Donald Trump is pointing to a stream of hacked emails as proof that Hillary Clinton would be a compromised president, but a surprising number of progressives are drawing similar conclusions — albeit for totally different reasons.
Some of the left’s most influential voices and groups are taking offense at the way they and their causes were discussed behind their backs by Clinton and some of her closest advisers in the emails, which swipe liberal heroes and causes as “puritanical,” “pompous”, “naive”, “radical” and “dumb,” calling some “freaks,” who need to “get a life.”
There are more than personal feelings and relationships at stake, though.
If polls hold and Clinton wins the presidency, she will need the support of the professional left to offset what’s expected to be vociferous Republican opposition to her legislative proposals and appointments.
But among progressive operatives, goodwill for Clinton — and confidence in key advisers featured in the emails including John Podesta, Neera Tanden and Jake Sullivan — is eroding as WikiLeaks continues to release a daily stream of thousands of emails hacked from Podesta’s Gmail account that is expected to continue until Election Day.
Liberal groups and activists are assembling opposition research-style dossiers of the most dismissive comments in the WikiLeaks emails about icons of their movement like Clinton’s Democratic primary rival Bernie Sanders, and their stances on trade, Wall Street reform, energy and climate change. And some liberal activists are vowing to use the email fodder to oppose Clinton policy proposals or appointments deemed insufficiently progressive.
he emails, which also show Clinton praising Wall Street in a manner that’s discordant with her tough campaign rhetoric, have made many progressives less inclined to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt on nominees with more centrist backgrounds or ties to Wall Street, said the operative. “
it could pose a major problem for Clinton’s efforts to fill out a transition team and a prospective administration if Sullivan, Tanden, Podesta or other close advisers became widely seen on the left as unwilling to work in good faith with the Democratic Party’s left flank, which largely aligned behind Sanders during his bitter Democratic primary campaign against Clinton.
Sullivan, who was Clinton’s lead policy adviser at the State Department, is believed to be a candidate to become her National Security Adviser. And the WikiLeaks emails revealed that he also carried great influence in domestic policy debates, often taking a centrist tack that concerned liberals, including opining that Clinton’s “natural place is to the right” of Obama on surveillance.
n an email released Thursday, Sullivan argued that Clinton should come out in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP trade deal, while another email indicated that both he and Podesta favored a provision giving Obama authority to negotiate the TPP.
Clinton herself was revealed by WikiLeaks to have raved privately about the TPP before eventually publicly opposing it under pressure from Sanders and the liberal base.
Sullivan voiced concern on a different email chain about having Clinton give support for a bill favored by the left to limit the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington, admitting “I know I sound like I am protecting the plutocrats, but there is a line here — if we go across it we’re just demagoguing [sic].”
Jeff Hauser, a former union official who is executive director of the progressive Center for Economic and Policy Research's Revolving Door Project, singled out the wide influence of Sullivan, whose expertise is in foreign policy, as an area of concern for liberals.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-hilary-clinton-progressives-230009
(readcted -long article
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...ris-climate-pact-goes-nowhere-near-far-enough
Some of the left’s most influential voices and groups are taking offense at the way they and their causes were discussed behind their backs by Clinton and some of her closest advisers in the emails, which swipe liberal heroes and causes as “puritanical,” “pompous”, “naive”, “radical” and “dumb,” calling some “freaks,” who need to “get a life.”
There are more than personal feelings and relationships at stake, though.
If polls hold and Clinton wins the presidency, she will need the support of the professional left to offset what’s expected to be vociferous Republican opposition to her legislative proposals and appointments.
But among progressive operatives, goodwill for Clinton — and confidence in key advisers featured in the emails including John Podesta, Neera Tanden and Jake Sullivan — is eroding as WikiLeaks continues to release a daily stream of thousands of emails hacked from Podesta’s Gmail account that is expected to continue until Election Day.
Liberal groups and activists are assembling opposition research-style dossiers of the most dismissive comments in the WikiLeaks emails about icons of their movement like Clinton’s Democratic primary rival Bernie Sanders, and their stances on trade, Wall Street reform, energy and climate change. And some liberal activists are vowing to use the email fodder to oppose Clinton policy proposals or appointments deemed insufficiently progressive.
he emails, which also show Clinton praising Wall Street in a manner that’s discordant with her tough campaign rhetoric, have made many progressives less inclined to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt on nominees with more centrist backgrounds or ties to Wall Street, said the operative. “
it could pose a major problem for Clinton’s efforts to fill out a transition team and a prospective administration if Sullivan, Tanden, Podesta or other close advisers became widely seen on the left as unwilling to work in good faith with the Democratic Party’s left flank, which largely aligned behind Sanders during his bitter Democratic primary campaign against Clinton.
Sullivan, who was Clinton’s lead policy adviser at the State Department, is believed to be a candidate to become her National Security Adviser. And the WikiLeaks emails revealed that he also carried great influence in domestic policy debates, often taking a centrist tack that concerned liberals, including opining that Clinton’s “natural place is to the right” of Obama on surveillance.
n an email released Thursday, Sullivan argued that Clinton should come out in support of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP trade deal, while another email indicated that both he and Podesta favored a provision giving Obama authority to negotiate the TPP.
Clinton herself was revealed by WikiLeaks to have raved privately about the TPP before eventually publicly opposing it under pressure from Sanders and the liberal base.
Sullivan voiced concern on a different email chain about having Clinton give support for a bill favored by the left to limit the revolving door between Wall Street and Washington, admitting “I know I sound like I am protecting the plutocrats, but there is a line here — if we go across it we’re just demagoguing [sic].”
Jeff Hauser, a former union official who is executive director of the progressive Center for Economic and Policy Research's Revolving Door Project, singled out the wide influence of Sullivan, whose expertise is in foreign policy, as an area of concern for liberals.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/wikileaks-hilary-clinton-progressives-230009
(readcted -long article
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...ris-climate-pact-goes-nowhere-near-far-enough
