I stand by my prior proof that according to world standards, Clinton/Barack and Edwards are all right wingers. And, let’s leave it at that, shall we?

When I heard that the electorate thought Hillary was to the left of Obama and Edwards I knew they were very confused. Still, I find it curious that the chart puts Obama so far North, into Authoritarianism, especially compared to Hillary.

There are, of course, some other ways to measure the candidates left v. right positions. Which are more tied in to corporate money? Is Hillary to the right because of that? I guess I prefer her to Obama in part because I read his Republican rhetoric and think authoritarian instead of just right v. left and I personally have some libertarian instincts (muted), so Hillary satisfies that more than anyone else except Edwards.

One that amazes me is Kucinich. Sure, he’s to the left. There’s no doubt about that, but isn’t he quite authoritarian too? I guess I don’t know his policies as well as I thought.

I’m not too surprised almost all the candidates are on the Northern side of the middle line. America is a powerful country and we use that power, ergo authoritarian appearing policies. But, there could still be distinctions made between enabling vs. oppressing policies within the authoritarian upper half of the chart.

Left v. Right is again no surprise. We reject socialism because it has been tied so closely to authoritarian German/Italian Fascism and Russian Communism. Perhaps we should find our recent Fascism unappealing too and find a way South for a while.

I wonder where they’d place Dubya on that chart.

What strikes me the most about recent events is the degree to which she has learned to mimic, copy, and plaguerize from Obama.

I would think that Hillary and her handlers know perfectly well that they’ll never get called on such louche behavior. And they also realize that most of their audience are so naive and casual about the political game that the theft of concept won’t be understood a’tall by 98% of the audience.

She looked calculating as she focused not on the crowd but on a talking points card in her mind.

Absolutely.

Hillary looks calculating because in a group of people who are always calculating, she is the most calculating at all times, in every choice she makes.

What strikes me the most about recent events is the degree to which she has learned to mimic, copy, and plaguerize from Obama.

But I will vote for any Democrat this time, and believe most of us will.

Whitebeard, you are the grey eminence of well-considered logic and astute observation. I didn’t want to get into bashing the ADA, but I’m New Left and as far as I’m concerned those liberal twits were an irrelevancy on the Left when I first analyzed them in 1968 and they’ve only become more irrelevant with every passing generation.

One of the things that I really dislike about the American Left is that the socialist/anarchist/communist roots of the movement were eviscerated by anti-communist and corporate friendly groups like the ADA that acted more or less in the same fashion as company unions and other ersatz populist front organizations. Let’s leave it at that. I’m glad to have gotten your contribution on the ADA. You nailed ‘em.

It would also be good to know how NV’s (didn’t vote) are treated in the method because Obama has a marked tendency to abstain from voting on issues where his vote might be used as political leverage against him.

The reason I spend much of both posts talking about past primaries is that I’m making a point about the historical difficulty of progressives getting the democratic nomination. How can you continually decontextualize my comments?

I can be a simpleton when it serves my purposes. (grin)

Actually, what I should say is that I understand now, I believe, what you are attempting to say. To paraphrase it would be along the lines of “due to the constraints upon the Left, the current crop of candidates are about as progresive as we’re likely to be offered, so we might as well label ‘em progressives.” Or words to that effect. I stand by my prior proof that according to world standards, Clinton/Barack and Edwards are all right wingers. And, let’s leave it at that, shall we? Thanks.

Ummm, no. I said *points up* that “She could have done the right thing and followed party discipline” sounds Stalinist/Maoist. The meme/frame you called up equating party discipline with the right thing evokes Stalinist/Maoist images. The party is always right. You must do as the party decides.

Your clear admiration for this brand of authoritarianism is apparent in your statement above: “the Republican Party: they obtained a majority in Congress, the White House and now the SCOTUS because of party discipline.” Yes, the Republicans did what they did because they maintained party discipline, but most Americans believe that what they did was NOT the right thing to do.

I can feel your anger at what Republicans have done but the solution is NOT to emulate their tactics. As the histories of Stalin and Mao have shown us evil can come roaring out of the left through party discipline just as well as through the right. Party discipline is NOT a good thing, it is the antithesis of democracy.

(And I’m done speaking with you on this so if you’d like to say again that you bet you won’t get a reply: this time you’ll be right.)