I wouldn’t project it into a progressive lens, at least not first.
You need to contextualize the moment Hillary’ and the country are in 2008-2016. There had been an anti-war movement as soon as the war plans were announced, but it was dutifully ignored by corporate media, in accordance with American tradition. The American economy was being swept by the peak of the “great-recession”, occupy wall street happens around this time. But that energy really doesn’t get funneled into electoral politics until much later. It was grass-roots, outside power almost exclusively in the context of that time. Many of the leftist orgs that are now considered passe would have been avant-garde in that time (code pink etc). And keep in mind, Hillary was an opponent of Obama. She lost an election, and badly, speaking like this.
Political Progressivism as we understand it today doesn’t really become a thing in the US until Bernie taps into that occupy wall street energy (really, as a direct effect of the both hope given to, and subsequent failure of, the Obama administration) and funnels it into electoral politics.
Disagree, I think you have your timeline mixed up.
The 2016 election occurred well after Occupy Wallstreet, and Bernie Sanders and the progressive wing in the democrats felt snubbed in 2016, which is why many of them stayed home.
I know this because I was one of them, and I will have to live with that decision for the rest of my life.
Edit: I am not realizing you might be referring to the 2008 primary election, I’m talking about the 2016 presidential election here and in my original comment. Contextually it (your response) makes sense based on the date of the video, so I get your point, but not what I was talking about.
Yeah I’m talking about her in the 2007/8/9 time period. Just that a progressive or even vaguely left win element in electoral hadn’t manifested politically. Those ideas and political power were 100% outside power at the time. So its a bit anachronistic to use the term progressive because in the 2008 time period when this was said we really didn’t neccessarily use that word. At the time might use the term “anti-war” for the same basket of policies. That period was also just after the peak of the neo-cons where the litmus test among Democrats was being “anti-war”, and obviously, Hillary failed that.
I wouldn’t project it into a progressive lens, at least not first.
You need to contextualize the moment Hillary’ and the country are in 2008-2016. There had been an anti-war movement as soon as the war plans were announced, but it was dutifully ignored by corporate media, in accordance with American tradition. The American economy was being swept by the peak of the “great-recession”, occupy wall street happens around this time. But that energy really doesn’t get funneled into electoral politics until much later. It was grass-roots, outside power almost exclusively in the context of that time. Many of the leftist orgs that are now considered passe would have been avant-garde in that time (code pink etc). And keep in mind, Hillary was an opponent of Obama. She lost an election, and badly, speaking like this.
Political Progressivism as we understand it today doesn’t really become a thing in the US until Bernie taps into that occupy wall street energy (really, as a direct effect of the both hope given to, and subsequent failure of, the Obama administration) and funnels it into electoral politics.
Disagree, I think you have your timeline mixed up.
The 2016 election occurred well after Occupy Wallstreet, and Bernie Sanders and the progressive wing in the democrats felt snubbed in 2016, which is why many of them stayed home.
I know this because I was one of them, and I will have to live with that decision for the rest of my life.
Edit: I am not realizing you might be referring to the 2008 primary election, I’m talking about the 2016 presidential election here and in my original comment. Contextually it (your response) makes sense based on the date of the video, so I get your point, but not what I was talking about.
re edit:
Yeah I’m talking about her in the 2007/8/9 time period. Just that a progressive or even vaguely left win element in electoral hadn’t manifested politically. Those ideas and political power were 100% outside power at the time. So its a bit anachronistic to use the term progressive because in the 2008 time period when this was said we really didn’t neccessarily use that word. At the time might use the term “anti-war” for the same basket of policies. That period was also just after the peak of the neo-cons where the litmus test among Democrats was being “anti-war”, and obviously, Hillary failed that.