pretty sure...

if it didn't drive you to want to see Clinton destroyed, that you did care less than some people.

It's not a herring...it's a fact. Hillary is a windmill whose past and current statements and behavior out her as a homophobe now claiming that she's not because its politically advantageous. That makes her worse in my book than those who are openly homophobes like Rick Santorum because at-least with the open homophobes, there's clarity and they're not lying to anybody about their opinions or feelings.

[Sparkly]

50. "want to see Clinton destroyed"

No it didn't make me "want to see her destroyed," because I know her work on HIV globally, over decades. And how dare anyone pass judgment on how much someone else cares ("you did care less than some people&quot . That is just wrong.

This issue matters to me deeply. And I’ve always tried to do my part in the fight against this disease, and the stigma and pain that accompanies it. At the 1992 Democratic National Convention, when my husband accepted the nomination for president, we marked a break with the past by having two HIV-positive speakers — the first time that ever happened at a national convention. As First Lady, I brought together world leaders to strategize and coordinate efforts to take on HIV and AIDS around the world. In the Senate, I put forward legislation to expand global AIDS research and assistance and to increase prevention and education, and I proudly voted for the creation of PEPFAR and to defend and protect the Ryan White Act. And as secretary of state, I launched a campaign to usher in an AIDS-free generation through prevention and treatment, targeting the populations at greatest risk of contracting HIV.

I believe there’s even more we can — and must — do together. For starters, let’s continue to increase HIV and AIDS research and invest in the promising innovations that research is producing. Medications like PrEP are proving effective in preventing HIV infection; we should expand access to that drug for everyone, including at-risk populations. We should call on Republican governors to put people’s health and well-being ahead of politics and extend Medicaid, which would provide health care to those with HIV and AIDS.
We should call on states to reform outdated and stigmatizing HIV criminalization laws. We should increase global funding for HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment. And we should cap out-of-pocket expenses and drug costs—and hold companies like Turing and Valeant accountable when they attempt to gouge patients by jacking up the price of lifesaving medications.

https://medium.com/hillary-for-america/on-the-fight-against-hiv-and-aids-and-on-the-people-who-really-started-the-conversation-7b9fc00e6ed8#.mxyulct9h

[Chan790]

53. I stand by it.

I care not a shit for her apologia to dismiss what is obvious to any who want to see.

[Sparkly]

56. Why budge now?

I see her commitment to this issue for decades. I just posted this for you to see, too. But only if you want to see.

[politicaljunkie41910]

94. At least you tried. Some people are so full of self-justified hate that they can't be reasoned with.

However, we cannot allow this hate to define our party or allow the haters to define us because we don't share the vile they spew.

Have a good day.

[Sparkly]

95. I think you nailed it.

It is indeed about hate, it seems. Like Trump, I think the supporters show what their leader's rhetoric causes.

[Armstead]

15. Nope....Couldn't get past the first few paragraphs

I totally agree that gender bias exists, it is a major problem, and it has affected Clinton over the years.

But if I do everything possible to remove those from my own view with as open a mind as possible -- I don't like her, and disagree with her basic stance on policies and government and I don't trust her.

She should not be discriminated against because of her gender. But she should also not be given immunity from the whole package that has to be factored in when determining one's opinion of a politician and the impact of their election.

[Sparkly]

27. I'm not surprised.

[Orsino]

17. That's a whole lot of typing...

...for some who doesn't seem to have examined Clinton's record.

I wonder what Clinton would have to do for the author to feel in any way conflicted.

[bigtree]

19. I think much of the support she's getting has to do with a verdict on her primary rival

...who isn't everyone's ideal of progressiveness, or everyone's notion of a viable candidate.

I don't think she needs to go line by line through Hillary's record to demonstrate her knowledge of this woman who's been in the public's political view for decades.

[Orsino]

20. Except that all that support was hers by default before Sanders was known.

He is still not a celebrity, and not all Democrats are progressives.

[bigtree]

25. I don't cotton to portrayals of Sanders voters as virtuous

...and Hillary supporters as cattle. I don't find her voters' support to be a rubber-stamp, but, rather, the determination by voters that they put an experienced, committed, and competent candidate up against the republican nominee.

Hillary has always polled well among progressives, notwithstanding Bernie being their preferred choice in this primary.

I'm getting whiplash on explanations on the importance (or perniciousness) of republican or conservative voters, who, incidentally, have provided winning margins of support for Sanders in many key states.

[Orsino]

37. Sanders reveals Clinton as the Establishment Dem.

Since his arrival on the scene, progressives have a rather distinct choice.

His supporters need not be seen as virtuous, but an awful lot of them are pushing tor more progressive agenda items than Clinton is so far offering.

[Sparkly]

55. Yeah. So "establishment."

Have you read what she's "offering?"

How about the piece above -- did you read that?

[Orsino]

57. The piece above is PR fluff...

...that addresses neither the substance nor the consequences of Clinton's actions.

[Sparkly]

59. Did you read it?

I'm not sure how you missed the discussion of Clinton's work and accomplishments, which was the main thrust of the essay.

[Orsino]

61. Are you referring to the mentions of Iraq, equal pay, and the trip to China?

PR fluff that addresses neither the specifics nor the consequences of Clinton's actions.

[Sparkly]

65. Fine.

Flint, Katrina, 9/11, women's rights, HIV in Africa, SCHIP, none of it matters because she's so "establishment."

[Chan790]

47. I don't cotton to delusions that you're not cattle. n/t

[bigtree]

79. good example of why people are turned off by the Sanders campaign

...it's that arrogance that they hold some lock on virtue because of the mythology they've created about their candidate and Hillary.

I don't have time for people who have no respect for me, or the petty politics they practice here.

B-L-O-C-K-E-D (in case you have any delusion that I'm listening to any more of your nonsense.)

[AgingAmerican]

21. More of the same

[PufPuf23]

22. You should feel conflicted. What pig intestines. eom

[Sparkly]

23. YES!!!!

Thank you for sharing this. It is precisely my view, as well!!

[CrowCityDem]

29. According to Bernie's supporters, the only way to be progressive is to live in fantasy land.

[cali]

32. Lame. Bernie's supporters get that he's an aspirational candidate

[Sparkly]

33. What's an "aspirational candidate," please?

[cali]

41. Self explanatory

[Sparkly]

52. Okay, what's a non-aspirational candidate?

[CrowCityDem]

35. And where does he tell his huge crowds they'll have to settle for less?

[highprincipleswork]

34. The way to be Progressive, in a useful, needed way, is to be Progressive on money issues, where

people in general are hurting the most (globalization and robotization don't help the situation).

I know this doesn't seem to matter to Hillary supporters, for some reason, can't imagine why because I see the amount of economic hardship and out of workness, but it matter in general to the American public a lot. For good reason. How you going to survive if you can't get by economically?

If we're not careful, Trump is going to have our bacon on this, because he will run as someone who can help the average person's economics more, and Hillary will be left collaborating with the banksters and going to them for more and more money.

[CrowCityDem]

38. How is calling for a 40% raise in the minimum wage not progressive?

The only way her plans to expand health care coverage, reduce the burden of college debt, regulate Wall Street, and boost the bottom of the economic ladder aren't progressive is if you declare Bernie's proposals the right edge of left-leaning thought. Take Bernie out of the equation, and Hillary is clearly a progressive.

[KPN]

48. Well, for one, when you ignore the wage stagnation

over the past 40 years and that current minimum wage is currently close to 100% below poverty level, it becomes hard to see 40% as effectively "progressive" for the people affected. Strikes me as more palliative than progressive, just like the incremental so-called progressivism accomplished by the Democratic Party over the past 40 years on economic issues generally.

[CrowCityDem]

49. The biggest increase ever isn't progressive. Got it.

[KPN]

60. It's not progressive enough ... especially when it doesn't move min wage

above poverty level and is the starting point for the political battle that will occur regardless of what the proposal is. This is classic Obamaism -- start negotiations from an already compromised position. Solidify's the poisition of the right while placating the masses.

[Sparkly]

63. $15 sounds better than $12 but that doesn't mean it'll happen FEDERALLY.

It's not the starting point of anything if it's not taken up in Congress. Sorry.

$12 is not a compromise -- it's honest, and it doesn't prevent states from going to $15. It sets a realistic bar that's already a jump from $7.25.

So it's not a matter of "progressive" vs. "not progressive." It's a matter of strategy. We can disagree on which strategy is better, but this is not a bidding war. ("I say $16/hour, so I'm $1 more progressive than you are!&quot

[KPN]

68. You are only convincing yourself.

Hillary has progressive tendencies, but she is not committed to progressive principles ... which makes it very difficult for many to see her as one.

[Sparkly]

71. You are only convincing yourself.

Her "progressive principles" are just fine. She also understands that they don't pay the rent.

[KPN]

72. Lol. OK .... you can have the last word.

[CrowCityDem]

88. So why did Bernie support $10.10 two years ago?

[highprincipleswork]

30. Economic inequality is the Progressive problem that the New Democrats refuse to discuss, and that is

why so many of us do not find her Progressive at all.

Because underneath it all, at heart, she's still in the pocket of big money and that's not helpful to the little people, the average people, the people like probably you and me.

All the Social Progressivism in the world is not going to solve these essential cost of living issues, and that's why we need Bernie and someone like him who talks about it all the time. Other than climate change and not fighting more needless wars, this is the thing that never gets sorted out by the New Democrats.

That is why there is this fervor. That is why Trump is going to steal our ice cream if we are not careful, because he will use this in his stump speech while we are still talking like Big Business.

[Sparkly]

44. That's very strange.

Because she has pushed for economic reform for a long time, especially equal pay for women -- which, as the essay points out, she considers an issue of racial justice. She's also worked for economic inequality among minorities in general and children in particular.

The difference between going from $7.25 to $12 or $15 federally is the difference between "ambitious" and "no."

Climate change means transitioning from coal to renewables, and guess who just lost West Virginia for saying just that? Hint: not Sanders.

Needless wars: As the author says, I'm more concerned about inexperience than one bad vote, which -- for the record -- was not meant to rush into an invasion, as she said when she made that vote. (It was to put teeth into urging the UN on inspectors. Her mistake was trusting Bush to do what he said he would.)

So please, retire the "New Democrats" thing, and especially the idea that anyone "refuses to discuss" economic inequality. It simply is not true.

[KPN]

51. Ah, but it is true. You just have a New Democrat perspective.

Discussing income inequality and doing anything meaningful to actually rectify it are two majorly different things -- and the Democratic Party has done pitifully little to rectify the problem in the past 35 years.

Good judgement has it over "experience" any day. Have you ever heard of the term "potential" -- or the fact that employers hire people who show "potential" over people with "experience" very often? There's a reason they do that -- and a good one.

[Sparkly]

58. LOL! Oh give me a break.

Don't try to define me with your labels, please.

What did Bernie do to "meaningful to actually rectify it?" He's been in Congress for a long time now.

I'd love to see his potential for foreign policy work, but there's nothing there.

[KPN]

67. What has he done?

Stop fooling yourself. Here you go; I hope you take a look:

[link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/barney-vs-bernie-sanders_b_9624560.html|

[link:https://pplswar.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/what-bernie-sanders-got-done-in-washington-a-legislative-inventory/|

][link:http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you|

]http://observer.com/2016/03/how-bernie-gets-things-done-in-congress-without-being-bought-off/

[Sparkly]

73. Observer, again?

The new go-to blog, it seems. How is this not fluff, PR and palaver? It even slams Clinton, rather than simply discussing Sanders, so it's clearly a political campaign piece as well.

Why hasn't he put a $15/min wage through a vote? Why no amendments on that? And where's the foreign policy part?

Also, "the basic tools of democracy-floor votes on clearly posed questions" sounds more establishment than revolutionary, and "the aid of painstakingly built coalitions of allies from both sides of the aisle" would mean compromising with Republicans. Hmm...

[KPN]

78. OK ... delete Observer. How come he hasn't put $15 ...

to a vote? How about we be fair here? How many bills did Hillary author and actually have put to a vote -- all while being a leader on the Party? Better yet, how many bills did she author and actually get passed ... and what progressive goals did they accomplish?

Too much! BTW, Bernie actually has authored a bill proposing a $15 minimum wage. Has Hillary ever authored a minimum wage bill?

[Sparkly]

80. Answering a question with a question.

She was junior senator, not "leader on the party."

You can see all her bills here: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse?sponsor=300022

Here's my point: I'm not claiming Bernie is "not progressive." I'm saying there shouldn't be a double-standard for Hillary Clinton.

PS (on edit) : http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-less-minimum-more-wage/

[KPN]

92. There is no double standard.

Hillary has a clear record of supporting or voting for bills that have favored corporations over average people, voting to go to war and other hawkish positions/actions as SOS, supporting/promoting imperialism, supporting catastrophic welfare reform, exposing herself to lobbying influence by taking astronomical payment for speeches to Wall Street firma and other multi-national corporations, etc., the list goes on.

As for what she accomplished as far as promulgation progressive laws, it's pretty much ZERO. I have looked at GovTracks and the Library of Congress. Hillary authored 3 bills that were enacted -- two renamed a section of highway and a post office to memorialize certain people (Tim Russert was one of them) and the other designated a home in New York as a National Historic Site to be administered by the Park Service. That's it.

Hillary by virtue of being former First Lady was a Party leader -- I didn't say she held a formal leadership position in the Senate.

My point is that Hillary is not a "progressive". Heck, Charles Koch recently endorsed her! At best, she is socially liberal. And she isn't a variant on the progressive economic program that Bernie proposes, she's actually its antithesis. Mark my words, she will approve the TTP, GATS, and the TTIP if she is elected. Oh, she'll say something about reluctantly, but she will make sure they are approved. One last thing, if you haven't noticed, the Democratic Party has been the party of Wall Street ... do you think that will change if she is elected P?

I think it would be wonderful to have a woman President,. I think it would be great to elect a Democrat who has been a Democrat for years. But Hillary is not the right woman if one's primary interests are a level economic playing field that values Americans over people of other nations first, aND global warming. And there is no other Democrat available for me to choose from.

[bigtree]

85. 2007

Senator Clinton Reintroduces Legislation to Link Congressional Pay Raises to Increase in the Federal Minimum Wage

Date: Dec. 19, 2007

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has reintroduced her legislation to link Congressional pay increases to increases in the federal minimum wage. In addition to gradually raising the federal minimum wage, the bill would also require the federal minimum wage to be increased by the same percentage amount as Congressional salaries every year.

"If we in Congress can give ourselves a raise, surely we can raise the pay of working families struggling to make ends meet. Even as Congress gave itself pay increases year after year, it took Congress ten long years to increase the minimum wage for the rest of America. My bill would ensure that working families faced with a rising cost of living each year are not forced to wait another ten years for an increase in the minimum wage. This is the right and fair thing to do for hardworking Americans," said Senator Clinton.

The bill, the "Standing with Minimum Wage Earners Act of 2007," was inspired by an idea submitted to SinceSlicedBread.com, the Service Employees International Union's contest that asked Americans for bold ideas that would make life better for working families.

In 1989, Congress passed legislation that provided for an automatic salary increase for its Members every year tied to an inflation-adjusted cost of living allowance (COLA). Congress can decline to accept the pay raise and has done so five times since the automatic increase was put into effect. Pursuant to this new law, Congress in 1991 also gave itself a 25 percent salary increase to make up for past years when its salary remained unchanged.

In the decade since Congress last increased the minimum wage, Members of Congress raised their own salaries by $31,600, while refusing to raise the pay of millions of hardworking parents who were struggling to make ends meet on the minimum wage.

Senator Clinton is a strong advocate of increasing the minimum wage. Senator Clinton was an original cosponsor and vocal supporter of legislation that was introduced by Senator Kennedy and enacted into law earlier this year to increase the federal minimum wage to $7.25 per hour over a two-year period.


http://votesmart.org/public-statement/313572/senator-clinton-reintroduces-legislation-to-link-congressional-pay-raises-to-increase-in-the-federal-minimum-wage

[J_J_]

39. It's not that she's a woman or that she is confident

People don't like Hillary because she is corrupt, stands for the status quo, and is going to hand the election to Trump.

[Sparkly]

45. Thank you, Donald.

[KPN]

43. A lot of fluff, no real stuff -- other than the tired gender-victim fuss.

I have worked for a fair number of professional women in my career. Some have been good executives/managers, others have been bad. The good ones were competent and likable. The same has been true for male executives/managers I have worked for.

[Android3.14]

54. Odd use of the word, "progressive"

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Are they going to claim she's a Socialist and Left wing radical next?

[ThePhilosopher04]

64. If you have to convince people you're progressive, there's a good chance you aren't.

[Autumn]

66. I am a progressive, I do not like Hillary Clinton and I do not feel remotely conflicted about that

Not at all conflicted.

[JCanete]

70. This person is among the many who criticize the platform that

economic issues are at the heart of so many of our other issues, without bothering to actually refute the claim. That maybe because they just don't understand the depth to which stability and security affects human psychology, or to which extent concentrated wealth gets funneled back into the political system for the purpose of further concentrating wealth.

Or maybe they understand it all too well.

Its no surprise that candidates who don't want to do anything about economic disparity like to use the, ahem, "argument" that talking about it is one note. Well it isn't. It's the key. It's the whole damn score. Give people enough stability and security and quit scaring them with total bullshit and you can start to erode a lot of hatred, depression and disaffection, concentrated power, the corruption of our political process and on and on.

Please, quit getting in the way of that. Seriously, I don't know what you believe in, but if you really believe in any given progressive issue, do me the favor of showing me how economics plays no part in it.

[Sparkly]

75. chicken/egg.

Often, the only way to reach economic parity is to fight for equal pay without sexism or racism, for example; or fair housing; or healthcare; or childcare; or legal counsel; etc. etc. etc.

[JCanete]

83. In order to get people to listen you have to lower the tide and quit capsizing boats.

Otherwise they are just going to retreat into their prejudices, and be easily pointed towards scapegoats and bad policy. That said, none of those issues are being downplayed by Bernie. He is making the very real case, as you also seem to see, that all of these things are a big problem in our nation, and he's the only one actually prescribing something for the disease and not the symptoms.

[Attorney in Texas]

76. FDR would vomit if he were alive to hear this nonsense

[Sparkly]

77. I know.

He would be amazed that this woman would be considered "Establishment" and "Not Liberal."

[silvershadow]

82. Sorry. That bucket has holes in it. nt

[Hortensis]

84. Sensible, balanced article. Thank you, Bigtree.

[frylock]

86. I'm an astronaut.

[m-lekktor]

87. The "comments" for that article on that "in these times" page are an interesting read. nt

[Sparkly]

89. Yeah, they start with mischaracterizations in the first paragraph

and go on from there.

[Jamaal510]

90. K&R

[DisgustipatedinCA]

91. We can redefine terms if you'd like, but there's a bottom line.

If Hillary is now "progressive", that's not what I am. I'm much more to the left than she is. So I'll be a mega-progressive or whatever. The labels don't matter nearly as much as the content, and nothing anyone can write will actually render her a progressive candidate.