and is performed by most politicians who want to run for president. Unfortunately, no matter how much she tries to convince people she is a centrist she is associated in the public mind with the left wing of the Democratic party (that's us folks). She has no chance of winning. Forget about her.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America is all about pretending that the politics is serving the people.

As a good political journalist, when have you ever done otherwise?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As if any ACTUAL "progressive" politicians ever make it big in America. Your country's entire political system seems to be a machine designed to oscillate around a slowly right-creeping center.

Choose the Republicans and you get the barely-disguised bigots and rich arrogant classists. Choose the Democrats and you get the genteel rich classists who say they are for labour rights and the environment, but really are just less rapacious than the Republicans.

My country isn't much better, we elected the Liberals so many times solely because they weren't the Conservatives... and now we have an idiot Conservative Prime Minister because the Liberals got so complacently corrupt that they pissed off just enough voters to lose an election.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The dems purged anyone even remotely "left" back in '94. Wake the fuck up, Solomon. Sheesh!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Would somebody please tell me what a progressive is? I know the Democrats can't say what they stand for and instead they define themselves in terms of what they aren't. Likewise, I appreciate Mr. Solomon's suggestion of Mr. Tasini. It might be interesting to know what Mr. Solomon thinks Mr. Tasini's chances of actually winning the Presidency are. By recommending Mr. Tasini; not defining the progressive agenda; and not supporting in any way Mr. Tasini's potential for election through polls, or at least, some speculation or expert political opinion I can only assume that Mr. Solomon would prefer a Republican to electing Hillary Clinton.
By supporting a "progressive" in either a primary or a general where they can't win, it only detracts from the resources that could otherwise be used to defeat a Republican. This may be the politics of attrition, but they are better than the politics of defeat. I'd personally prefer Al Gore to Hillary Clinton, but if it comes down to supporting Hillary over an undefined progressive you can bet your ass that I'm going to support Hillary. To do otherwise would be tantamount to supporting a Republican. Period. End of story. If people haven't learned anything from the past eight years then I give up. Do any of you really think that Clinton would be as bad as our friend GW?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sure. let’s work at loosening up the system so that minority parties can gain some visibility and power. Until then, let’s not masochistically write off elections because a winner is “not one of us.” Is Hillary a winner? I admit that’s not clearly the case…yet.

Yes, identifying Hillary with ‘progressive’ is a bad joke. But is it a worse joke than W? Our fellow American voters elected that miscreant for two terms. Unbelievable.

Remember back when it seemed safe for Nader (who I assume Solomon can accept as a progressive) to try to qualify his 3rd party, and we also could elect Gore? That has proved to be a fatal mistake, a disaster, a catastrophe.

We’re in deep doo-doo. The party’s over, as is dreamtime for progressives. It will be gone forever unless we do something to win now.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Clinton is my least favorite presidential contender going in to 2008, but the fact is her voting record is progressive.

She speaks to the center, she tries to triangulate, and not opposing the Iraq war is gutless. But an article about Hillary's progressive credentials that doesn't mention her voting record is either dishonest or lazy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Tasini points out that Hillary Clinton remains for the war in Iraq, for so-called "free trade" agreements and for the death penalty. She supported the notorious 2001 bankruptcy bill, "has never been for single-payer health insurance" and has worked hard to undermine a host of other progressive positions."

Hillary Clinton voted against CAFTA and regrets NAFTA, voted against the far more pernicious 2005 bankruptcy bill, was instrumental in filibustering the permanent estate tax repeal just last week and fought for expanded health care that failed.

The argument can and should be made that her rhetoric undercuts the values of the Democratic Party, but promoting ignorance of her stances to your readers is dishonest.

Sure, the truth is more nuanced and less compelling, but your choice to cherry-pick information and mischaracterize Democrats makes you as awful as the mudslingers on the right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Excuse me, but I dont pretend that Hillary Clinton is progressive. I have not been laboring under that delusion for quite some time. I was willing to see how she handled being the Junior Senator from NY. She has handled it by using it to promote herself, to fund her campaign, and to straddle as many fences as she can. I wouldnt vote for the woman for dog catcher, much less President of the United States. She lacks courage and conviction. She is evidently convinced that the polls show she should be a 'centrist', whatever that may mean. To those of us who see corruption and an overall decline of ethics in this country, her lack of convictions simply fit in with the current modus operandi. She is a politician, not a stateswoman. She doesnt offer change, just more of the same. At some point in her life, Hillary Clinton had the potential to lead. It isnt there anymore. Like Reid, Pelosi, et.al., Hillary is over the hill, sitting in the middle of the hole she is digging for herself.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have to admit from our perspective ( In Australia ) any Dem would be preferable to the Shrub, hell any Republican !!( I take that back...there's more than a few real nasty ones out there )
However, Hillary is amassing a massive war chest which inexorably links her to the big Corps ( see Hillary on her knees for Mr Murdoch ) and therefore she becomes their money whore. She will do what the money tells her to do. It probably wont involve invading too many more countries ( she isnt a NeoCon after all ) so thats gotta be good for us in the rest of the world.
For Americans, I imagine you'll be put out to dry at the whim of the mega corps on behalf of Hillary and get royally screwed. ... Its the American way folks!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since Rupert Murdock only backs assholes this definitely makes Hillary an asshole.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You don't get that it's just "politics" - not honesty - ?
They pander to whomever they perceive is going to vote for them - "F" - (forget) the standards...

We need something like the LIBERTARIAN party to get the support and "start all over".

Any other ideas? It's not the Repubs or Demos - - - -

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Interesting that Hillary accepted this invitation. Back in May when I took part in the Tikkun-sponsored Network of Spiritual Progressives she wouldn't even receive the more than 50 New Yorkers who attended in her office. So what will she say to these progressives? I am eager to hear. Even more impressive would be if she listened.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary could well win with her true progressive agenda .Stop the leftist blather.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The left got swept into the fringes in the sixties and never got back to its core. Hillary can say the politically expedient things about environmental issues and minorities. This is why she's called a "liberal" and passes herself off as "progressive."

The core issues are an economy that provides opportunity and government by consent of the governed.

Hillary is a major league right winger when assessed by these standards.

I'm going to speak heresy. We need to promote reforming the much vaunted market economy, clean up Hillary's morally bankrupt government, and reduce emphasis on environmental issues and multi-culturalism. Our democracy is now in jeopardy! First things first!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've got to say, the Clinton's were never my team. Dem Leadership Council was and is a corporate front group. A sop here and there to the progressives and middle/working classes while our economy was gutted with fears of "global competition"! I can hear that 1950's horror movie B3 organ in the background. The Clintons are republican lite. We need Dems from the democratic wing of the Democratic party. Patrician or not, I'd take someone like Al Gore over Hilary anyday. Find a strong,TRULY progressive woman, I'll take her. How about Kucinich? Oh, that's right, he's "unelectable". BY whose authority ???!!! Ughhh. No more of these corporate biased politicians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Paul Ray, co-author of The Cultural Creatives and a psychographic researcher of note, finds a substantial plurality for "moving forward" -- which is what "pro-gressive" is supposed to mean. He found the next political power aligned around corporate interests. Compared to these two, left and right are shriveling appendages.

With all their resources, the corporatists rule, and one way they rule is by keeping "left" and "right" in play. If we're talking progressive, we have to give up the left-right yoyo which is used to hypnotize everybody.

SECOND, the corporatists have an abstract agenda which is at least as old as "Wealth of Nations" (1776 of all years) which evaluates the success of a nation by big economic numbers. And if you cannot numericize something (like happiness in your work, like sense of security around health, like the personal growth of school children, like control of your own destiny as a woman or man), you can't fit it into the argumentation around the corporatist agenda for all of us. Hilary? I guess I feel that she and Bill just got caught up in trying to play the corporatist game, and measure Democratic success by how much of the corporate money Dems get, and rank America's well-being by GNP no matter how much of that is destruction; etc etc.

THREE, when we talk of a "progressive agenda" we end up with a shopping list, a cloud of mosquitos. We don't have any clear and simply formulation like "trade makes everybody richer" (too bad that one's a lie). I can't deliver such a line at this moment, but there is a an area of discussion around which we can start to work on it. What do we believe that most Americans believe in? My first thought is that it centers on the power of personal conscience. It includes caring at the person-to-person level about what is happening to other people. (People, not numbers.)

I think a majority of Americans are "progressive" in a broad but genuine sense. But we are all being propagandized incessantly, by technocrats, by corporations, by the hate-and-fear merchants, by the sad people with big ego-needs and weak consciences who run after power at whatever price. As progressives we will have to think and feel our way, humbly and sincerely, into the majority who really do want what's best for everyone. Once we are there, our concerns will resonate again much more widely. After all, "people are good."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A slight play on the old adage about "Washington", but in this case, just as apt. The venom spewing forth from the keyboards of those of us (myself included) who despise Hillary's inauthenticity---her crass opportunism, boring pseudo-"star" persona (Hillary vs. Geena Davis....you decide), soap opera history as Bill's long-suffering but "true blue" consort, GOP Lite policies and profoundly cynical machne fund-raising (Rupert?)---is evident in most of these comments.

The Bill&Hillary Show played for 8 years, and we got 8 light years of entertainment value watching and reading about their mind-boggling, often sleazy travails. More than any other modern presidency since JFK, they turned the White House into a long-running melodrama, except instead of "Camelot", Marilyn Monroe and Judith Campbell Exner, we got "Knotts Landing", Monica Lewinsky, Paula Jones and Jennifer Flowers. Scandal for peckerwoods, with Hillary as the identified heroine and "innocent" among these "fallen" women and her Don Juan husband.

That millions of Americans would swallow this bilge and look away from the obvious cynicism of the Hillary&Bill partnership, roadshow and strategic plan for re-taking the White House at some point, is understandable. So-called ordinary Americans (as the Ringo Kid in "Blazing Saddles" called them, "The People of the Land...the 'common clay' of the West....you know....morons") love, above all else, a gripping, continuous soap opera. Washington never fails to please, and presidential campaigns are like Sweeps Week, during which candidates become the "political" equivalent of TomCat or Brangelina in the eyes of the great unwashed. Their every empty sound-byte, every focus-group tested speech, every poll-tested action, every consultant-scrubbed decision (down to their apparel) is fodder for the news cycle, and imbued with a phony gravitas worthy of the World Wresting Federation. Hollywood for Ugly People.

The relatively small cohort of educated, thinking Americans, in both blue and red states, concerned daily with real issues of life and death and the countless critical problems facing us as a nation, continue to make themselves heard in whatever way possible, through writing or showing up. The majority are either scrambling to survive at the lower end of the ladder, and thus slightly pre-occupied by the need to put food on the table, or they're glued to their TV's, zoning out on some version of 24/7 drivel that has little to do with the world crumbling around them, and much more to do with cultural mythology, escapism, morbidity and depravity (note the strong popularity of the various CSI's and Law&Order's) denial, or bathetic notions of romance, good fortune or success. Presidential politics, in the cynical way it's pre-packaged, scripted and over-produced for TV consumption, fits right into the infotainmentsphere of distraction. Bill&Hillary are two of it's greatest stars, like a Bizarro World version of Gable&Lombard or Jack&Jackie (only in America would a First Lady whose name was pronounced "Zhackleen" be turned into "Jackie").

In this context, Hillary taking center stage at the CFAF conference is as predictable as gas after eating broccoli. Hickey's lame response to Solomon that she's there to "justify her candidacy" is ridiculous, given that many prominent real progressives are absent this year, and this particular organization seems to be much more concerned with star power than issue clarity. Why is Russ Feingold, a candidate with actual progressive creds, relegated to speaking Wednesday morning at 9AM, the last day of the conference, when many attendees will likely be sleeping in after two days of raucous activity late into the evening? I'm sure he didn't request this slot. But then, he's not Hillary, and "there are some who think she's progressive". Enough said.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guess you left wing KOOKS just can't seem to grasp that Hitlery is doing exactly what her hubby Billy goat did to win his presidential bid. She is a lefty socialist kook that knows that she can't win enough support by steering hard left in policy. She has to run as a center slightly left candidate in her hope that she can pick up enough votes to win the Dem primary and then the national election. Problem for her is that she isn't near as good at deception as her intern molester hubby and the extreme left wing (the Howard Deaniac coalition) isn't accepting her "strategerie". Fine with me because she'll win the Dem nomination anyway and then lose the national. The real problem with Hitlery is that she is a very polarizing figure and perceived by about 50% of Americans as a shrieking harpie Bitch. I use the 50% figure because that is her negative rating at this moment according to the latest polls.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't understand how any progressive organization could do anything that would promote a politician as self-serving and reactionary as Hillary Clinton. She's not progressive; she never has been. Progressives should be opposing her. To do otherwise is really destructive of efforts to build a genuinely progressive political movement in this country.

I have come to believe that organizations like Campaign for America's Future and MoveOn.org are not really progressive. They're liberal democrats that hope that somehow they will be able to bring politicians like the Clintons back into the liberal fold.

What's wrong with MoveOn, you might ask. Well, I recently participated in their Positive Agenda campaign in which they selected three main goals around which to build a progressive movement that could have an effect on the upcoming elections. At the local meeting I hosted in Boston the number one issue among those gathered was, as you might expect if you're a progressive, END THE WAR NOW - BRING HOME THE TROOPS. The second choice of issues for our group was SINGLE PAYER UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

When MoveOn tabulated the results there was NO anti-war statement in the Positive Agenda and their health care statement was an innocuous referral to health care for all. (Even Hillary Clinton could latch on to that one.)

The end result of these attempts by liberal organizations to pass themselves off as a progressive ones is that the progressives drop out. At least it's happening before they try to drag everyone onto Hillary Clinton's bandwagon.

It really is time that progressives built a national political organization around basic political issues like opposition to war, single payer universal health care, jobs, housing, secure pensions, equal opportunity in education and please, please, please an energy and transportation policy that reduces our consumption of energy and works toward economic stability rather than economic growth. Such a national progressive organization could enlist support for progressive candidates like Jonathan Tasini, who oppose conservative Democrats as well as Republicans. I have to say I hadn't heard of Tasini, or that any progressive was opposing Clinton, until I read it in Normom Solomon's piece.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I just got back from Yearly Kos in Las Vegas - a conference Clinton was invited to but did not come to. I woke up Sunday morning with one thought in my mind - she made a big mistake by not coming. Let her come and defend the progressive agenda that I am sure she has somewhere buried somewhere inside. Let's be real - her failure to lead in the Iraq war is atrocious but she doesn't consistently undermine progressive values in the way the Anti-Clintons suggest. Put all that negative energy you have into Connecticut against Joe Lieberman, the barely Democrat, and help Ned Lamont win.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One does not get to run for president by being honest. They get on the ballot by being moderate and winning over the hearts of the mainstream media outlets. Incidentally, her voting score according to Public Citizen www.citizen.org, a Nader founded congress watchdog site, is 83% in line with progressive values. there are few senators that get much higher... Kerry is 91% but he's probably not going to make a run for it so he can afford to be more progressive.

Once she's in office as the first female president, no one can predict what she will or will not do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Public Citizen does not "rate" politicians along progressive or any other lines.

However, Public Citzen's Bankrollers Report reveals St. Hill is #2 (right behind Rick Santorum) in taking bribes...er..donations from lobbyists in the 2006 election cycle so far.

Nice try, hillarybot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Public Citzen's Bankrollers Report reveals St. Hill is #2 (right behind Rick Santorum) in taking bribes...er..donations from lobbyists in the 2006 election cycle so far.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She is PRO CHOICE. That is all that the liberal fundraisers care about. (As well as senior jobs, and the Clintons know how to play the patronage game as well if not better than the Bushes. Remember Marc Rich?)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

HE IS THE ONLY ONE I CAN BELIEVE, AT THIS POINT!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

after all the struggles they made to make themselves heard at the "take america back' conference, and after all the negotiations, to be herded by the hilary clinton camp, forgive me , excuse me, this is not a democracy....this is a corporate campaign to win!!!


sorry i am out, unless a good canadate runs , i quit, all of this is soo ingraitating.....until the people say something i am introverting.....sorry canidates , esp congress, you bum me out---senators wake up

there is only so much an individual can do, and unless free and fair elections come about, this effort is hopeless, i really want to move to boivia and knit sweaters for a living....anyone know how to get formal citizenship?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am glad that someone on the left has finally spoken out about the role that Hillary Clinton and her aides played in fumbling and frittering away the great opportunity we had to create a national single payer health plan in this count. What killed or stalled this rare and unique moment in American public affairs was not the predictable opposition of the insurance industry and its allies but Clinton's failure to understand that her role as a political leader was to create and nurture the necessary public support needed to produce a single payer national health plan. In short, her role was to state the "line of march" and lead the campaign.

Clinton and her aides chose instead to secret themselves away from the public and to act as if they were elected public administrators instead of politicians. They completely shut the public out of the process (it is difficult to believe that this was not intentional) and then expected that same public to rally around a health plan that it had played absolutely no role in creating.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary had her chance to lead this country but blew it because she felt that imitating Bush was the way to go. I used to like her but now I get a rush of nausea when I look at this chickenhawk. What happenbed to our two party system? Kerry's rushing in to fill the vacuum left by our bellicose neocon democrat, made my heart leap with joy. Finally a Democrat I feel comfortable voting for. People like Hillary, Lieberman and our local Higgins, make me sick. Why don't they go to the Republican side where they belong?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]