what a Hillary Clinton nomination means to Greens
In the first place, it bursts the bubble of those who claim that running a woman as our candidate is mandatory. Secondly, I'm assuming that Senator Obama will be the choice for Vice President. While this ticket would represent a historic first in American politics, does it mean that significant and meaningful progressive change is in the wings?
I'm extremely skeptical. More below the fold.
Let's be frank - The Clintons kicked environmentalists to the curb in favor of their corporate donors during the entire eight years of Bill's tenure. They did absolutely nothing to advance energy conservation or develop alternative energy resources. Even if you give them credit for attempting to raise the issue of national healthcare, the fact of the matter is that they failed to produce tangible results. Had the Clinton's been as steadfast about national healthcare as BushCo has been about the illegal occupation of I-wreck, we would have it today. As soon as they felt a little heat, they folded like cooked noodles.
Election reform under the Clintons - No chance.
Check out where the bribes are coming from here and here. Senator Clinton has already taken in a cool million dollars from the healthcare mafia who will call all of the shots if she is elected.
For Senator Obama's part, he joined the most whacked out member of the Senate, my own Senator Jim Bunning, in sponsoring coal gasification as a future energy policy. Despite all of the rhetoric, there can be no doubt this cat is for sale.
The bottom line folks is that real progressives cannot trust the Clintons. We need a candidate who represents our interests and gives us a viable alternative when we punch a lever - It's not the Clintons.
Technorati Tags: Bill Clinton Hillary Clinton Greens Barack Obama energy alternative energy election reform healthcare
HC as the Democratic candidate would certainly create less pressure on the Greens and would smooth Ralph's path to seeking the GPUS nomination (which I support). The progressive community would be in a similar position as in 2000 (far more similar to that year than to 2004) and it would be much easier for GPUS candidates to demonstrate the stark differences between them and the Democrats, as well as the equally stark similarities between HC's record and any of the top shelf Republicans who are likely to be her major party opponent.
I've maintained on numerous occasions here that a Hillary Clinton nomination would give the Green Party a unique window of opportunity for expansion. The key would be the credibility of the Green candidate and his/her ability to articulate the progressive positions of the party on numerous issues across the board. This would directly tie in with respective state party efforts to gain ballot access in a sufficient amount of states to be competitive.
At this point, I believe it is safe to state that any potential candidate who would be successful in these regards would have to have as great a stature and name recognition as Mr. Nader in order to fully maximize the windfall Greens are likely to experience as a result of a Hillary Clinton nomination by the Democrats.