Phil Murphy is running one of the most liberal campaigns for Gov in recent times

[Cactus Jack]

Shades of Owen Smith.

In what ways?

(CW: American #analysis re: British politics, was written on my phone so probably a lack of proper sentence structure, kind of reads as a cheap Al impersonation - really just a terrible post all around)

Pretty much just a superficial (and non-serious) comparison based on Smith's progression from Pfizer executive to Left MP. That being said, the situation is pretty different considering that Smith was "lefty" Before It Was Cool* while Murphy's progression to wannabe progressive firebrand is probably just in response to national trends, considering that he's still very much a New Jersey machine candidate and probably shouldn't be trusted. I'll still try to be optimistic about Murphy and hope he isn't just putting on a show, though.

*Not entirely accurate, and it'd be hard to argue that Smith is on the spectrum of what currently constitutes "Labour Left", but Smith IIRC played the Soft Left role during Miliband's tenure while other prospective leadership hopefuls/Low Energy Losers like Umunna still thought they could win a leadership election on the backs of Progress activists etc.

Damn even when someone is running the exact campaign to bring people like you on, you still sh**t on him for it. 

Of course he does. Most BernieBro holdouts are just Branch Trumpidians in disguise.

[Cactus Jack]

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Wall Street was far from Clinton's only issue.

[Cactus Jack]

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Wall Street was far from Clinton's only issue.

Were any of her "issues" on the level of being a literal Goldman Sachs executive? I think not.

Believe it or not, and call me a bad leftist for this if you really want, I don't actually think that an association with GS should equate to an automatic disqualification from public office. Yes, it's odious, but it doesn't automatically make someone a bad person, and so far Murphy's association with Goldman Sachs has been the only real strike against him.

Now, compare that with Hillary Clinton, who has a proven history of political opportunism and flip-flopping, voted to authorize George Bush's Magical Iraqi Adventure, voted for the PATRIOT Act, tacitly defended all the worst behaviors of her predator of a husband (not even talking about Lewinski here), and supported the flagrant disaster that was the TPP. It's what makes the Right's obsession with her email "scandal" so bizarre - there are so many things about Clinton far, far worthier of complaint.

[Cactus Jack]

I do find it quite hilarious and telling that Hillary got zero credit from leftists for her historically progressive campaign platform because she gave paid speeches to Wall Street, yet literal Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy is given the benefit of the doubt and a fair chance.

Wall Street was far from Clinton's only issue.

Were any of her "issues" on the level of being a literal Goldman Sachs executive? I think not.

Believe it or not, and call me a bad leftist for this if you really want, I don't actually think that an association with GS should equate to an automatic disqualification from public office. Yes, it's odious, but it doesn't automatically make someone a bad person, and so far Murphy's association with Goldman Sachs has been the only real strike against him.

Now, compare that with Hillary Clinton, who has a proven history of political opportunism and flip-flopping, voted to authorize George Bush's Magical Iraqi Adventure, voted for the PATRIOT Act, tacitly defended all the worst behaviors of her predator of a husband (not even talking about Lewinski here), and supported the flagrant disaster that was the TPP. It's what makes the Right's obsession with her email "scandal" so bizarre - there are so many things about Clinton far, far worthier of complaint.

I don't see how Iraq or her reactions to Bill Clinton's escapades are relevant here. I'm referring solely to the "corporate shill" accusations. Hillary's historically progressive platform apparently meant nothing because she was "a corporate shill" due to Wall Street speeches, raising money from big donors, etc. etc. How is it exactly that a literal Goldman Sachs executive, FAR closer to being a "corporate shill" than ANYTHING Hillary EVER did, can avoid these accusations?

Alright, fair enough, I'll admit to maybe straying from the issue at hand. But the flip-flopping thing is actually relevant here, because (and I'm speaking only for myself here) that's sort of the hub of the matter vis-a-vis the comparison between Clinton and Murphy: Murphy is a new agent, making his progressive bona fides more believable, whereas Clinton's history of being on every side of virtually every center-left issue made it difficult to give her platform the benefit of the doubt.