The Creation of the Clinton vs the Progressives Narrative
It is fascinating to watch and of course Mark Halperin would be at the tip of the spear of this bullshit. According to him and his interlocutor here, Hillary Clinton is “terrified of the left”. Setting up this narrative of Clinton vs “The Left” is all about demonizing “The Left” and its ideas in a way that Halperin would never do for the Tea Party — who are demonstrably dangerous. Which might be why he feels that he can do this — there’s no downside to him for taking sides against “The Left”. He won’t be the only one, of course, but this is the first I’ve seen of this narrative in the wild this cycle.
One of the presidential primary narratives that will emerge over the next year will be Hillary Clinton‘s fight to court progressives who are skeptical of her on a variety of key economic and foreign policy issues. Bloomberg TV host and political analyst Mark Halperin thinks her fear of the left is starting to show, even this early in her campaign.
Asked by his With All Due Respect co-host John Heilemann whether Clinton has succeeded thus far in “balancing the center and the left,” Halperin said: “I do not think it is going well. My supposition is that she is so terrified of losing Iowa, she is forgetting the fact that there is a general election to come. She is terrified of the left and it is showing on a range of issues.”
I wish she was really terrified of the left. That might be a campaign to get behind. But I (cynically, to be sure) think she is in co-opting mode right now — and it’s smart, really. The most interesting and resonant concerns right now among voters are basically Left Dem ones (witness the attempted co-opting of the income inequality idea by the GOP, who clearly couldn’t give a damn about that). She *should* be in the business of speaking to those concerns and talking about effective policy to address those. She *should* be asking for all of the Democratic party votes and is in the best position of all to re-orient the debate to the concerns of middle class, working class and poor people who are feeling all of the pain right now. The love letter from Hillary to Elizabeth Warren in Time magazine and the hiring of Gary Gensler as her campaign’s CFO could be taken as signals that she is taking the burdens of the most of Americans seriously. But then, we have this bit of business from Politico (sorry gang), specifically noting that her backers from the 1% have gotten the wink.
And then there’s Martin O’Malley who is saying much of the right stuff:
He derided what he called the Republican-championed theory of “trickle-down economics,” which he said was marked by tax cuts that benefit the very rich, deregulation, and policies meant to keep wages low.
‘We made record investments in education to make our schools the best in the nation.’
The former Baltimore mayor, speaking with a mostly even, slow cadence, portrayed the current economic picture as wealth concentrated among a relative few and a wide gap between the ultra-wealthy and everyone else.
And he offered a series of policy proposals to change the economic status quo.
They included raising the minimum wage and indexing it to inflation; expanding Social Security benefits; making it easier for workers to organize and collectively bargain; restoring “accountability” to financial markets; and no longer “entering into bad trade deals,” which he said include the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership.
He also framed reform of immigration laws — creating a path to citizenship for people in the United States illegally — as an action that would boost the economy.
A narrative of Hillary vs O’Malley might force her very cautious hand. But a narrative of Hillary vs Progressives is just about making Progressives into bad guys. And continues the ongoing bamboozlement of Mark Halperin — and how does that guy keep a job, anyway?
Tags: 2016 Presidential Election, Hillary Clinton, So-Called Liberal Media
Oh those scary progressives are going to force Hillary to the left. So scary! She might have to denounce the Vietnam war or progressives will vote for McGovern again, and we all know how that turned out!!!
This media trolling of progressives is redunkulous.
I used to think Progressives were the Tea Party of the left.
Now I realize that, in terms of organization, effectiveness, and impact they are the big-L Libertarians of the left.
That means they are just relevant enough for a “progressive-leaning” Democrat funded by the 1% to co-opt and misuse their name.
Sorry about that, guys, I know what it feels like.
The problem is the press – which validates the Tea Party, because they’re lazy and the TP is easy to write about. When the demise of our country is written about 90% of the blame will be due to our lazy, Sarah Palin following press.
The far right is fully capable of staying home and not voting out of spite, hatred or a candidate “not being conservative enough”. Not so the left, usually because the alternative is Republican rule. So it will go with Hillary, we will all vote for her and we know it. As for the “terrified of the left” game it’s but one of dozens the Republicans will be trotting out in coming months, and we know that as well. And other than lip service I don’t see her being pulled to the left, at this point she doesn’t have to play any other game than beating the Republican candidate.
If any of you looked at her policies during 2008, you would have seen she was to the left of Obama. She was also able to capture the working class vote.
^^^Uh no. You need to provide evidence of that or STFU.
Hillary’s Time piece on Elizabeth Warren, by calling her a “progressive champion,”was condescending and serves to marginalize Warren and progressives. I don’t think even Warren calls herself progressive. Warren is simply articulating what a Democrat should stand for.
To be fair to Tom, and to Hillary, Hillary Clinton is quite the liberal, and has been for decades. It’s not like she is some kind of DINO.
@DD: Really? You think all that Clinton Foundation money was going to Bill and not Hill? You think she’s going to turn her back on Wall Street and its money?
Stop kidding yourself. Both parties consider The Left the enemy.
To be fair everyone, there isn’t a single set of criteria that determines one’s standard deviation from the mean. Especially when everyone thinks they are the mean! Clinton is a Democrat. How much of a liberal she is depends on who is doing the measuring. Really, really left people are probably outside of the 3 sigma standard deviation. Clinton is probably no more than 1 sigma standard deviation from the mean. So to the 3+ sigmas, Clinton looks like a RWNJ because they think they are the mean when it comes to liberalism.
Hillary ran to the right of Obama in 2008 (with some of her husband’s Third Way policies intact), so I’m not sure, DD, how you can categorize her as not a DINO. She is working very hard right now to get her populist on and has moved to the left on some issues. Does this mean that she does the move left for the primary, move center (right, really) dance for the general? The proof is in the governing which we won’t know about, but I’d bet that we’d get right back to that Third Way business.
She stands for only one thing: Her own electability. She’ll say/do whatever it takes to get elected, then, who knows?
I, too, don’t trust what comes out of the Clinton Foundation. They’ve made their deal with the same devil who controls our congressional delegation.
More than anybody, Bill Clinton led the DINO revolution by getting in bed (figuratively, I presume) with corporate interests. Which is how we got NAFTA.
I don’t want Hillary as President, and I can only hope that O’Malley or, preferably, Warren, emerges as a legit challenger.
She’s given progressives no reason to trust her, and all I see right now is her tacking slightly left for the primaries. Like all things Clinton, it is calculated cynicism and, wait for it, triangulation.
Clinton Derangement Syndrome is supposed to be a disease of Republicans. I hope it doesn’t start spreading among Democrats.
Viewing the Clintons with a clear eye is not a sign of derangement, but a necessary exercise for those who believe in progressive ideals.
If that’s the best the D’s have to offer, might as well give up on the Democratic Party as a force for even a scintilla of positive change.
First, my preferred candidate is Elizabeth Warren.
Second, I’ve never been a huge Hillary supporter. (obviously, since I supported Obama over her). I really hope she gets a primary opponent. She needs one because 1) it will make her a stronger candidate – she cannot afford to make the mistakes of the 2008 primary in the 2016 general, 2) an opponent will make her clarify, publicly, her positions. She really, really needs a primary fight if only to show she’s learned from her last primary’s mistakes. I would rather her have that fight during a primary (and get most of the issues vetted and have them become old news) than during the general.
I will vote for the D for President in 2016 because, you know, all those so called “not real economy” social issues matter. And while I’m not happy with her corporatist ways (Does any candidate, other than Warren, not have them?), handing the election to the GOP candidate will not only give us a bigger corporatist, but a President who will take every opportunity to decimate women’s reproductive rights, minority rights, the poor, gay rights, the environment, the economy, freedom of religion, etc..
There will only be two choices in November of 2016 (as always), and while I’d love a viable 3rd party candidate that ain’t happening. Forget the Alamo, remember Ralph Nadar. I have zero tolerance for that crap again. Sometimes I imagine where we would be if Gore had become President. We’ll be paying for the Bush years for decades, but… Hey! People had an awesome time saying Gush and Bore – there’s no difference! How’d that work out for us?
If she secures the nomination, I will vote for her for President. Even tho she’s not my first choice there won’t be another viable option on the table in 2016. That doesn’t mean I won’t criticize her, but I will try and be careful in my wording (not meaning) because I refuse to let Republicans use my words to attack my candidates.
In no way am I saying to not criticize her. I’m simply suggesting we refrain from using Republican talking points when doing so.
That all checks out.
Hillary Clinton will be a better President than any of the current GOP Clown Car Drivers. That said, I don’t have very high expectations of her Presidency should she get there. Elizabeth Warren has made it clear she isn’t getting in and Martin O’Malley it talking the talk, but not getting much attention. (He gave a great interview on NPR this AM.)
Still, the Clinton Derangement Syndrome will be strong from the GOP (who pretty much kept up their skillset with Barack Obama) and with the progressive purists who will never see the irony of just repeating the usual GOP charges. I’ll vote for her because the GOP alternative is too despicable and because Hillary Clinton winning will be the cause of mass explosion of wingnut heads.
Why vote for Hillary? Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy will be 80 when she is elected. Notorious RBG will be 83. Even Clarence Thomas is making the actuaries concerned by the end of Hillary’s first term (72 in 2020).
Hillary will put the court out of reach of the Republicans for decades.
As usual, Cassandra and Pandora talk sense while the Naderites bray.
Unless I’m behind the times, the GOP talking points about Hillary are:
1) She’s a lesbian
2) She reminds men of their ex-wives
3) She’s a Saul Alinsky-schooled Marxist destroyer of America and its values
Not necessarily in that order.
“She’s too corporate” is a GOP talking point only in libertarian-leaning circles.
@John Manifold: As usual, you embrace what a real progressive would reluctantly adopt.
I’ll vote for Hillary, El Som will, all of us will. Only you will continue to act as if peonage were a preferred form of existence.
“…while the Naderites bray.”
Unless your name is Rove, there is really no call for that sort of thing. It isn’t hypocritical for progressives to vote for, donate to, or work for Clinton while making the argument that she (and the Democrat Party in general) is beholden to the banks.
In case you hadn’t noticed, Jason, John Manifold hates the left, too.
The Atlantic had a long piece last month that laid out the sophistication of the anti-HIllary right.
http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/among-the-hillary-haters/384976/
I don’t think her biggest problems will be with restless leftists.
Geezer – Thanks for the link. I wonder if the industrial weight of this well-funded, highly organized anti-Clinton effort will actually work against it?
Naturally, The Onion nails it.
DECATUR, IL—Expressing relief that he would not have to construct an entirely new diatribe from scratch, local man Harold Willis was reportedly pleased Monday to discover that most of his anti-Hillary Clinton rant from the mid-1990s was still perfectly usable. “I got rid of the stuff about her ’93 health care plan, but besides that and a few other tiny fixes, there was still lots of good material,” said Willis, adding that once he updated it with a couple Benghazi details and a quick tag about the recent controversy over the presidential candidate’s State Department email server, the well-worn harangue would be good as new. “I figured out I could just replace the part about her being a frigid woman with how she’s just another corrupt Washington politician, so that was an easy fix. I’ll probably tighten up the Whitewater section a bit, but unless there are any big surprises during campaign season, this should easily last through the election.”