Remember "New Democrats"? You should, they are everywhere and in charge of the Democratic Party. They were the faction of the Democrats that thought we should be more like Republicans, "Republican Lite" they were sometimes called, "Third Way Democrats" they have been more recently called.
They started in the '80s by people like Bill Clinton, Rahm Emanuel, Joe Lieberman, etc. with a group called the Democratic Leadership Council that proposed that Democrats, in order to be elected in the "greed is good" zeitgeist of that period, need to become more like Republicans and support a primacy of billionaires, business owners and wealthy, powerful people rather than of working and poor people. They were called "New Democrats" to say that they were not like traditional Democrats that gave priority to the concerns of working people, i.e., people who work for someone else rather than business owners. As a result of this faction's success in effectively taking over the the Democratic Party, the party is currently (and Barrack Obama can be considered a New Democrat and Hillary Clinton is dyed in the wool) more like a softer line of the Republican Party than like Democrats. The current presidential primary campaign is an epic and epitomical battle between the ideologies of the New Democrats and traditional Democrats, Hillary representing the former and Bernie the latter.
Along with policy differences are also differences in methods to gain political power. The traditional Democrats are less likely to take money from big business, less likely to run negative messaging and more likely to be above board and decent with their practices. The New Democrats, on the other hand, are much more like Republicans, like Richard Nixon or Karl Rove. They will take money from almost ANYBODY, will go negative in a heartbeat - to the point of willfully and maliciously lying and deveiving - and will cheat as quickly as Tricky Dick or his thug, Karl Rove.
We've all heard of the paid Hillary social media trolls. No doubt her campaign also employs internet and talk radio shills trolling progressive sites, forums and talk radio programs during the primary campaigns. Rahm "where else are they (Democratic Party voters) gonna go?" Emanuel did that kind of thing in the 2010 mayoral campaign in Chicago. His people hacked into my Facebook account and many others' (including his opponent's daughter's) and had us "like" him when I was against him and a staunch supporter of his opponent, Miguel Del Halle, a very progressive state senator who came up the hard way in Puerto Rico and Chicago and always supported and had the support of the local community groups and causes. These New Democrats are positively Nixonesque!
One such shill for Hillary called Thom today - and Thom swallowed it hook, line and sinker. The guy was not very creative and played the gender/victim card so lamely saying support for Bernie is "disguised misogyny". He said Hillary haters are misogynistic and that proof of that is that, "No matter what positions she adopts, they still hate her". It apparently never occurred to the guy that those of us who hate her do precisely because she will mouth any position she thinks will make her popular and then, when preaching is done and it comes time to practice, it's, "So long, suckers!" and she does whatever she wanted to do in the first place anyway, suck up to and serve the big money, the people be damned.
Hartmann is possessed of a lot of "white liberal guilt" and it's counterpart, "male liberal guilt". That's when white liberals and male liberals feel guilty about their privilege and are therefore loath to call women and people of color on their bullshit.
Thom told a Bernie supporter caller that Hillary "can be pressured to change her position and move it in a progressive direction" like her mouthing ANY position has any meaning at all.
Most Bernie supporters wanted Elizabeth Warren to run and would've enthusiastically voted for her. Hillary's offer to Warren of running mate position, however, is not only no less superficial and no less disingenous than her many other false, "me too" gestures toward progressivism but it is actually quite ANTI PROGRESSIVE. The vice presidency is really, in any other but the very anomalous event of the death of the President while in office, an almost entirely ceremonial post with no real power or influence on policy or action in the White House and the executive branch of government.
Therefore, it has always been a strategy of presidential nominees to choose as a running mate a particularly powerful, influential, threatening or bothersome political enemy as a running mate to take away their influence and political effectiveness so they won't have to deal with them as an adversary when elected. The Kennedies chose LBJ because he was a Southern red neck and they wanted him out of Congress. William McKinley chose Teddy Roosevelt because Roosevelt was an influential progressive as governor of New York who was pushing a lot of labor reforms and justice issues and they wanted to render him ineffective.
In each of the above cases things didn't go exactly according to plan. The respective presidents of those running mates weren't supposed to be assassinated and the vice presidents weren't supposed to become president. Roosevelt went on to be a historically great progressive president and LBJ defied expectations and governed as a progressive - to the dismay of the conspiratorial assassin's of JFK.
Elizabeth Warren, left in the Senate, is sure to be a thorn in the side of Hillary Clinton's corporatist presidency and sure to be a great impediment to its agenda. By giving her a Vice Presidential post Clinton will be effectively neutralizing Warren and taking away our perhaps most important voice in Congress and our greatest defense against corporate America - because, as Jim Hightower says about Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton is also "running against the American people" for president.
The Democrats today, the Hillary Clintons, the Barrack Obama's, the Rahm Emanuels, the Debbie Wasserman-Schultzes, etc., are not Democrats and, as Ted Kennedy would surely say if he were here to, they "do not deserve to call themselves Democrats". They are softer line, more moderate Republicans. I have a friend who listens to Fox News and he recently told me, in all seriousness, "The Republicans are the party of the working man and the Democrats are the party of the rich and of big business." Today's Democrats sure make Fox News' job a lot easier by aping Republicans.
What causes people - and particularly blue collar people - to hate the Democrats more than Republicans is that the Republicans at least aren't two faced about their policiy positions. They're disingenuous but not of that particularly odious disingenuousness, hypocrisy. They don't flim flam pretending to be progressive and populist while governing as Republicans.
And don't say, "Supreme Court" because if Democrats are going to nominate judges like this current one Obama nominated for SCOTUS then we're not in better shape with them. This guy he nominated supports Citizens United and is conservative on boat load of other issues, the ones that count (and don't say, "Roe v. Wade" because that decision won't be overturned no matter WHO is president or who they appoint).
So Republican and Democrat voters are equally suckers. So don't throw away your vote on the political duopoly pushing everything incrementally to the right and into the billionaires' pockets by their "good cop, bad cop" routine. Vote Bernie or bust - or Jill Stein. 'Cause otherwise they're gonna do what they want anyway - so at least go down swinging.