In going over more of the depressing results of this mid-term election there is little to no good news for real Democrats, or, even more so, people who believe in democracy. As I mentioned yesterday it is a total negation of the center-right politics that Barack Obama delivered after promising progress, though it will be reported and punditized as a rejection of liberalism, something which Barack Obama has never been in danger of intending from the day after the election in 2008.
It is also a time for sober reflection by those of us who have advised political realism as opposed to the program of the pseudo-left, which will never get elected, will never get control of any house or any executive.
When Joe Lieberman, the Quisling Senator from Connecticut, was running the last time, during the nomination fight which he lost to Ned Lamont, I said that Democrats should require him to promise he would support their choice for the nomination. They had to get him on record as publicly committed to not running against the nominee of those whose votes he was asking for. That didn't happen, he ran as the nominee of his own party and went out of his way to stab Democrats in the back every chance he dared to take.
This time it's not enough. We obviously couldn't trust Barack Obama to govern in line with the message people heard from him, the lawyerly tergivisations to the effect that Obama didn't really say what he obviously meant people to believe haven't flown. Or what is it about the two disasters in the mid-terms which he and his lawyer friends fail to get?
Hillary Clinton or any other person who asks for our nomination must be gotten on record as to who they will NOT appoint in their administrations. Anyone who would consider appointing the likes of Summers, Geithner, Emmanuel, and a whole list of those given jobs by Obama and Bill Clinton should not be given the Democratic nomination for anything. I would specifically require her to promise never to appoint a Secretary of Education who had never attended or taught at a public school or university - even going so far as to promising never to appoint a secretary of education who has ever attended anything other than a public school - and who had a solid written record and work history that shows they get what public education is. Unlike Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has actually attended a public school. So there's that.
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama show that a charismatic man with good looks can gull Democrats into giving them a nomination and, given a weak opponent, they can even be reelected, but neither of their administrations are good Democratic administrations. Bill Clinton threw the least among us under the bus, he put the putrid NAFTA deal into law, a death sentence to the working people of this country. He, like Obama, wasn't as bad as their Republican alternatives but that is clearly not enough. The Democratic Party, liberalism, has been dying a slow death on a diet of lesser of evils. It is not enough to get out the voters when there isn't an attractive figurehead and a clear and present danger of a Bush I, a McCain-Palin or a Mitt Romney to get people out to vote. AND THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS ARE NOT OF ANY LESSER IMPORTANCE THAN THE ELECTED MONARCHY THAT THE PRESIDENCY HAS BECOME.
Barack Obama's election depended heavily on black voters intent on making history, even as he denied them far more than three times. If Hillary Clinton can depend on women being roused to do the same looks a lot less of a given now than it did even last year. I think, ironically, it will be her association with Barack Obama that might turn out to be her most serious liability, her association with Bill Clinton having been her previous highest hurdle. I am certain that Hillary Clinton will be the lesser of evils, I'm sure that many will rally round her as the first woman given the nomination. I'm not as certain that she is an inevitable winner. I will vote for her if I have to. If she would make the guarantees that she would GOVERN AS A REAL DEMOCRAT were made public, with a promise to not appoint the banking class, establishment, DC-NYC insiders and Ivy League level crooks, I might even be enthusiastic.
She should look and take seriously why people whose votes she will be asking for are longing for Elizabeth Warren to run, a run which would almost certainly not succeed. IT'S THE POLICIES, THE PASSION FOR ECONOMIC JUSTICE A CLEAR AND REPEATED RECORD OF ELIZABETH WARREN GETTING IT, WHAT WE THE COMMON PEOPLE ARE UP AGAINST AND IT IS THE VERY BANKING-FINANCIAL CLASS WHO HER HUSBAND AND HER LAST BOSS SUPPORTED WHO ELIZABETH WARREN STANDS AGAINST. THE VERY PEOPLE WHO HER HUSBAND SCHMOOZES WITH AND MAKES DEALS WITH.
If Hillary Clinton isn't going to stand with The People against the oligarchs and plutocrats, she shouldn't ask for the Democratic nomination.
No comments:
Post a Comment