Top Menu

Challenging Clinton: Adam Green Shows Progressives How It’s Done [Video]

Adam Green makes his progressive populist case as part of the "Elizabeth Warren wing" of the Democratic Party.

Adam Green made his progressive populist case as part of the “Elizabeth Warren wing” of the Democratic Party on Chuck Todd’s MSNBC show on Monday.

“There’s been consensus in both parties since the 1990s Clinton days where big corporations run the show and both parties suck up to them and everything else falls into place from there,” he said. “The Elizabeth Warren wing really believes in challenging the current state of who has power and who has influence.” [Washington Post]

THE PROGRESSIVES looking to challenge a potential Hillary Clinton candidacy have not yet shown the spine required. Making the populist case, challenging the Wall Street establishment core that grips both political parties, is a good way to take on Clinton’s powerful coalition. However, it’s lacking the bold courage that also requires an action plan, which Adam Green began to supply, with gusto, on Chuck Todd’s show Monday morning.




When you begin your progressive offense, recently represented by Krystal Ball, it’s killed before you even start by saying you “deeply respect” Clinton’s “strong intellect” and that she was “strong” at State, and also “effective” and “hardworking” in the Senate. Oh, but wait! She’s just the wrong candidate now. People said that in 2008, too, so it’s not only unoriginal, but reveals that Ball and others making the same case — there are many — simply lack the courage to say they don’t want Clinton to be president.

You can’t have it both ways.

It should be noted that Senator Elizabeth Warren didn’t ask for the rarified place she now inhabits, let alone her own “wing” of the Democratic Party, which Adam Green trumpeted today. That doesn’t mean she doesn’t deserve it as the most articulate politician today for the progressive economic vision.

Having great respect for Senator Elizabeth Warren, and believing she’s most valuable in the Senate, her foreign policy deficit weighs large for me, as does her lack of relationships in the seats of power inside the intelligence and military industrial complex of fortress America, which (unfortunately) runs the half of the country that Wall Street doesn’t. On economics, I’m also not convinced that adversarial relationship alone is how you run a country, though it’s exactly what is needed in Congress standing up against the establishment party leaders. That Warren would be even more valuable if Clinton happened to successfully run the presidential gauntlet successfully should be clear.

From Philip Rucker and Dan Balz’s column this weekend on what’s happening inside the Democratic Party:

“One of the biggest failings of the Democratic Party,” Stern said, “is that its funders come from its traditional side of the economic spectrum and its voters come from a more populist, distributive side of the economic agenda.”

Former Montana governor Brian Schweitzer said, “I think the party increasingly is responding to the special interests they need to get elected — the military-industrial complex, big energy, pharmaceutical companies, banks.”

Wall Street won’t back a populist candidate or a party representing the “Elizabeth Warren wing,” that’s for sure. Unite Blue doesn’t want them to.

The good news for Democrats is that Adam Green and his allies are ready to challenge Clinton on economic policy.

What’s missing on the progressive side are candidates who can seriously challenge Hillary Clinton.

This is a debate worth having in the Democratic primary and it’s obvious that Adam Green and his progressive allies are going to make sure it happens. However, they still need a candidate(s) to represent them for 2016.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

7 Responses to Challenging Clinton: Adam Green Shows Progressives How It’s Done [Video]

  1. ladywalker68 February 17, 2014 at 2:10 pm #

    Great analysis, yet again! The money phrase: “What’s missing on the progressive side are candidates who can seriously challenge Hillary Clinton.”

    With an emphasis on the word SERIOUSLY.

    • Taylor Marsh February 17, 2014 at 5:51 pm #

      Appreciate it very much, ladywalker68.

      Emphasis, indeed.

  2. lynnette February 17, 2014 at 6:22 pm #

    I think it’s a healthy debate and I tend to agree with Adam Green on policy and strategy. Having said that, I wouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good in the long run. I would also consider the question of who can win an election. Great discussion.

  3. PeggySue February 17, 2014 at 8:13 pm #

    Who can win the election is what it’s all about. And who can stitch an alliance between the progressive and more conservative elements within the Democratic Party is the candidate who will succeed, not simply in a primary but in the general. I agree with Dan Balz: Hillary Clinton needs to come up with something new, a vision of her own to sell to the American public–across the board to Democrats and Democratic-leaning Indies. Voters are desperate for true leadership, someone who will take the helm and steer the ship of state in a clear, positive direction.

    Hillary Clinton is not Bill Clinton. She’s not Barack Obama. She is who she is–the best and most experienced presidential candidate out there. From either party. I thought that in 2008. I think that now even more.

    And oh yes, she happens to be a woman :0).

    I love Elizabeth Warren. But please, by all that’s holy, let Warren remain in the Senate where her inspiring voice and energy will continue to push the dialogue to the left. She’s not ready for a national election. Pretending otherwise is delusional IMHO.

    Leave the purity tests to the Tea Party set, where they’ve done so-o-o much good for the GOP. Mass suicide is not a pretty sight.

    Btw, I listened to Schweitzer speak to the Keystone Pipeline and environmental concerns. Absolutely disastrous in his total disregard to the risk, legitimate spill worries and the private property pushback. Even his tone was condescending. Not the way to win hearts and minds.

    I’m confident that HRC will be able to answer the progressive complaint. In fact, I look forward to it.

    • lynnette February 17, 2014 at 8:33 pm #

      Well said, PeggySue. I think HRC can rise to the occasion and build the necessary alliances, too. And you’re right about her being her own person. I always thought she was to the left of both her husband and President Obama on economic issues. I think the debate is healthy, though.

      • PeggySue February 17, 2014 at 9:20 pm #

        I agree, Lynnette. The debate is healthy and inevitable. But the general tone of the progressive argument–she’s too old, she’s a Bill Clinton clone, she’ll merely perpetuate the Obama/Bush years–drives me a little crazy. And as much as I admire Elizabeth Warren, HRC trumps everyone in a national head-to-head. Plus Warren has said ‘no,’ repeatedly. Honestly, I don’t think she’s ready for the national whiplash.

        So, let the debates begin.Though it’s a wee bit premature. Hillary has yet to declare and present her personal vision for 2016 and beyond. And the progressives [for all their howling] need to come up with someone other than Elizabeth Warren.

        As far as the populist message? I don’t know how much stronger a candidate can get than that Ohio speech in 2008. In the rain no less: “This for everyone who has ever been counted down and out.”

        if she channels that message, that speech, she can’t go wrong. It was exhilarating.

        • Taylor Marsh February 17, 2014 at 11:24 pm #

          Loved reading your comments!

          People forget HRC as first lady was against NAFTA.

          Again, thanks for weighing in.

          Important debate to have & Green did a great job, mincing no words.

.... a writer is someone who takes the universal whore of language
and turns her into a virgin again.  ~ erica jong