Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton

IMO, it's never wise to see an election as a done deal, especially so far in advance. Hillary can use a decent democrat sparing partner.

Well, if one comes along, that would be great. I just haven't seen anyone yet. If the election were held today, according to the polls, Hillary would most likely win, on realclearpolitics where they take an average of all the main polling data. I would love to have another serious democrat candidate to get excited about, they just haven 't shown up. What else is there to say on the subject?

I believe, 05, that you've possibly misinterpreted my post. I do not deny Clinton needs someone to challenge her, and that might be O'Mally of Maryland, Jim Webb, former US senator from VA. There's Bernie Sanders, and possibly Joe Biden. Some Dems have not made their desires to run for the presidency known yet.

Of course, it isn't "wise" to predict the outcome of an election for the simple reason the unforeseeable has a strange way of making an appearance. Let me reiterate, Hillary Clinton can more than hold her own with the current GOP court jesters unless they're hiding their so-called wisdom under a bush. Even though Hillary looks as if she's readying herself for her coronation, all it would take is someone in the spirit of a Barack Obama to unseat her, just like in 2008. Someone with the same sensibly calm attitude towards minorities, the forgotten unimportant American, who could capture the imagination of all minorities, making them feel he is for all those the GOP treat like trash, and this includes the significant number of desperately poor white Americans. This Democratic challenger would not have to be brown or black but someone who articulates the same heartfelt message in the 2008 spirit of Obama.

I agree, there are many Dems who just do not like Hillary who is not a naturally charismatic individual. Having a taciturn secretive personality, Hillary's persona is not easy to know and many do not trust her because of these obvious traits. And with all the GOP propaganda surrounding Clinton, many impressionables just might end up staying home if they do not have another option.

I do not want to give the Republicans anything extra, like not voting. I will vote for Hillary unless another viable candidate comes on the scene.

good one..

obvious, but needed.

Well, maybe analyse what the reasons may be, for a start. I assume, perhaps wrongly, that it is not a coincidence, that there is some reason, a common factor explaining why other dems haven't thrown their hat into the ring yet. Money and strong odds in favor of Hillary are my current (and fairly obvious i guess) hypotheses. If that is true, then what Elizabeth Warren says is true: the system now blocks out anybody without a dime.

The US and in particular the American left needs to think about a way to allow it relatively poorer candidates to run effective political campaigns. Campaign financing reform is one way, but there are other possible ways now with crowd sourcing... Thinking out load here. What the dems can use, that the pukes don't have, is collective intelligence. Obama 1st campaign (including during the primaries) tapped into that effectively.

Yes, and the money thing is only getting worse.

Don't get me wrong: I would too if I could vote ie if i were American, without a doubt.

Hillary can learn on the campaign trail how to be/look more straightforward, more empathic and all. She's got Bill as a permanent coach. I am more worried about her past, her private email account while in state dprt, her voting pattern, approval of Iraq war and patriot act, Benghazi, etc.

Exactly. The super PACs are catastrophic.

Correct me if I am wrong, as I am sure you will, but, Obama didn't have a whole lot of money when he started out campaigning. He just did the hard work you need to do in order to start grass roots campaigning. We simply do not have another Obama waiting in the wings.

It may be as simple as that, yes. Indeed Obama has shown that Hillary's political machine can be beaten.

The Clintons dont inspire the kind of loyalty required to run a machine. What the Clintons have are a temporary bands of well paid mercenaries.

The Benghazi? Puhleez, O5, I thought most observant people realized this was merely GOP excessive concern with inconsequential details, nitpicking, trying to find something compromising to convict Hillary on. No one seriously believed Hillary Clinton rested on her laurels while Ambassador Stevens was calling for help and she did nothing or that she was somehow culpable in his death! I think she handled herself very well in front of the Republican vultures.

What does perturb me is the email on the private server in her home...this was not above board and raises skepticism regarding her actions. Hillary Clinton has learned from history --- she did what Richard M. Nixon failed to do, delete all mail so nothing incriminating could be found.

Yet, there are enough loose ends for the Republicans to attack her with. What I find unsettling, also, is the Clinton Foundation, where many speeches are given by Hillary and Bill for huge sums of money, allowing extremely wealthy contributors, in effect, to give money to her campaign by saying it's for the Foundation....it smells of a quid quo pro. Also, being who they are, people at the pinnacle of success in America, that Foundation will be a source of lucrative income lasting more than a lifetime, turning the Clintons, eventually, into BILLIONAIRES!

The reason Warren is not "in" has almost nothing to do with money...and almost everything to do with the fact that she would be a DISASTER for the Dem's. Our country simply is not ready for what she is serving.

The Republicans learned that lesson in reverse when they ran Barry Goldwater.

The Democrats are not about to ignore that lesson.

This is more true than not. I used to say I'm a Liberal, but then, I have evolved somewhat and lean more towards moderate. I'm ready to comment on the many faults in my candidate whereas once I would or could not tolerate anyone criticizing my candidate of choice. America's climate today is more moderate; also, Warren's poll numbers are rather anemic. I doubt if she were in the race she could overcome Hillary at this time unless Hillary stumbled badly. Also, how would Elilzabeth handle the Middle East ongoing narrative? We know she's against Wall Street, and not afraid to stand up to President Obama who appointed her, but just who is Elizabeth Warren, really? I think Elizabeth is very well fitted for the role she is currently in, as chief spokesperson for the underdog. She highlights the presidential candidates' weaknesses. I don't think she should relinquish that position which fits her like a glove.

Isn't the foundation a charity function? The money goes for various charity causes doesn't it? Why would the foundation make the Clintons themselves billionaires?

Agreed, Korkamann. Excellent comment.

Warren is doing a fine job as spokesperson for the people who get the least help. Her job, right now, is to further the agenda of the left.

That is not something that would endear her to the necessary majority of the electorate...but it is a vital function in a society that has so damn many people advocating for the baron of the right.

I wish American conservatives would go back to the job they were best suited for...to be the loyal opposition. They did a fine job of seeing that the left did not run wild...but allowed the left to at least tend to some areas that need tending.
But they have absolutely no ability to actually lead. The right base hates government and governing...which they should leave to people who know how to do it and to do it effectively.

Of course the Clinton Foundation is a charity and its done well throughout many third world countries; these contributions and grants have made a difference in the lives of tens of millions across the world. Not all people contributing to the Foundation is doing so because they care for charity, however...but then again we're seen as trying to look into people's minds as to why they do what they do. My two cents, some do it because they want to get in the good graces of the Clinton, like favors in return. The Clinton Foundation can also be looked at as a political enterprise. People wanting favors from the Clintons will give an inordinate amount of money said to be for the Foundation but in reality a contribution to the Hillary campaign which the Clintons might not have to account for. People as a rule, are just not that charity minded unless it's of some benefit to them or a quid pro quo.

I'm curious about Sidney Blumenthal's influence on Hillary. Obama refused him a position in his administration. Yet “He [Sidney Blumenthal ] sent me unsolicited emails which I passed on in some instances and I say that that’s just part of the give and take,” Clinton told reporters Tuesday at an event in Cedar Falls, Iowa. The comments came the day after a New York Times report revealed that Blumenthal, a longtime family ally, sent multiple unsubstantiated intelligence reports to Clinton’s private email while she was secretary of state. Clinton then forwarded these emails to top staff, sometimes with commentary about their veracity, but often solely with instructions to pass them on to others within the Department.

"Blumenthal was working at the time for Constellations Group, a company with business interests in Libya, leading to further concerns about his motivations in sending the intelligence. Constellations Group planned to secure contracts with Libya’s transitional government that would have required State Department-approved permits, giving Blumenthal a direct financial stake in the ouster of Qaddafi and subsequent U.S. policy in Libya."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-sidney-blumenthal-118098.html#ixzz3b0KThxRg

Look, this is just speculation on my part, and there might not be anything amiss here. It just looks odd and I have a questioning mind, the same as you, desirous to get to the bottom of things, if possible.

Ruth Marcus: Hillary's unseemly speechifying.
to put this post in context:
1. Ruth Marcus emphasizes (see below) that she is a fan of Hillary Clinton
2. I will absolutely support the Democratic nominee, which presumably will be Hillary, in the general election.
3. But Hillary and her campaign should heed Marcus' words, here. Presumably, once she announces formally, she can no longer take speaking fees. But.. .well, here's what Marcus has to say.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/hillary-clintons-unseemly-speechifying/2015/05/22/88105530-0096-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html

Again with the speeches. The gross excessiveness of it all, vacuuming up six-figure checks well past the point of rational need or political seemliness. The ceaseless drip of information that ought to have already been released, now being presented with a self-serving back pat over transparency.I wasn’t planning to write, again, about Hillary Clinton’s compulsive speechifying. I already weighed in nearly a year ago* urging her to stop talking. For money, that is.

That unheeded advice came, by my accounting, some $6 million ago. Not including Bill Clinton’s speeches. Not including any speeches that Hillary Clinton made on behalf of the family foundation, which just disclosed that, um, it neglected to disclose somewhere between $12 million and $26 million of money it made by booking the Clintons. Because, the foundation explained, this money counted as “revenue,” not “donations,” and therefore was not reported. Their reporting pledge covered only donations. (Credit here for continuing the reporting after she left the State Department.)

Let me repeat: I am a fan of Hillary Clinton. But here I find myself, once again, with hair on fire, so let me explain why I find this conduct so disturbing. It is, granted, a little late to bemoan the spectacle of former presidents, or former anything elses, taking to the lecture circuit to cash in. . . What once screamed sleaze now is considered post-presidential business as usual. . . So what’s the problem when Hillary Clinton gets in on the act? It is the difference between being firmly on the exit side of the revolving door and being poised to circle back in. The former presidents are formers. They’re cashing in on the past. But Hillary Clinton has, she hopes, a political future. And that counsels prudence. Just because companies are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars doesn’t mean you need to take the money. . . .The wiser course — certainly the wiser course on the verge of launching a presidential campaign — is to just say no, however big the bucks. After all, notwithstanding Bill Clinton’s “gotta pay our bills” defense, it’s not as if the couple were scrounging for change in the Chappaqua couch cushions. . .

Now comes the news about the previously undisclosed speaking fees that went to the foundation, not the Clintons themselves. The foundation says it is disclosing these out of an abundance of transparency. True, no law or ethics rule requires such reporting. As to Clinton’s agreement to disclose foundation donors, the position of the foundation and the Clinton campaign is that the document doesn’t include these because they’re “revenue” for services rendered, not charitable gifts. . . . Was this a bookkeeping glitch? . . .Or was it a calculated end-run around the disclosure agreement? . . I suspect the former but understand those who tend to the more nefarious interpretation. One explanation involves bungling; the other, shadiness. Neither is an especially attractive proposition for a presidential candidate.




*{6/27/14 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-hillary-clintons-money-woes/2014/06/27/54587598-fe2f-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html}

I don't know why people are bitching. Hillary will not breeze in unopposed. There will be some debates, with at least 3 participants, possibly more.