I figured I’d start another diary rather than further sidetrack the one about HRC’s position on and reaction to the ISIS threat. I want to directly address the objections some have made to the idea that Clinton is progressive and flesh out more why I think claiming she is otherwise is an unproductive appeal to purity and absolutism, or as I have been known to put it, the Democratic equivalent of the “Tea Party” (which, too be fair, some have argued is exactly what the doctor ordered).
There are two websites that I find to be thorough and instructive both in placing various candidates on the political spectrum and in comparing them to each other. The first is Project VoteSmart which, inter alia, lists the rankings various interest groups have assigned to those who have been legislators during the course of their careers. Not all the groups are well-known and I would argue some are even misnamed. (For example, I’m sure if the “Campaign for Working Families” really were that, HRC would have a much higher ranking from them.) However, even if you just go by the groups listed in the liberal and conservative categories you would find that she is much better identified with the former than the latter. You can also click from the linked page to find votes, speeches, and funding sources.
The second website is OnTheIssues which lists a series of statements followed by legislative history, but for a quick visual scroll to the bottom and you will find that HRC is positioned pretty close to the left corner, in the left-liberal segment with plenty of room to spare. If you scroll through the itemized list and check those you agree with you may find yourself surprised (as I was) how liberal she really is on some things. This site spans an entire career, in this case including statements made while still working at Rose Law Firm. For fun, take the quiz yourself and drop results in the comments. I was most closely matched to HRC with 78% compatibility though other quizzes have matched me with Sanders.
Both of these sites cover all candidates and electeds and not just for the presidency, so look around, click through, compare Clinton to others, etc. I am in no way arguing that she is more progressive than Sanders (In fact, he is directly planted on the far left corner in the OnTheIssues diagram.), but I really hope this can put to bed once and for all the myth that Hillary Clinton is not a progressive.
Bernie 75%, Hillary 63%. I still can’t get past here deep connections with Wall Street and the .1%.
at the end of the day.
And nothing that has happened in the campaign, thus far, has dissuaded me of that. To the contrary she is getting stronger every day especially on foreign policy and national security issues.
And with the rise of Con Puke Trump Fascism I want a nominee who has the coat tail chops to win back Congress.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I don’t think wanting to put boots on the ground in syria and getting us stuck in another quagmire makes you an “electable progressive”. It makes you a short-sighted foreign policy hawk.
The head to head polling doesn’t show that much difference between Sanders and Clinton against conservative knuckleheads. It’s time to put this electability myth to rest.
“Don’t Doubt it for a Second: Don Berwick is the best Democrat to beat Charlie Baker” is no doubt quite excellent at predicting who is electable and who is not.
How does Hillary as an “electable progressive” differ from Donald Trump or anyone else on the GOP ticket?
Discuss:)
Seriously, it’s this questioning of how she’s different from the GOP that is inaccurate and unhelpful. My computer is slow, but I suspect you can use either of the two sites to answer your own question.
This reflects either Manichean thinking or not having done one’s homework.
…because I have seen polls in certain states that indicate Sanders is more than capable of holding his own against many GOPers as well.
Who has true respect for Sen Sanders and none whatsoever for Sec Clinton.
in order to sabotage the campaign of their greatest threat — Clinton.
I very much doubt that any true con puke ideologue would vote for a socialist in the general election.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
more than McGovern in 1972.
I remember because I was there with Muskie as an eyewitness to history.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I am not a con puke ideologue. I used the term “respect” not “support”. I do not support the majority of Sen Sanders policy choices but I respect him as a person who is truthful, sincere, and motivated by altruism. I cannot say that about Sec Clinton.
If you tell me that you know Ms. Clinton personally and come to your opinion through knowledge of her that is unavailable to the rest of us, then I reluctantly accept your opinion.
If, as I suspect is far more likely, you come to your opinion from the same information the rest of us have, then I suggest you are suffering from undiagnosed and untreated Clintonitus — a precursor to the far more serious Clinton Derangement Syndrome (“CDS”). I’m reminded of climate change deniers who talk of, as if it were established fact, the “failed” predictions of James Hansen, or the “crimes” of “climategate”, or the “discredited” hockey stick.
Mr. Hansen’s predictions are not failed. The only crime committed in association with “climategate” was the illegal theft of the material in the first place. The hockey stick has been independently confirmed many times. Ms. Clinton merits respect, as much as any other former public official and current candidate — and far more so than any of the current GOP presidential candidates.
It is perfectly reasonable and acceptable to disagree with Ms. Clinton. The contempt you express does, in fact, mark at least your comment as having more in common with a “con puke ideologue” than anything else.
I wonder if perhaps you’ve had extended exposure to Fox News — a known vector for a wide variety of disorders related to and caused by hate, prejudice, and misogyny disguised as “news”.
What comes next, a series of bumper-sticker attacks parroting GOP attack sites and sound bites?
Pray tell us, given your low regard for Ms. Clinton, which (if any) of the GOP candidates garners your hard-earned “respect”? Since you’ve said you don’t “support” Mr. Sanders, is there anyone in this race from either party who you DO both respect and support?
All politicians lie, it’s part of good politics. The last President who promised not to lie to us and kept it was Jimmy Carter and we threw him out partly for being too honest-the sunny bullshit of Reagan was far more palatable to the American voter. People tend to forget that Lincoln ran as the most pro-slavery Republican in the 1860 convention and promised he would only oppose it in new territories and tolerate it where he was, despite privately being an abolitionist all his adult life.
The Clinton’s greatest weakness is their propensity to get in trouble for things other politicians can get away with, and then hunker down and lie or cover up to avoid getting in trouble, like other politicians do. It would be better for everyone, and likely cathartic for them, if they could just be honest and call out the bullshit. The one time Hillary did so by mentioning the right wing conspiracy she was ridiculed by the press and the public, but it’s real. David Brock wrote a whole book on the cottage industry he was once a part of, now he has become a partisan for the Clinton’s, partly to make amends, and partly because he has grown to respect them.
It isn’t pretty, and the Clinton Wars were a key reason I voted for Obama over Hillary in 2008. The triangulation is part of that, a way to try and neutralize the right by adopting it’s slogans and it’s less noxious ideas, and it was wrong. I think they are admitting it was wrong in mea culpas here and there. We saw that the Clinton Wars gave way to the Obama Wars, despite his more ethical reputation and conduct. So I think what we are seeing is what we will get, a battle tested figure capable of finally doing what she has sought to do her whole life and put to practice her progressive beliefs in the most pragmatic way. It isn’t pretty, it isn’t perfect, but effective politics never are.
other than Lyme disease and spinal stenosis. I don’t believe one has to have any special secret knowledge to conclude that Sec Clinton has been described by many as “untrustworthy”. In August an ABC poll found the “most frequently associated word with Hillary Clinton was Liar”. You yourself have written “The arrogance of her decision about this email server is nearly as insulting as the incompetence of the result. She and her supporters really need to stop attempting to defend the indefensible — sooner rather than later.”
I suspect you don’t have much respect for Mr Trump (nor do I BTW) but does that mean you have personal knowledge others don’t? I made a comment in praise of Sen Sanders and gave my opinion about Sec Clinton, no more.
In addition – I’m not a “puke”. When I visit Bluemassgroup I always try to show respect to those who frequent this site. I come here to be enlightened and to learn, not to be insulted and labeled. Perhaps there’s another progressive/liberal blog which might be more welcoming to those of us who are from the “dark-side”… any suggestions?
And we are much better than Daily Kos or RedMassGroup for tolerance of the other winged. I would say those are legitimate concerns, as are the emails, but the choices we are left with are going to be narrowed between a Republican who is completely unacceptable to the general electorate and Hillary Clinton. I would say she will end up being a more acceptable choice than the eventual GOP nominee to even a center-right voter. My center-right Republican friend is trying to recruit Democrats and independents to vote in his primary for anyone but Trump, that is how concerned he is that a nutjob will hijack his primary and his process.
Our ‘nutjob’, fortunately, is a rather sane and reasonable sounding social democrat who has effectively used his presidential campaign as a platform for spreading critical ideas about reducing income inequality and regulating Wall Street while practicing a different kind of politics. I think someone with the background and charisma of Barack Obama running on Sander’s rhetoric and platform would be doing quite well in this campaign.
As is, a gruff and angry old white man from a quirky and rural state far removed from national politics has been able to capture 40% of the primary vote according to most polls and may even win a few early states. That’s a testament to his message as much, if not more so, than it is to the messenger himself. I can imagine a charismatic woman of color, say future California Senator Kamala Harris, running on that very message to the White House in 2024 when the full electorate of the Democratic primary and even the general electorate is ‘ready’ for it. Until then, I don’t see Sanders winning the nomination. But I will still vote for him since I agree with him the most and admire his record of service and the lengths to which he has taken this campaign so far. I see no reason to vote for Hillary in the primary, precisely since I share these reservations and want to use my vote for Bernie to hold her feet to the fire and keep her honest through the general. But if we are talking about President’s, there really is only one left on the stage in either party, flawed as she most definitely is.
I did not say that YOU are a puke, or anything else. I wrote (emphasis mine): “The contempt you express does, in fact, mark at least your comment as having more in common with a “con puke ideologue” than anything else.” I welcome your commentary here, and found this particular comment unusual for you.
I stand by my comment about Ms. Clinton’s arrogance and incompetence regarding her email server. That does not mean that I don’t respect her, it means instead that I strongly disagree with the choices she made about her communications support.
The fact that Fox News and decades of comments like yours have had a measurable effect on polls such as the one you cite does not make such comments any more defensible. That’s the reason why I mentioned the similar polling about global warming.
The plain fact is that the right wing has been expending enormous sums of money to brainwash the American public with flagrant lies and misinformation, especially through its outright ownership of Fox News. That relentless flood of pure propaganda has been effective, and America as a whole is much worse because of it. The current absolute dysfunction of Congress and the federal government is a direct consequence of these lies and propaganda — not only because it distorts the truth, but even more importantly because it elevates to power men and women who care far more about power and advancing their personal agenda than they care about truth, facts, rationality, or the good of America.
Here are some lies that vast numbers of Americans believe are true:
– Global warming is a hoax
– Barack Obama is constitutionally unqualified to be President
– The best way to recover from a crash like the crash of 2008 is to reduce government spending and reduce the national debt
– Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster
– There is scientific debate about the relationship between CO2 emission and global warming
– The Earth is at most 6,000 years old
– Natural processes cannot explain the existence of humanity
I apologize for my attempt at humor in summarizing a subset of this as “Clintonitus”. I do, quite sincerely, suggest that you — as someone whose commentary I like and look forward to — examine the sources of your opinion, and reexamine the extent to which the vast right-wing propaganda machine influences that opinion.
I’d like to ask again — since you’ve said you don’t support Mr. Sanders, is there anyone in this race from either party who you DO both respect and support?
I’m having great difficulty with the candidates on the Republican ticket. I could never vote for Mr Trump, even if he becomes the nominee. While I appreciate that Sen Cruz is highly intelligent, he’s too much the demagogue. Ms Fiorina and Dr Carson aren’t experienced or savvy enough politically to succeed in the position and Christie, while attractive years ago, is now a just caricature of himself. Bush… never considered him, same for Walker and Jindal. So I’m left with Rubio and Kasich. Meh.
Partisanship is so strong these days, everyone seems to me to be a little “out there” and it gets difficult to see beyond the “stance” to the human reality. Find me a competent, pragmatic, intelligent, sincere, and honest statesman and I’ll knock on doors for him or her.
I do stick with my praise of Sen Sanders, for who he is, not what he is.
In answer to your last question, it could be that John Kasich is the closest to respect/support.
I could see his candidacy actually having a decent shot at picking up support if the party nominates a Trump or a Cruz, he could probably get Koch backing since they are pretty libertarian, and he could run to Hillary’s left on security issues, and possibly criminal justice reform while embracing the socially moderate, immigrant inclusive agenda the GOP’s business wing claims to want.
Rand Paul shot himself in the foot by trying to out hawk and out Jesus his competitors instead of running as a libertarian conservative in the Goldwater tradition like his dad. A lot of friends that were going to vote for him are sitting the primary out, or voting for ‘moderates’ they dislike like Kasich, Rubio, or Christie. I have yet to meet a real Jeb! voter or even see one online.
If Johnson could get some serious funding, he could make it a race if enough people dislike what Hillary and the crazy party is selling. Likely serving as a spoiler to the GOP, but it’ll be interesting all the same.
I know he’s said “no”, but the rumors continue.
As much as I oppose him, he is less terrifying to me than any of the current GOP candidates.
I would argue that the right hates Hillary so much she’ll drive up voter turnout on the other side and depress our voter turnout. And the polls show that Sanders is equally capable of beating Republicans.
in Syria. If you have documentation that proves otherwise please share it with us.
Fred Rich LaRoiccia
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/us/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-islamic-state.html
Mrs. Clinton said that “to be successful, airstrikes will have to be combined with ground forces actually taking back more territory from ISIS.” But
But these should be local sunni troops
She noted that the 50 special operations soldiers Mr. Obama authorized to be sent to Syria had not arrived yet, and said they should be deployed “immediately” and that the United States should be “prepared to deploy more, as more Syrians get into the fight.”
If their willingness to strike Paris hasn’t convinced you of that I’m not sure what will, and I’d prefer not to wait until they attack us directly. Pacifism is starting to look awfully naive IMO.
I am a just war theorist
.
Intervention fails the test for being just, because the harms of war outweigh the good. More lives will be lost if we invade than if we do not, thousands lost in war, outweigh the hundreds lost without. If you want to bow down to fear so be it. More people will die if we invade than if we continue to stay out. That’s not pacifism, that’s thinking rationally.
ISIL has proved itself to be a threat, actually is behind terrorist attacks on Western soil, and actually harbors international ambitions to export its terror. On this site a week before Paris I argued otherwise, I was wrong. Special forces aren’t the same as a full scale operation involving ground troops, they will be doing what the special forces did in the early stages of the Afghan campaign.
Working with the Peshmerga instead of the Northern Alliance to direct air assets to where the enemy is. That was an incredibly successful campaign, even Pape and Mearsheimer approved of it. It was the mission creep and nation building that followed that screwed up that campaign, and the propensity to use drones instead of local assets. If anything, we will see less civilian casualties and have local anti-regime armies to work with that just didn’t exist in Iraq.
And unlike Iraq, there is a clear national security rationale. The French clearly think it’s a just war, they had our back after 9/11 we should have theirs. I evaluate wars on a case by case basis and reject the knee jerk hawkishness of the right and the knee jerk pacifism of the left. Yes ISIS is a mess that the Iraq Fiasco created, a mess that will arrive on kir doorsteps or those of friendly capitals if we don’t clean it up. Hillary explicitly ruled out creating a democracy and gave a very hard nosed, honest, and realist assessment of the political, diplomatic and military challenges required to arrive at a Syrian settlement and get the 5 sided war to become a one sided war against ISIL. It’s a war we must fight and win.
…and I’d rather not have a Neville Chamberlain moment. I don’t necessarily accept your analysis either.
Is it due to my critique of democracy promotion? I think we’ve been talking past each other a little bit on that. Stephen Walt is a realist IR scholar I admire for his integrity, even though I disagree with him on about Israel, and he said that he is thankful for the democratic transition in Burma, and that despite being a realist, there are real benefits to democratization. I am a small d democrat and can’t think of a circumstance where I would be rooting against forces trying to overthrow oppressive regimes and replace them with self governing ones. That said, while its a nominal good, it doesn’t automatically create the conditions for a more peaceful or more stable world and it shouldn’t be the end game for every military intervention.
Put another way, targeted chemotherapy can kill cancerous cells but it can’t get the patient to quit smoking. That’s something we can encourage from the sidelines and provide tools to do, but something the patient must do on his or her own. The military is a surgeon, it’s not a life coach, and it can’t create democratic governance.
My comment above was addressed to progressivemax and it was his analysis regarding balance of lives lost vs. other outcomes that I question.
has always been more willing to resort to military force than the President.
To be fair, one thing to keep in mind is that ISIS’ ability to inspire terrorism world-wide is tied to their claim to be the caliphate to whom all faithful owe allegiance. This is a theological thing. The physical destruction of that claim undercuts the call for allegiance and could lead to a marked decrease in terrorism.
They will see the Hawk, Pro Wall Street Republican and the Hawk, Pro Wall Street Democrat…..reminds one of Massachusetts where voters saw the “Status Quo Health Care and Pro Casino Republican” and the “Status Quo Health Care and Pro Casino Democrat”….
…you wouldn’t see someone quite so pro-Wall Street. She was going to have to consider their views somewhat as an NY Senator and even take their money, but didn’t Krugman actually say her plan was tougher than Sanders’? The myths and memes aren’t always accurate.
The casino question did not turn out well for the opponents of casinos, and healthcare was never a burning question among the electorate. I’d be surprised to see evidence that healthcare and casinos were going to be decisive — or, even that Democrats who awarded Dr. Berwick a third place finish, were eager to run on single payer.
More than likely, Coakley was just not very good at making the case. For example, she spoke a lot about helping out “the little guy”. What adult human being characterizes himself or herself as “a little guy”?
Her ISIL strategy is fairly close to President Obama’s and Sen. Sanders. Where it differs is the endorsement of a no fly zone and a greater coordinated military coalition using the Kurds, Sunni’s, soft power in the region, Jordanian and Saudi boots, and getting the Turks, Russians and other third party actors to turn on ISIL instead of one another.
Obama said ISIL was contained, Paris proves him wrong. It is imperative the Democratic nominee recognize the threat and commit to defeat it. I am happy Sanders and Clinton both seem to recognize it, and am disheartened to see fellow progressives try and wish Paris away. It changed the equation, and denying it or pretending the status quo is working is not reality based.
My dad has despised Hillary with a passion in the past from the left on the war and from the right on other issues, largely to due to the “she’s hiding something and isn’t trustworthy factor”, but he and I agree she is the only candidate in the race capable of handling foreign policy. Bernie seems patently disinterested in it. If he wants to win the nomination he should get interested in it fast, and develop a better answer on gun control. His reluctance to anticipate or handle either question makes me wonder how he will handle the Republicans. I say this as someone who has supported him over Hillary this season and will still give him my vote, but I am no longer convinced he wants the Presidency which any nominee should ultimately want if they seek to be successful.
How must troops lives must we loose in this effort to eliminate ISIS?
4493 died in Iraq. This has the potential to be another Iraq. The fact remains we will lose more lives going in and nation building than we stand to lose staying out, Paris or not.
We spent trillions of dollars on Iraq. How much money must we spend in the decades to come in Syria?
We do have a strategy and it is working. Bashar al-Assad is at the negotiating table with the rebels. With a new legitimate government in Syria, a legitimate force can recapture that territory, and hold that ground, without our direct involvement.
and must be destroyed by an alliance of every civilized nation in the world.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
We do have a strategy and it is working.
This is the kind of tunnel vision that gets is in trouble. Deval screwed up big on the connector and DCF and it did hurt Coakley, I think we have to concede that Obama’s strategy didn’t work and he hasn’t reacted as strongly as he could’ve after this crisis. It’s not just another attack or preventable mass murder. It’s a deliberate act by an enemy seeking statehood and a foothold in the Middle East that will require more robust action.
‘ISIL is a JV team’, ‘ISIL is contained’-those sentences will ring as hollow as mission accomplished to swing voters. Hillary struck the best balance between overreaction, xenophobia, saber rattling of the GOP and the somewhat too muted defense of a failed strategy that Obama has been reduced to. To wit, Sanders adopted stronger language than the President and is apparently proposing action his supporters here on BMG consider foolishly hawkish.
some of the Administration’s positions are caricatured by a media preferring cartoons to understanding when it comes to Iraq and Syria. Had the Administration heeded the call of the hawks when Assad crossed the red line, we might well have done ISIS’ bombing for them.
ISIS is not contained in the sense that ideologically it has inspired terrorists the world over. Geographically, it has lost territory so it is at least contained in that respect.
There are two huge problems here:
1. There is no alternative political force or party in the wings waiting to replace ISIS. Not even a Chalabi. So destroy it, and you get another stateless mess.
2. The existing governments of Iraq and Syria are outright poisonous to their former Sunni citizens.
Given that, a rather cautious policy would seem to be merited.
And is doing a difficult job under significant pressure to make rash actions to “look tough” that the media will reward now and punish three or dourness down the road when “looking tough” has become the latest quagmire.
That said, I think it’s important to examine these things on a case by case basis with understanding all the issues. There is no military solution to ISIL. It will require a political settlement in Syria, one that probably makes everyone involved a little unhappy but one everyone can try and live with.
If ISIL is a wildfire we have to put it out where it is while also clearing away the tinder that is fueling it. Ending the civil war can do the latter while a more muscular military effort-stronger than the status quo but well short of ground invasion-can do the former. But it’s certainly complicated and our President grasps the nuance so well he sometimes comes across as professorial and dispassionate about stopping these extremists in their tracks. But I get he wants to stop them the right way, not the easiest to explain or most telegenic way. And that’s a real credit to him.
…that at the end of the day Obama ultimately manages strike just the right balance when it comes to the method and degree of involvement in that part of the world.
I am definitely underwhelmed by Bernie on foreign policy because he doesn’t seem interested in it. (I will be voting for him anyway.) But Hillary is *horrible* on foreign policy. Arguably more deferential to Netanyahu than Obama (who is, contrary to some media narratives, incredibly deferential given that Israel is just a tiny client state) and on Syria (her support for a NFZ, which is an act of war). And she did many horrible things as Secretary of State—from advocacy of the bombing of Libya to the backing of repressive right-wing regimes in Latin America.
As Secretary of State, she was almost ready to approve KXL and lobbied the EU to embrace fracking.
I hit submit too early…..
Hillary is a “progressive” if you think the current president is (I vehemently do not). She will be little different from him–marginally to his left on domestic policy and marginally to his right on foreign policy, I’d presume. That’s certainly better than any Republican, and I roll my eyes at the “Hillary is just as bad as the GOP” crowd. There’s a clear difference between the parties. But we can and should demand better.
I honestly think that debating about whether or not a candidate is “progressive” is often ultimately pointless because people operate with different definitions.
it is a legitimate concern of many liberals that half of all Democrats say they could never vote for a self-described socialist.
And Max, did you listen to Clinton’s address before the Council on Foreign Relations ? She did not sound like a ‘short-sighted foreign policy hawk’ to me. Did I miss something ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Hillary Beats Trump in the Polls 4.4%
Sanders Beats Trump in the Polls by 3%
That is not a statistically significant difference.
from RCP:
Clinton: 55.8%
Sanders: 30.02%
and HuffPo/Pollster:
Clinton: 56.6%
Sanders: 31.7%
If you are looking for an “electable progressive” the choice is who can win in a general, and who you should help in a primary It’s dumb just to sit the primary out….are you saying elections don’t matter?
…but so do competent campaigns.
That “are you saying elections don’t matter” comment is puerile (especially considering that I never said or implied that); and avoids the fact that Sanders (and his campaign) has some serious class and race problems among the Democratic nominating electorate. Those problems are reflected in Sanders’ polling numbers.
The issue is Sanders campaign culture, which does not get much traction for Sanders, even among those voters who agree with him.
For that reason, those of you who support his campaign might want to volunteer and put in some sweat equity on the ground, so you can make that argument on Sanders’ behalf.
name recognition vs someone who has been on the national stage for over two decades. Hillary’s lead has very little to do with the Sanders campaign itself.
I could easily argue that Sanders’ policy positions and past stances/votes align much more closely to the desires of the minority community than Hillary despite their apparent preference at this time. Ultimately, the only poll that counts is the one taken on election day.
There is no such thing as “minority community”.
Far from being monolithic, there are differences of race, ethnicity, culture, political history, and region that have to be taken into consideration when discussing non-European cultural cohorts in the U.S.
I use that somewhat cumbersome term, because racial self-definitions get interesting, particularly within Latino populations.
All these things are nuanced, and misunderstanding those nuances can be politically unproductive.
Case in point: Sanders’ reference to participating in the March on Washington was perceived as condescending by many black activists and operatives. This was compounded by his campaign’s presumption that – to use your phrase – “Sanders’ policy positions and past stances/votes align much more closely to the desires of the minority community than Hillary despite their apparent preference at this time”, which is not necessarily a given.
Last election cycle, in Massachusetts, a heavy concentration of effort went into the thoroughly quixotic task of getting Berwick nominated. What we needed instead was an inauguration of the multi-year task of reforming the legislature. If progressive energy is going to constantly chase attractive losers, we’re not going to accomplish much.
…he was largely undone by his campaign culture.
When canvassers, phone bankers and other voter contact folk aren’t taught how to relate to the voters they contact, they often repel those voters.
In a similar vein, unlikable candidates can create inhospitable environments for campaigns. I remember talking to experienced and dedicated Democratic field operatives in the last State election whose canvassers had doors shut in their faces by (identified) white progressive suburban women who simply couldn’t stand Coakley; not ideologically, but personally.
Progressives often have a tendency to not consider the emotional and psychological dynamics within politics, to their disadvantage.
There are issues of organization here too lengthy to go into absent a separate post, but which have to be addressed as preconditions to winning elections.
In my view, effectiveness is a far better criteria than electable.
We have an electable president right now in Barack Obama, and America needs more than that. My problem with “electable” is that it implies a compromise across a panoply of other issues that I am unwilling to accept. Donald Trump might be electable. He will still be a disaster.
I’m far more concerned about how much of our progressive agenda a potential nominee can accomplish if elected than I am about whether or not they can be elected. I suggest that the ability to be elected is a prerequisite for being effective afterwards.
I’ve watched our three candidates in two successive debates, and I’ve seen them in various public settings.
I’ve watched Ms. Clinton in the hot seat for a grueling — and utterly pointless — attack by House Republicans. I think we should all expect a relentlessly repetitive cascade of such hyper-partisan abuses from the GOP if ANY Democrat is elected. I think Ms. Clinton is the only one of the three nominees who can handle such assaults with the demeanor and withering understatement that she demonstrated.
I’ve also watched the other two candidates completely founder in the face of even gentle questioning about foreign affairs. My image of a summit conference among the international leaders involved in finding a resolution to ISIS terrorism — especially the negotiations about what the region looks like AFTER ISIS is destroyed — looks very similar to that day of testimony before Congress. They may be our allies, but they are not our friends.
All three candidates are electible. Only one is presidential, and only one is likely to be effective if elected.
of either party that is electable, presidential and most likely to be effective.
With respect,I have not seen or heard anything thus far to shake me from that belief.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Thanks for posting. I still strongly disagree and I think this argument overlooks the real issues that many progressives struggle with, and these sites simplify the positions in not the most effective way.
On the Issues gives Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren a near identical score. Lincoln Chafee ends up being pretty close to them as well. Based on some older data, Evan Bayh (same result as Bill Clinton) doesn’t end up that far from HRC’s score, same for Harold Ford. So, I don’t think just falling in that “Left-Liberal” box is all that determinative of someone’s positions. Moreover, these simple scores include a candidate’s current positions, not how things may have changed over time. That is critical, and I think something you are grossly overstating when so surely confirming Clinton to be a progressive.
Looking at her platform at this moment in time, it is a progressive platform. There is no doubt about that.
BUT
Where has she been on the use of military force? Also, that Iraq war vote.
What’s her record on government secrecy?
What’s her record on mass incarceration?
What’s her record on free trade?
On the death penalty?
Did she support labor rights while on the Walmart board?
Her actual Wall Street record (and no, citing Krugman’s statement about her current plan being stronger than Sanders’s is not enough to not question her close ties to Wall Street over decades)?
There are many reasons to support Hillary Clinton, and I think Tom brings up one of the more compelling ones above – that she would be the most effective at moving some progressive policies forward (although she may also be the one facing the most fervent opposition and obstruction – like impeachment on Day #1 stuff).
Looking at her career and the various positions she’s taken, questioning her progressive cred is not indulging in some myth.
As I mentioned in another thread and as jcohn88 mentions above, I think we’re really dealing with different definitions of what “progressive” means.
…is a perfect example of what I was thinking of when challenging you to go back and look at the actual record. One of the things I did not remember before reading the site was that she voted against CAFTA. If you are going to cherry pick then yes, you will find votes you don’t like. For that matter so will I, but the only fair assessment IMO is a totality of the record. If there is a single vote that you find unforgivable, like AUMF on Iraq, that’s your prerogative and it’s fine to say so, but you should still stay away from more blanket statements like she’s not progressive.
My definition of progressive is pretty much anything left of the political center. It includes anyone who is or has been running for President this cycle on the Dem side, with the possible exception of Webb, (certainly anyone in the left-liberal segment of the OnTheIssues diagram) but excludes actual DINOs like we lament populate the MA General Court.
No offense, but I think you should try to look at the full record and not just a few votes a website might have chosen to focus on. On trade – she has been all over the place. It’s not cherrypicking to find problems. It’s more about finding a consistent record of inconsistency pretty much across the board on every issue.
Ok, then we definitely disagree. Your definition would include people like Evan Bayh and Harold Ford as progressives. I think they are more accurately Corporatist Centrists. It’s tough for me to put a full definition to what progressive means, but for me it really comes down to fairness, responsibility, and cooperation, and those impact specific policies across foreign interactions, trade, environment, social issues, crime and punishment, the safety net, and everything else. Looking at the record, I think Clinton has put corporate interests ahead of individuals, families, and the environment far too often, and supported disastrous and counter-productive foreign policy actions that make the progressive label a tough one given how I view the term.
…think that Clinton actually has a decent record on the things you mention and a look at the totality of her record bears that out. If you can find an even more thorough website than the two I have cited by all means please share. (BTW, did you run Ford and Bayh through the OnTheIssues website and come up with a score or are you guessing based on a general feeling, the latter quite frankly is what it seems like a lot of this comes down too? I actually don’t know if former electeds are included.)
I did find Harold Ford and Evan Bayh on the OnTheIssues website and they are much closer to the center than HRC, though still managed to stay in left-liberal. They may not be progressive heroes, but they were on balance more progressive than not. What these sites don’t do is tell you how to weigh the various issue categories so in that your mileage may vary, but I’m still encouraging distinguishing between preferring someone more progressive if the choice is available and claiming another candidate is not progressive.
If you think Clinton has a consistent and progressive record on all those issues, then we fundamentally disagree on a lot of things.
I mentioned Ford and Bayh being in the left-liberal box to demonstrate how useless the verdict from that site can be. If Ford and Bayh are progressives because they are in that box, the term progressive doesn’t mean much at all.
Yeah . . . compared to the average Republican.
But the word has to mean something, right? Rand Paul may be “more progressive” than Ted Cruz but he’s not a progressive in any way, shape, or form.
If the “progressive case” for Hillary is that she is a progressive because she has a D next to her name and is better than any Republican, I’ll agree, but I think that’s meaningless. To me, the term has meaning, and over her career she has not met the mark. For you, it seems like the terms Democrat and Progressive are largely identical and interchangeable. They aren’t and shouldn’t be.
…but progressive and liberal are pretty close and like I said there are Dems in the state legislature who definitely are not progressive. Rand Paul is not progressive; he is a libertarian leaning toward right -conservative. If you can point to another source that objectively pegs HRC as anything other than firmly in the progressive camp I’m happy to hear it, but so far you have not met that burden.
The Left-Liberal box on that site is rather meaningless other than putting almost every Democrat into it, including some who are definitely not progressives, like Bayh and Ford. If MA Dems could be tested on this measure, I bet nearly all would fall in that box, including DeLeo – and I hope that you would admit that he is not a progressive.
And I think you misread or misinterpreted what I wrote. Just because someone more be “more progressive” than someone else does not necessarily make them a “progressive” (at least not my understanding of the term). Of course Rand Paul is no progressive, but he is “more progressive” than Ted Cruz. Despite falling into the Left-Liberal box, which you consider enough to warrant the progressive tag, Harold Ford is not a progressive, although he is more progressive than most Republicans.
These simple scoring devices break under just a bit of scratching so I don’t put much stock in them.
Unfortunately, you can’t point to her long-term record to back up your claims, you just point to a few simplistic websites, which I think are clearly lacking. But, if you consider people like Bayh and Ford to be progressive, Clinton will meet any progressive taste you place before her. You and I clearly have different definitions of the term, and for me the standards seem to be a bit higher.
Here are some other things to consider when judging Clinton’s career-long progressive creds. They may not be neat and simply objective like what you want, but they are all backed by evidence.
http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/29052-five-reasons-no-progressive-should-support-hillary-clinton
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/08/memo_to_progressives_hillary_clinton_is_lying_to_you/
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-23/hillary-clinton-pretends-be-progressive-shes-actually-conservative
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/07/21/hillary-clinton-no-progressive
…are to clearly ideological sites that appear to share your view that unless you are right on the edge a la Sanders you are not worthy of the progressive label. They are also the opinion of the individual authors whereas I am looking for comprehensive analysis. They also cover specific issues where she is less progressive than maybe preferable. HRC is pretty close to the edge, more progressive than Ford or Bayh and closely matched even to Senator Warren. If your criterion really is 100% or bust then I guess there’s nothing I can say that will convince you though obviously I strongly disagree. The websites are anything but simplistic. VoteSmart has rankings for multiple years and OnTheIssues finds statements and actions prior to political careers. I would argue that your sentence beginning “Unfortunately…” is just plain wrong and in fact the diametric opposite of the truth.
FWIW, Bob Deleo is scored a bit differently (as are presumably other state officials). His name is linked to one session worth of comparing votes to the state party platform, which I think is fair to say is quite progressive and there is another year available as well. Both years have him voting with the platform just over 2/3 of the time and if that’s consistent then maybe he’s less of a DINO at least than sometimes claimed. You’ll have to decide for yourself what threshold of party loyalty (2/3?, 3/4?, 4/5?) qualifies as progressive in your mind.
This is starting to make me laugh because you refuse to engage with her record. Instead of just pointing to a dubious site that is largely based on a candidate’s current positions (look closely at the site, it is not nuanced. For example, supporting the ACA but going no further would give a candidate the same score on healthcare as someone who supports single payer – also the VoteMatch score doesn’t have anything remotely nuanced on use of military and corporate power issues), can you please point to a consistent record of progressivism on use of military force, on corporate power, on the environment, on trade, on civil liberties, on mass incarceration? I’ve pointed to a questionable record based on evidence. You have, thus far, not done the same to support your position.
The fact that Warren and Clinton have the same score should make you question the conclusion of the site rather than confirm your view re: Clinton.
I don’t think DeLeo is a DINO. I absolutely think he’s a Democrat – he’s just a shitty and not progressive one. Party loyalty is largely irrelevant because Democrat does not equal Progressive. Also, I think the thing you link to for DeLeo is really instructive in how simplistic these scorecards can be and how they fail to tell the full story. One of the votes relates to “studying how MA can overcome federal workforce rules” and another is “affirming marriage for heterosexuals only.” Those are scored the same but they clearly get at deeper issues not captured by the simplistic score.
Back to VoteSmart for this one. She has overwhelmingly high scores from groups interested in the environment, civil rights/liberties, peace, and labor and lower scores from groups interested in deregulation, low taxation, and trade without any caveats. Not perfect or perfectly progressive to be sure, but as a “Hard Core Liberal” according to OnTheIssues (which may actually be a better gauge than the left-liberal segment it occurs to me) she is overwhelmingly to the left, and yes, the sites do take into account your concerns. I still think you are going by a general feeling that Warren and Clinton, for example, are that different rather than looking at the hard data. After all, Sherrod Brown has endorsed HRC and he is seen as a super-progressive.
Please look more deeply into those ratings, which again are incredibly simplistic and do not tell the whole story – as they do not consider any positions taken before or after her time as a Senator and largely focus just on final floor votes. You will find that she was solidly a mainstream Democrat (almost all Dems received top marks from Labor, for example). I don’t dispute that.
The OnTheIssues rating is only based on 20 issues and scored incredibly simply. For example, on social issues, OnTheIssues considers hard-core libertarians and hard-core liberals to have the same views. Trust that if you want. I won’t.
As far as EW v HRC, here’s some data:
http://www.ibtimes.com/hillary-clinton-vs-elizabeth-warren-big-differences-despite-claims-contrary-1640810
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/215817-clinton-vs-warren-where-they-disagree
…which have several votes and past statements upon which to base the score, cover pretty much everything that might come up in public life (including areas you’ve indicated concern about), and DO consider times before she was Senator going back to Rose Law Firm days – you’re just wrong on that last point. Yes, libertarians and liberals DO often agree on social issues just as libertarians and conservatives often agree on economic ones, so invoking my political science background I am going to say that is absolutely valid.
…is that they seem to come from the “can’t take yes for an answer” crowd, which I don’t have much patience for either. To the extent her positions have evolved (and I’m not even convinced they have or needed to as much as some claim) that is based on new information. At least a couple articles are outdated enough to have her supporting TPP (which I actually do personally – my default position favors free trade which I come to from what I see as a liberal angle), even though she has come out against it.
I agree with you and understand exactly where you’re coming from when you remind us that “Democrat” and “Progressive” are neither identical nor interchangeable. That reminder is important.
Sadly, there is no effective national “Progressive” party. That means that we are forced to (a) not vote, (b) vote for a spoiler, (c) vote for the Republican, or (d) vote for the Democrat. Since I’ve cast every presidential vote since 1976, I’ve chosen (b) or (d) comfortable in the knowledge that my state’s electoral college votes will go to the Democratic nominee whoever it is.
In the primary, we progressives are forced to choose whether to pull a Republican or Democratic ballot, and then to choose which of several candidates we like best.
I applaud your decision to participate, and respect your choice of somebody other than Ms. Clinton (presumably Bernie Sanders). Perhaps even Christopher will stipulate that Mr. Sanders is more progressive than Ms. Clinton. That does not mean that Ms. Clinton is not progressive.
If your criteria is that your candidate must be the most progressive in the race, then it makes sense that you choose Mr. Sanders. If your criteria is, like mine, that your candidate be the most likely to either advance the progressive agenda or resist a reversal of the progressive agenda, then it makes that you choose Ms. Clinton.
Either choice is perfectly reasonable for a progressive voter dealing with the absence of a national Progressive Party.
He has had a fantastic primary run and I support him on the issues, strongly feel a vote for him sends a signal to the powers that be. I just can’t see world leaders taking him seriously, can’t picture him going eyeball to eyeball with Putin, and can’t picture him being more effective at getting Congress to pass his bills.
“We know the Republicans hate Hillary more” can be easily refuted by how terribly they treated Obama, whom supporters of his (including yours truly) naively argued would get a fairer shake than Clinton and not have her baggage. It’s not her last name they hate, it’s her party identification.
Let’s be honest-not every issue can be brought back to income inequality and when it has to be-foreign policy and national security especially-he comes across as out of his element and upset to even have to deal with it. That is really disconcerting to me, and that’s the primary issue where the President has leeway to operate despite an entrenched opposition. He has to do better on these issues and in debates for me to be convinced he is serious about actually winning the nomination and becoming President.
He record and relations with other congress members show he can be an effective leader. He is free of baggage and is liked by his colleagues. His positions on foreign policy have been on the money time after time.
He has opposed the TPP from the get go for solid reasons.
He has not been late to the party on a number of serious situations. He is a strong supporter of veteran issues, gaining praise from none other than John McCain for his efforts on their behalf.
His backing by young voters demonstrates a confidence in his leadership. They will be the recipients of whatever work is done by government, and a more peaceful world is high on their list. His approval rating by the public in general is the highest of anyone running.
His career definitely speaks differently to me than what you have written. His accomplishments and wisdom should not be ignored, and he is the right President for this time bar none.
And I think his tenure as Mayor is instructive on how he could be an effective domestic President. But being President also requires substantial foreign policy and national security experience that he simply doesn’t have any interest in acquiring or articulating. And that is very troubling to me, and frankly, something I find very disappointing as a supporter and admirer.
Trying to make the progressive label stick to one candidate or another is a query for political junkies. Voters not sitting in the camp of established Democrats will be making up their minds using different criteria. To those on the right every Dem candidate is a socialist, free wheeling spender of their money, and government is a grabber of their god given rights. To those on the left they want the priorities of government to reflect what will help citizens get ahead in this world.
Both ends of the spectrum have a common ground, namely all sides want freedom from harm. However the methodology differs. So it becomes a guessing game. Which candidate will fulfill what will be needed to make this a more livable nation? Did voters know beforehand the outcomes of any former President’s administration? They didn’t. So it comes down to liking what you hear from these candidates, what their record shows, and how much faith you have in their leadership to do the “right thing”.
That being said, HRC’s record is foggy, while Senator Sanders is sharp and clear. Since both have stated the same values in this campaign, my choice or best guesss sits with Senator Sanders because of his consistency, and almost no need to explain himself or change his views.
I appreciate a candidate who sees nuance and a need for positions to evolve with additional information. I agree the average voter probably cares less about labels, but this diary was written specifically for a BMG audience.
so he he consistent and clear about the nuances of his policies. His speech on the floor of the House stating why entering Iraq was unwise is a case in point. Even the fact he is a democratic socialist is a sophisticated political position. He believes it is possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. Government’s priorities need revamping, and rules meant to prevent corruption while encouraging a fair capitalist economy has been also clearly explained. Maybe you have, but his website under the NEWS section and the DEMOCRACY DAILY section shows in depth positions that are scholarly. Not only is it head and shoulders above any candidate in the GOP camp, but it is informative with no fudging.
The Times has had some great articles on how the straddled he line on LGBT issues in the 90s and 00s and how he worked with fiscally conservative Republicans to block machine Democrats in Burlington as Mayor (something progressives in MA should cross apply one of these days…). He kept property taxes low, budgets balanced, and forged key relationships with business leaders to co-opt them and get key development goals and waterfront protections enacted. And this is a good thing! It’s called governance and it’s something that can’t happen if you are inflexible at the expense of being pragmatic. I wonder if his more zealous supporters here would approve of that record-it’s certainly something he has been pointing to more since Hillary lacks the executive experience he had along with the longer Congressional tenure.
my preference is “savvy”.
for presenting the case cleanly.
It seems to boil down to some variation on “she’s the best we can do.” (Including: She’s not so bad, Her heart’s in the right place, etc.)
If that sounds like damning with faint praise, I do not mean it as any sort of criticism. I think she is the best that we can do. We after all are neither the party, the primary voters, nor the nation.
But two rejoinders, one grumpy, one pragmatic, both variations on the same theme.
Grumpy: Please do not ask progressives to cultivate illusions. She will be exactly as progressive as conditions (such as: the lay of the land in Congress, the level of progressive grass-roots activity, the success of progressive issues campaigns) compels her to be.
Pragmatic: Since her presidency, if we should be so fortunate considering the alternative, can be more progressive, or less, depending on the above factors, what are we going to do about it? In terms of Congress, grass roots, campaigns, etc.