2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhat is truly disturbing about the CW discussions of the campaigns. Changing her "Messaging"
The conventional wisdom is that Clinton is the nominee, but Sanders has made her a better candidate .
"Bernie has pushed her to hone her campaign her to include his issues in her campaign message."
This is even thought of as a good thing by supposed liberals and progressives.
What is missed is the fact that anyone can say anything in a campaign. Clinton can claim to be all upset about income inequality, the bad behavior of Wall St. and the abuses of Corporate America. She can claim to be right beside Bernie on the issue of Campaign Finance Reform.
But where the hell was she all these years when it mattered? When has she stood up to Wall St. otehr that a few "cut it outs" when she was preparing for her previous run for the nomination in 2008?
The truth is that Clinton may be a little bit more "progressive" (NOT LIBERAL AS SHE KEEPS REMINDING US) than the GOP on certain issues. But in terms of the major question "Who has the Power and Wealth" she is happy with the system as it is, and with the way it crushes any meaningful reform or progress.
If she is elected, liberals may feel superficially better that at least those nasty old Republicans do not have the WH. And "Golly gee, she said she actually CARES about income inequality, so I hope she means it."
But they'll also know in their gut that nothing will change. The overbalance of Corruption vs. the Public Interest will remain unchanged. Lobbyists and Politicians and the Golden Door will remain intact.
The Democratic Party will NOT be an agent of liberal/progressive change.
I prefer politicians who actually have a consistent sense of basic values, and who campaign based on their Beliefs, rather than empty political marketing Messages.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)espouses. It will help with the Republican vote.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)lets that information get out to pro-fracking states counting on the anti-fracking states never hearing about it.
She wouldn't be able to pull it off but for a corporate media that is in her pocket.
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)Return to her core republican lite self as soon as she locks it up and end up losing to trump or whoever they end up with..Way too much baggage and way to many who literally hate her ...
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Funny thought. How long would it take to get banned?
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)give him their money anyway.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)when what the donors want happens to coincide with what the people want. The rest of the time, just another broken watch.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)TCJ70
(4,387 posts)...why, if you consider her "move" a good thing, would you support her over someone who is already there and has been there their entire life? I don't consider it a move at all but a feint.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)as the neocons and the rest. We have to sustain the movement should she
win, it is up to us.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)time she will lurch back to her right wing pro-imperial, pro-pharma, pro-insurance, pro-bankster, screw the little people ways.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)The fulfillment of transforming the world to a globalist society is what I expect Hillary expects of Hillary. Neoliberalism is her handmaiden to get it done.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)When a Republican pushes things like bad trade policy or foreign interventions, or the latest corporate inversion, we're all over it. When a Democrat pushes these things, criticism is actively shut down by party loyalists, and critics are labeled as not being loyal Democrats. Makes it easier for the large donors to get what they want at our expense.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)every-time people speak out when she pushes something awaful
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Thank you for an outstanding OP and thread, Armstead!