MOODY — Few things in life are inevitable. The nomination of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 doesn’t have to be one of them. Democrats need to cool down, and consider a more meaningful choice.

Recent elections gave a hard-right Republican Party the reins of power in both the Senate and the House, as well as healthy majorities among governors and state legislatures. The current Supreme Court majority largely tilts sharply to the right.

That leaves only the presidency as an arena for liberals to select a leader to keep their causes alive until the political pendulum starts moving left once more. If experience is any teacher, a “Clinton Couple” White House will do little to keep the liberal flame burning. “Triangulation” and other moves to the center are more up their alley. And make no mistake, they’re an unbreakable team. When you elect one Clinton, you get them both, including a former president who was shamed and impeached for his shabby behavior.

Add to that the revelations that Hillary Clinton – improperly, if not illegally – used a personal email address for government business while she was secretary of state. And that’s not to mention the unconscionable worldwide money-collection agency she and her husband have become, with who-knows-what favors promised or owed. As The New York Times reported March 7, the Clinton family foundation “has come under scrutiny for its acceptance of millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments.”

Democrats, especially liberals, shouldn’t forget all the sour notes from the last Clinton administration: the North American Free Trade Agreement, the weakening of unions and the outsourcing of millions of middle-class jobs. A heartless welfare “reform” initiative. Ethical and moral lapses, including seamy sex scandals. Lying and evasions. Impeachment.

Since then, Hillary Clinton’s less-than-impressive turns in the Senate and State Department offer little to boast about in a presidential campaign.

Should Democrats nominate someone (the Clintons, e.g.) who could bargain away what remains of the party’s hard-fought victories, won over more than a half-century? Or rather, should they seek a candidate who, win or lose, will battle to advance the working middle class, fight bigotry, protect the needy and halt the rush toward an American plutocracy?

It’s useless and counterproductive for liberals, or for any Democrats, to support candidates who endlessly and fruitlessly seek accommodation with a reactionary Republican Party whose principal agenda is to bring them down and privatize America in order to further enrich the wealthy.

Moving toward the center these days is no bargain for the left, either, since the center already has moved so far to the right. In addition, if history is any judge, the Clintons will promise those on the left anything, then tell them that they have to wait behind all those mega-donors who have bought their way to the front of the line.

Thus, the left should refuse to be bowled over by an aura of Clinton inevitability, and look instead to Democratic Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Democratic Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown, independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (who has said that if he runs for president, it would be as a Democrat) and other true leaders who, like them, have stood up bravely on behalf of all Americans, not just the rich.

So, might it not be better even to risk loss in 2016 with a true Democratic leader who will campaign for liberal ideals, than to select Hillary Clinton who, even if she wins, is likely to engage in self-serving deals that could move the nation even further to the right?

Sens. Sanders, Warren or Brown would give liberals a base upon which to begin re-building. A second Clinton regime could give us more of the questionable and bad behavior of the first, while moving us even further away from any true liberal rebirth in the interests of all Americans.

And, besides, who says a hard-fighting liberal candidate might not win?

 

Copy the Story Link