No, Krystal Ball, Hillary is Not Nor Will She Be, the Dems "Mitt Romney"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

heymittens
Clinton Cynicism is alive and well. For good and for ill.

Krystal Ball, co-host of the younger set's MSNBC afternoon program The Cycle, famously took a pundit shot at Hillary Clinton a week or so ago. Krystal is an interesting newer voice, having run for Congress in Virginia and being a bright and informed young mother herself.

Since she's subbing for Steve Kornacki on Up with Steve Kornacki (also a former Cyclist), she took the opportunity this Sunday morning to make her asserted -- and controversial -- case that Hillary could be the Dems 'Mitt Romney'. Provocative words, those.

"I haven't seen change I can believe in just yet," she said with a smile as she introduced the panel of guests there to prove her wrong. ['Hillaromney' was the MSNBC snark effort graphic.]

Basil Smilke, Jr. of Columbia University took the first turn at bat. He believes we should be focussed on, and in a markedly different way more than just the way that the New GOP does things. That we might want to keep an eye on the important and fundamental issues the people are dying to have taken up.

Literally. He mentioned healthcare, education, jobs ... other panelists chimed in with minimum wage and gay rights.

Neera Tanden, another young activist voice of note, took the NAFTA question and put it where it ought to be - in Bill Clinton's Column. She pointed out that women's issues, like Senator Gillibrand's pivotal bill to help the sexual assault and violence epidemic in the military … and pointed out issues that mean something to us in real ways. That demand policy reforms.

Krystal then mentioned both Goldman Sachs and Walmart histories, which is fair for progressives to do. But this isn't the 1990's, and politicians have to be allowed to evolve - we as voters do, it's damned hypocritical to judge others for making the very important cultural and societal changes we are constantly demanding of ourselves and others.

No progressive that I know doesn't have perfectly reasonable hesitations about Hillary Clinton, and I think we should absolutely be Loud and Proud Progressives and voice our need for the party to swing back Left. How we get there is going to get dramatic. Or Not.

Guest Blake Zeff, of Salon and both Clinton and Obama Campaign War Rooms, was justifiably tough on the HRC economic hawk stances. (He had seen into both camps, fascinating.) Yet they went on to discuss how the Right is drawing Dems to the right of their own interests.

Bill Maher went after Hillary (hilariously) for having discussed her Sunday School days on Campaign Launch slash Book Tour ... and for awkwardly gaming out the Christian Nation faux requirement of religiousity.

It would be ideal if candidates did not 'must need' to be both churchgoing and Bible or Talmud familiar. In fact, it's downright toxic in many progressive eyes to know passages of the Bible, because they are so often used against us to push culture back by the Regressive Asshattery, the 1%ers and their news channel, Fvx Noise.

Inequality needs to be the central Democratic Platform anchor again. Firmly. Income inequality, gender discrimination, immigration reform, LGBTQ rights, world power and food share imbalances - the things we care about, the things we fight for.

"Hard Choices" indeed. Chris Christie and Rand Paul and Rick Perry are such lovely alternatives to a Hillary or Elizabeth Warren run.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare