The answer my friend...

There's not one issue that I disagree with in this piece about how the Democratic Party gives Liberals short shrift...other than the call for Liberals to ultimately break with the Democratic Party.

I, too, hold many of the views in this piece about what the Democratic Party actually believes (though, um, the piece never really answers the question)--other than the drivel at the end about how it may eventually take a third party to change the economic agenda of our nation.

Both pieces ostensibly are calls to arms about the inevitability of one Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the 45th President of the United States.  Unlike when President Obama was first elected, I harbor no illusions that Hillary Clinton will be an economic populist and usher in a new era for American's working class.  There's as much chance of that as there is of her nominating me to be her Secretary of Labor (I'd be great though--my platform?  "Don't like unions?  Fuck you!").

What I do know, though, is that Hillary Clinton will not be Ronald Reagan putting a dagger in the heart of organized labor, killing wage growth, pensions, and employee covered healthcare (yes, boys and girls, when I first began working I paid $0.00 for my family's healthcare coverage), and beginning the income inequality downward spiral that hasn't stopped yet.  She also won't be Bush the Lesser who put a dagger in the middle class and killed its net worth, stagnated its wages, and put together a Supreme Court that only the Chamber of Commerce (and Corporate America) could love.

I don't believe anymore that we'll elect a true Liberal Democrat to the Presidency in my lifetime.  But I believe we will in my kids' lifetimes, and that's good enough.

A third party will insure we never do.  And it's better to tread water with a lukewarm Democrat than drown with a republican in the White House.

We're going to get to economic Shangri-La eventually--it's just going to take some time.

Peace.
emaycee