Hillary won more votes for President

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Free said:

With Trump Sure to Lose, Forget About a Progressive Clinton

http://m.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/with_trump_sure_to_lose_forget_about_a_progressive_clinton_20160815

I can understand why some might want to support Hillary to defeat Trump but describing HRC as "progressive" is beyond imagining. It's like saying The Partridge Family are hare core punk.

I'm progressive and she is progressive enough for me. Are you the keeper of the definition or do we all get opinions?

I've never told anyone that they are not allowed their opinion. If you believe that you are hallucinating.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Free said:

With Trump Sure to Lose, Forget About a Progressive Clinton

http://m.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/with_trump_sure_to_lose_forget_about_a_progressive_clinton_20160815

I can understand why some might want to support Hillary to defeat Trump but describing HRC as "progressive" is beyond imagining. It's like saying The Partridge Family are hare core punk.

I'm progressive and she is progressive enough for me. Are you the keeper of the definition or do we all get opinions?

I've never told anyone that they are not allowed their opinion. If you believe that you are hallucinating.

Believe what? That HRC is progressive enough for mrussel1? I would say that mrussel1 is the leading authority on that subject.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Free said:

With Trump Sure to Lose, Forget About a Progressive Clinton

http://m.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/with_trump_sure_to_lose_forget_about_a_progressive_clinton_20160815

I can understand why some might want to support Hillary to defeat Trump but describing HRC as "progressive" is beyond imagining. It's like saying The Partridge Family are hare core punk.

I'm progressive and she is progressive enough for me. Are you the keeper of the definition or do we all get opinions?

I've never told anyone that they are not allowed their opinion. If you believe that you are hallucinating.

Believe what? That HRC is progressive enough for mrussel1? I would say that mrussel1 is the leading authority on that subject.

No, I mean with regards to him asking "do we all get opinions". Sure! You bet!

mrussel1

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

i think compared to the RNC, trump and the like ... people appear to be progressive but in a more objective look ... likely isn't ...

So is our POTUS a progressive or conservative?

definitely not a progressive but that could be just tied into the system ... i could see if he lived elsewhere - he probably would be one ...

There will be very little daylight between his policies and HRC's, in my estimation. I wonder if she will get the same benefit of the doubt from liberals.

It sounds like people use the the terms progressive and liberal interchangeably. I don't. I think a liberal is to the left of a progressive. I think the latter are more incrementalists.

for sure their policies will be the same ... that's been the crux of much of what I have been writing on this board ... the system is rigged by the establishment to cater to the establishment ... not gonna change under clinton or trump ...

in any case - I do believe personally that Obama is a progressive at heart but not Clinton ... not by any stretch ...

key issues if you are a progressive:
* anti-war
* anti-corporate welfare
* pro environment

Along with:
- Woman's right to choose
- Implementation of Obergfell
- criminal justice reform
- SCOTUS
- Path to citizenship
- Protection of the progressive tax system
- BLM

I could go on and on. As far as I can tell Clinton and Obama are aligned on these issues. Yet one is in his heart a progressive, but the other is not. I don't claim to have the unique skill of reading hearts, I just have to read votes, debates and public proclamations.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Free said:

With Trump Sure to Lose, Forget About a Progressive Clinton

http://m.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/with_trump_sure_to_lose_forget_about_a_progressive_clinton_20160815

I can understand why some might want to support Hillary to defeat Trump but describing HRC as "progressive" is beyond imagining. It's like saying The Partridge Family are hare core punk.

I'm progressive and she is progressive enough for me. Are you the keeper of the definition or do we all get opinions?

I've never told anyone that they are not allowed their opinion. If you believe that you are hallucinating.

Believe what? That HRC is progressive enough for mrussel1? I would say that mrussel1 is the leading authority on that subject.

No, I mean with regards to him asking "do we all get opinions". Sure! You bet!

Oohhh, I see, sorry. Yeah, you've never discouraged opinions!
As for HRC and being progressive.... I think that she isn't hugely progressive, but she's not hugely un-progressive either. I think she has been extremely vilified by the anti-Hillary media, and that a lot of people appear to be falling for it, hook, line and sinker. It has really snowballed and I think it's become pretty ridiculous at this point.

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

Free said:

With Trump Sure to Lose, Forget About a Progressive Clinton

http://m.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/with_trump_sure_to_lose_forget_about_a_progressive_clinton_20160815

I can understand why some might want to support Hillary to defeat Trump but describing HRC as "progressive" is beyond imagining. It's like saying The Partridge Family are hare core punk.

I'm progressive and she is progressive enough for me. Are you the keeper of the definition or do we all get opinions?

I've never told anyone that they are not allowed their opinion. If you believe that you are hallucinating.

You said calling Clinton a progressive is 'beyond imagining', yet her votes clearly indicate she is one. If you want to say "Clinton is not progressive enough for me" or "not by my definition", then fine. But there is no one definition or litmus test on being a progressive, liberal, conservative or moderate.

brianlux

Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html

polaris_x

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

mrussel1 said:

polaris_x said:

i think compared to the RNC, trump and the like ... people appear to be progressive but in a more objective look ... likely isn't ...

So is our POTUS a progressive or conservative?

definitely not a progressive but that could be just tied into the system ... i could see if he lived elsewhere - he probably would be one ...

There will be very little daylight between his policies and HRC's, in my estimation. I wonder if she will get the same benefit of the doubt from liberals.

It sounds like people use the the terms progressive and liberal interchangeably. I don't. I think a liberal is to the left of a progressive. I think the latter are more incrementalists.

for sure their policies will be the same ... that's been the crux of much of what I have been writing on this board ... the system is rigged by the establishment to cater to the establishment ... not gonna change under clinton or trump ...

in any case - I do believe personally that Obama is a progressive at heart but not Clinton ... not by any stretch ...

key issues if you are a progressive:
* anti-war
* anti-corporate welfare
* pro environment

Along with:
- Woman's right to choose
- Implementation of Obergfell
- criminal justice reform
- SCOTUS
- Path to citizenship
- Protection of the progressive tax system
- BLM

I could go on and on. As far as I can tell Clinton and Obama are aligned on these issues. Yet one is in his heart a progressive, but the other is not. I don't claim to have the unique skill of reading hearts, I just have to read votes, debates and public proclamations.

the first two are table stakes these days ... and the others are not really progressive issues except maybe the tax system which is clearly not in favour of progressives now ... also, the nomination of kaine as a running mate is not really a progressive move ...

again - obama's policies are NOT progressive ... at all ... all I'm saying is that if Obama lived elsewhere - I could see him being a progressive ...

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html

But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html

But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.

I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.

But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?

mrussel1

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html

But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.

I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.

But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?

No. Only a certified moron would think Green Day is punk. Green Day is part of the so called 'alternative' 90s rock, when really they are nothing but establishment shills, playing festivals, making albums, and releasing songs to terestial radio. They are in no way punk and anyone who thinks so is a sheeple.

Anyway, back to my point. I hate when people have some litmus test of purity, like there can't be a 'degree' of something...

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html

But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.

I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.

But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?

No. Only a certified moron would think Green Day is punk. Green Day is part of the so called 'alternative' 90s rock, when really they are nothing but establishment shills, playing festivals, making albums, and releasing songs to terestial radio. They are in no way punk and anyone who thinks so is a sheeple.

Anyway, back to my point. I hate when people have some litmus test of purity, like there can't be a 'degree' of something...

Gotta be awfully careful about how bands are described these days. You never know whose favorite rock band could be described as having segued from small/ independent/feisty/uncompromising to corporate/festival playing/radio friendly/"sellouts". More and more, I try to avoid those kinds of characterizations- at least publicly. In any case, I listen to what I like. And I must say, I still like Dookie.

"like there can't be a 'degree' of something" Sure, why not! Hillary is only moderately like a modern day Republican- certainly not as far right as many of them are today. I would be OK with giving her that much.

mrussel1

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html

But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.

I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.

But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?

No. Only a certified moron would think Green Day is punk. Green Day is part of the so called 'alternative' 90s rock, when really they are nothing but establishment shills, playing festivals, making albums, and releasing songs to terestial radio. They are in no way punk and anyone who thinks so is a sheeple.

Anyway, back to my point. I hate when people have some litmus test of purity, like there can't be a 'degree' of something...

Gotta be awfully careful about how bands are described these days. You never know whose favorite rock band could be described as having segued from small/ independent/feisty/uncompromising to corporate/festival playing/radio friendly/"sellouts". More and more, I try to avoid those kinds of characterizations- at least publicly. In any case, I listen to what I like. And I must say, I still like Dookie.

"like there can't be a 'degree' of something" Sure, why not! Hillary is only moderately like a modern day Republican- certainly not as far right as many of them are today. I would be OK with giving her that much.

My post was written entirely in jest, contradicting my stance on HRC. Green Day definitely has some punk elements although I wouldn't call them punk. I do know that guys from CA usually don't sing with a British accent, but oh well. I do think that American Idiot was one of the better rock albums of the first part of this century, although there is a dearth of options.

lukin2006

.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html

But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.

I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.

But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?

But that's the problem. More money behind her actually doesn't = not a progressive. I don't understand where this correlation was invented, but it seems like total bullshit to me. It's like suddenly "progressive" in politics is supposed to mean something else all together. I don't think people can just hijack the meaning of such a term in politics and then say that those who used to apply to the term don't anymore. That isn't how it works. To me, that is the kind of dirty tactic the media likes to take. I don't think your Green Day/Punk example works here at all.

brianlux

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

mrussel1 said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html

But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.

I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.

But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?

No. Only a certified moron would think Green Day is punk. Green Day is part of the so called 'alternative' 90s rock, when really they are nothing but establishment shills, playing festivals, making albums, and releasing songs to terestial radio. They are in no way punk and anyone who thinks so is a sheeple.

Anyway, back to my point. I hate when people have some litmus test of purity, like there can't be a 'degree' of something...

Gotta be awfully careful about how bands are described these days. You never know whose favorite rock band could be described as having segued from small/ independent/feisty/uncompromising to corporate/festival playing/radio friendly/"sellouts". More and more, I try to avoid those kinds of characterizations- at least publicly. In any case, I listen to what I like. And I must say, I still like Dookie.

"like there can't be a 'degree' of something" Sure, why not! Hillary is only moderately like a modern day Republican- certainly not as far right as many of them are today. I would be OK with giving her that much.

My post was written entirely in jest, contradicting my stance on HRC. Green Day definitely has some punk elements although I wouldn't call them punk. I do know that guys from CA usually don't sing with a British accent, but oh well. I do think that American Idiot was one of the better rock albums of the first part of this century, although there is a dearth of options.

Or New York! On Ramones early stuff, Joey sounds like he's trying to sound a bit Brit. But lots of love for Joey! And yeah, American Idiot has some great stuff.

My post was written a bit in jest as well... but I still can't see how HRC is progressive. I think we have to agree to a stale mate on that one.

mrussel1

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html

But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.

I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.

But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?

But that's the problem. More money behind her actually doesn't = not a progressive. I don't understand where this correlation was invented, but it seems like total bullshit to me. It's like suddenly "progressive" in politics is supposed to mean something else all together. I don't think people can just hijack the meaning of such a term in politics and then say that those who used to apply to the term don't anymore. That isn't how it works. To me, that is the kind of dirty tactic the media likes to take. I don't think your Green Day/Punk example works here at all.

Very perceptive post. The term has been hijacked and it applies, evidently, to one issue evidently. And that issue is populist economic agenda. Excellent thought by you, PJ_Soul..

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html

But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.

I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.

But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?

But that's the problem. More money behind her actually doesn't = not a progressive. I don't understand where this correlation was invented, but it seems like total bullshit to me. It's like suddenly "progressive" in politics is supposed to mean something else all together. I don't think people can just hijack the meaning of such a term in politics and then say that those who used to apply to the term don't anymore. That isn't how it works. To me, that is the kind of dirty tactic the media likes to take. I don't think your Green Day/Punk example works here at all.

It's not so much about how much money she has as it is about how much she is indebted to and in bed with big money. And even big money people sometimes do good things but only about as often as it gets hot in Seattle in January.

PJ_Soul

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html

But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.

I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.

But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?

But that's the problem. More money behind her actually doesn't = not a progressive. I don't understand where this correlation was invented, but it seems like total bullshit to me. It's like suddenly "progressive" in politics is supposed to mean something else all together. I don't think people can just hijack the meaning of such a term in politics and then say that those who used to apply to the term don't anymore. That isn't how it works. To me, that is the kind of dirty tactic the media likes to take. I don't think your Green Day/Punk example works here at all.

It's not so much about how much money she has as it is about how much she is indebted to and in bed with big money. And even big money people sometimes do good things but only about as often as it gets hot in Seattle in January.

Yes, I wasn't talking about personal wealth. But this is what I'm saying. Just because she is "in bed with big money", that doesn't mean you can just make the leap to "anti-progressive". Big money isn't actually a big one-headed monster that means one thing to all people, and doesn't define progressiveness in and of itself. I.e. HRC could be "in bed" with big money... and some of that money could be coming from a big bad company that is starting to seriously look at investment in alternate energy manufacturing or something. Or simply big bad companies that also publicly support LBGT rights and pro-choice and donate to progressive charities (all while doing its other awful big bad business stuff, like union busting). This massive "big money" blanket is a bit of a sham in this particular context. As though progressives can't be in bed with corporations. Hahahahaha. Since when???

brianlux

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

PJ_Soul said:

brianlux said:

Just to be clear, everyone is allowed to have their own definition of "progressive". It's sort of like "punk rock". Is Green Day punk? You get to choose! For my own thinking, this pretty much sums up how I see Hillary Clinton with regard to being progressive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walker-bragman/hillary-clinton-is-no-pro_b_9204690.html

But there is a big difference between "Progressive? Or not so much?" and what some have been saying about Hillary (yourself included). From what I can tell, the discussion is like, "HRC is the more progressive of the two major party leaders."..... "Wrong, Hillary is a right-winger in Democrat clothing and sociopath!!". When in fact, Hillary is a pretty standard Democrat for the most part. She isn't that much different than Obama in fact, but with more money behind her. She's just not as charming and cool as Obama is.

I think a lot of us find that the "more money behind her" part is what is a strong indicator that she really is not a progressive.

But forget that. What I really want to know is, do you think Green Day is punk or no?

But that's the problem. More money behind her actually doesn't = not a progressive. I don't understand where this correlation was invented, but it seems like total bullshit to me. It's like suddenly "progressive" in politics is supposed to mean something else all together. I don't think people can just hijack the meaning of such a term in politics and then say that those who used to apply to the term don't anymore. That isn't how it works. To me, that is the kind of dirty tactic the media likes to take. I don't think your Green Day/Punk example works here at all.

It's not so much about how much money she has as it is about how much she is indebted to and in bed with big money. And even big money people sometimes do good things but only about as often as it gets hot in Seattle in January.

Yes, I wasn't talking about personal wealth. But this is what I'm saying. Just because she is "in bed with big money", that doesn't mean you can just make the leap to "anti-progressive". Big money isn't actually a big one-headed monster that means one thing to all people, and doesn't define progressiveness in and of itself. I.e. HRC could be "in bed" with big money... and some of that money could be coming from a big bad company that is starting to seriously look at investment in alternate energy manufacturing or something. Or simply big bad companies that also publicly support LBGT rights and pro-choice and donate to progressive charities (all while doing its other awful big bad business stuff, like union busting). This massive "big money" blanket is a bit of a sham in this particular context. As though progressives can't be in bed with corporations. Hahahahaha. Since when???

I guess it goes back to the question of how we define "progressive". It becomes circular!

Speaking of circular, Circle Jerks- now that's punk!