Read about her take on things here:
That got me to thinking about the Big Tent.
I agree for two reasons. First, Hillary's response was the best tactic. She rejected the All-GOP-all-the-time frame--that Democrats, even those who've supported moderate Dems can be relabeled fringe, unpatriotic, anti-military, and on and on.
Just recently, Ann Couolter (add link) did a diatribe against "liberals' because they "hate the troops" and "hate America." Give me a break. That someone could utter this inflammatory, false and libelous bile, and do so over and over again without challenge, illustrates how low America has stooped in its tolerance for demonizing and bullying anyone outside the extant crop of insiders.
We ought not to jump on their bandwagons. But rather refute their outrageous attacks, even against those who are ("horrors!") more liberal than we. The treatment is the antithesis of a democracy, or a republic. We are losing the "fight" to save our Constitution and the right to dissent, folks. And we "progressives" are making it worse. Waste our time tackling Move-On? We have real fish to fry.
There's another reason why we'd be wrong to take on those more progressive, yeh, let's say it, liberal, than we are. We all know that the GOP carved its big-tent coalition with moderate, conservative and ultraconservative Republicans to sustain a stranglehold on the White House for most of my voting life. (Hint: That would be a really long time.)p>
I've lived through Watergate (which was about far more than a "third-rate burglary, thank you), Reagan's trashing of the New Deal and Great Society, and Clinton's and George W. Bush's death blows to meaningful regulation in this country. I've cringed at Clinton and Bush's orgy of handouts to coprorations in the guise of "privatization." And I've hung my head as they both sold out US workers with offshoring and outsourcing all the while claiming it was good for us. I know something about that, BTW. And it was not "good for us."
I've watched as Hillary was all to willing to build coalitions with the likes of Rupert Murdoch (getting what done that helps ordinary people?). She's taken more $$ from the health care industry than any other candidate of either party.
And I have no expectation that her health care plan can make an honest difference.
And yet, here she is at least doing what the rest of us ned to do: STand up to the fallacious framing and attacking of our own side. We can take issue with them, but, we don't need to pile on and marginalize them, when marginalze them is the opposite of what we should be doing?
Again, has anyone heard of teh big tent? And I started to think that Democrats know nothing about it. They seem to think the big tent means building coalitions with Republicans and selling it's base down the river. They think they can win based on our hard work and then dump XXXX on us when they win. Some even disparage us as wing-nuts, or worse. And they think we don't know what they say. But even Hillary knows better than this. The Hillary of the Carville machiavellis. Even she knows. Why are we so quick to diss move-on when it continues to do what we cannot. It marshalls the ability to advertize on a massive scale. It makes ads which are tough and include text that needs saying.
It's now the era in which corporations have rights and "freedoms." Actual people do not.