How to survive the Hillary hype: Liberal dreams and the media’s big Elizabeth Warren trap

[Autumn]

Some very interesting links.

http://www.salon.com/2015/04/12/how_to_survive_the_hillary_hype_liberal_dreams_and_the_medias_big_elizabeth_warren_trap/

In fact, Warren has laid out her agenda in an eight-point plan to restore the middle class, which includes a minimum wage hike, protecting and expanding Social Security, strengthening labor laws, restoring a more progressive tax code, and building infrastructure. Similar ideas are in the “Ready for Boldness” statement the Progressive Change Campaign Committee is organizing around (Senators Harry Reid and Al Franken are among 5,000 Democrats who’ve signed their names to the statement), trying to “incentivize” Clinton to move to the left. PCCC leaders recently met with members of Clinton’s campaign team.

But if journalists can’t frame these ideas in terms of someone “attacking” Hillary Clinton, they’re not interested, and they’ll insist there’s no progressive agenda.

Meanwhile, frustrated in their efforts to gin up a fight between two popular Democratic women, some will find surrogates elsewhere that let them frame the narrative in terms of “centrist” Clinton facing down and “taming” progressive critics – or being tamed by them. Politico gave us an example this week with “Rahm shows Hillary how to tame the left.”

[johnsusan]

1. Hillary, Warren and media

At this early point, I'm astonished at the confusion about Hillary, and people in her own party. Let's assume that Hillary remains the nominee. What should be the progressive democrat response? Well, unless you're a fool, it should be to vote for her. What's the alternative? I don't think it would help or hurt Hillary to have someone from her own party, to oppose her. This is pure republican propaganda. The single and only reason anyone wants to see Hillary opposed, is because the people making this observation, are more republican than they realize. Any democrat that refuses to vote for Hillary, is a madman. Once we've established our candidate, there's no reason for not voting for that candidate. Any action you take, that makes a republican victory more likely, makes you out to be a fool. For me, the republican party, which I see as resembling a cult, exists for the sole purpose of making the rich richer. It doesn't make any difference, that Hillary, or any other candidate, has "ties with Wall Street," or is seen mingling with the rich, or is said to be a "bought" candidate, this is mindless crap. What matters is the outcome for all of us. All the improvements in the American experience, as it is for the masses of Americans, have been made by democrats. If you take the mere association with rich people, as evidence against our candidate, you're an idiot. The republicans benefit from the fact, that politics are staggeringly complex. Instead of reducing that complexity for the benefit of the average voter, they use that complexity against the voter. We know, for example, that all candidates running for high office, have ties with the rich. The republicans take this simple fact, and pretend that it automatically flaws a candidate, conveniently leaving out of the discussion, that their candidates also have ties with rich people. Democrats need to keep in the forefront of their minds, that there are huge differences between dems and repubs.
Some dems are more some less impressive officeholders, but, on average, the dems yield more for the masses of our people than the repubs, by far. Media are, by far, the worst of these depressing realities. The "news" and "political" media, are, all in all, against democrats, and will hurt dems, any way they can. I could live with this reality. But what's worse and telling, is that it's near impossible, to respond to the prejudices newspeople reveal. News commentators, news show-hosts, news guests, can say whatever they want about any candidate, and there's no way of responding to their prejudices, their ignorance, their personal beliefs. The people that watch this garbage, are helpless to debate what they hear on TV. This must stop! If these talking heads confine what they say, to impartially deliver the news to us, they're on safe grounds. But when they go on to making comments about candidates, favoring one over another, saying insulting or demeaning things about the candidates, they "must" allow debate to occur from both sides. Instead, we're left to listen to these bozos, and what they say is treated as if what they say is infallible. I've heard news commentators and show-hosts, make a string of comments for or against a candidate, and the comments are factually false and prejudiced. Why do we put up with this? Especially when you consider that such false and prejudiced commentaries hurt democrats much more than they hurt republicans.

[arcane1]

2. "More republican than they realize"? Bullshit.

More LIBERAL than YOU realize!

Why not wait until we have an actual candidate before going off on this "with us or against us" rant? Is that so hard?

[JDPriestly]

3. I'm in California. I will not vote for Hillary.

I will vote for all the other Democrats on the ballot but not for Hillary. I don't want a vote for Hillary on my conscience.

And, besides, if Hillary can't win California without my vote, she cannot win California. We are a very blue state. If Hillary offends or discourages or just bores California Democrats, she will not win anywhere.

I will vote or not vote my conscience. No pressure from Hillary fans will change my resolve.

[Autumn]

4. Welcome to DU. This is the Elizabeth Warren Group which is a safe haven for supporters of Liz.

You may want to try the Hillary group.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1107