Let's have video fun with #HillarySoProgressive at the #DemTownHall

I started tuning out Hillary Clinton more and more after her "George Bush hypnotized me into the Iraq War" answer about halfway through. That's because, of course, her actual past, as captured on non-fun video, refudiates her.



I didn't see that video until after the debate, thanks to a retweet by Brains and Eggs.

But, I did start thinking about videos at various points during the debate, and so now, on to the airing of grievances.

First, in relation to the rabbi's two pockets question, we have Gollum and "what has it got in its pocketses"?



Speaking of, doesn't Gollum look a bit like Lloyd Blankfein of GoddamSachs? I have no experience with videoshopping, but in straight photoshopping, could easily make that happen.

Then, thinking of Hilary's neoliberal non-roar? Helen Reddy was probably throwing up in her mouth, wherever she is these days:



Hillary, did you "roar" 675,000 times?

And "Down on Wall Street (stuck in the corner)" is certainly no CCR:



No common touch from her.

Of course, her answers on the Iraq War and her $675K bankster speaking fees only increased her "credibility gap" with me. Speaking of "credibility gap," I thought you'd never ask:

I guess I'm just not that progressive again this week

I tweeted about my sarcasm last week, but this is a bit too long for that.

There's an alliance of bloggers for the Pointy Abandoned Object State™ (and I'm going to blog more about that and riffing on Jim Moore sometime) that does a roundup of top progressive blogs by its membership each week (well, except for member bloggers who, for various reasons, don't even have one worthy submission each week), then at the end, lists "other blog posts of interest."

I'm not sure exactly when it votes, but let's say it's some time Saturday afternoon.

So, talking about Child Abuse Prevention Month, some of its socio-economic background, and why addressing income inequality would probably help address it, is is less progressive than:
1. Warning parents away from live bunnies and ducklings as Easter gifts (Not "progressive," per se and it's covered every year by media);
2. An air kiss to Wendy Davis with an Upworthy-esque reverse straw man set up, something like "You'll be amazed that Wendy Davis' campaign managed to do what other Democratic campaigns have done in Republican-leaning states before";
3. Reprinting four Texas names from a list from Out magazine, a list which is about celebrity and money within the LGBT world, not about LGBT issues itself, and without any real further commentary.

It's not even a question of "less progressive." The "other blogs of interest" is short enough it could easily have one or two more. A week ago, depending on exact voting cutoff dates, a business tizzy between craft beer and big brewers made the mystical cut ahead of me advising Green gubernatorial candidate Brandon Parmer not to suspend his campaign for an air kiss with Wendy Davis. Or, the week before, my advising "efficient government" conservatives on one specific way — driver's licenses — they could live up to their self-billing, could have been cut-worthy.

Yes, I blog about things besides politics. But, I have at least one solidly liberal blog post a week. (Note: "liberal" ≠ "Democratic.")

And, I'm snarky enough, I may start doing this on a regular basis. Or I may not, but, I wanted to do this at least once. And, if I get feedback, I might do it again. If I get backlash, I'll very definitely do it again.

No, I'm not a genius at this. But, I'm better than that.

Progressives, environmentalists, and worker exploitation

Years ago, both professional environmentalists and professional progressives "lost" much of working America. In some cases, this was workers' fault. Resisting building green, fuel-efficient cars is a prime example; despite what Detroit said, the Japanese built more, and ever-better ones, and sold boatloads. Or, some racial issues back in the 60s and 70s, when many unions still weren't always broad-minded, are another example.

At other times, especially today, though, professional progressive and environmental organizations are the ones doing the "losing."

Take organizations that (as you may have seen on some job alerts, at places such as Idealist) that offer to hire people for just under $24K a year in the name of starting up some new district office vaguely dedicated to progressive or environmental issues. Fair Share Alliance is the latest of these, which seem to change names every 6-9 months.

Well, when it changed names to Fair Share Alliance, thinking it might be different, I actually applied. And got to the initial phone interview round.

First, if the office calling me was typical, organization or similar skills that people are supposed to learn aren't being taught a lot. But that's secondary.

I was told the job could often run around 60 hours a week.

And that means, at $23,750, people are literally being paid the equivalent of minimum wage if they were on wage not salary.

Do the math. Take 40 hours at $7.25 and another 20 at time and a half, and you'll end up at around $23,750.

So, if such "progressive" organizations are teaching young, would-be liberal activists a lesson, if any, it's about how inside-the-Beltway groups of multiple political stripes can and will be exploitative.

Nice "lesson," eh?

Nooners isn't totally out to lunch

Peggy Noonan actually gets the "professional left" (and we amateurs as well) partially right.

This isn't the language of disagreement, the classic to-and-fro between a restive base and politicians who make compromises. This is the language of estrangement. It is the language of alienation.

There is a war beginning in the Democratic Party, and the president has lost control of his base.

That said, this guarantees no "rout" for the GOP, Ms. Nooners. Instead, per Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels saying GOP candidates shouldn't go (too) negative, many independents may wind up staying at home. For establishment Democrats like Obama, that's probably their best hope.

So, she's still not totally there.

Prop. 23 - The final failure of early 20th-century Progressivism?

The Big Oil-funded Proposition 23 in California, if it succeeds, may well spell the end to early 20th century Gov. Hiram Johnson's three-legged stool of progressive reforms of a century ago. Andrew Leonard has some thoughts on this proposition itself, but doesn't carry his reasoning nearly far enough.

It's clear that all three of the three legs of Hiram Johnson's stool of initiative, referendum and recall are broken.

The Davis fiasco (thank doorknob Issa wasn't elected to replace him) showed Big Money could corrupt recalls.

The initiative process has already long been corrupted.

And, as Prop. 23 is a referendum on previous state actions, not just an initiative, it looks like that third leg is about to disintegrate, too.