After reading Meteor Blades diary about the upcoming populist rally, I sifted through information about the stakeholders behind the event, and while I’ve made no definitive decision, yet, there are some red flags that can’t be ignored.

Perhaps the most alarming was an article written by Robert Borosage. Here is a rather large excerpt from the article:

4. Populist movements are an answer, not a threat.

Republican politicians, it is said, fear their activist base, while Democrats disdain theirs. The adage is particularly true for the Clinton crowd, which now is hailing Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel for teaching Hillary how to "tame the left" (raise lots of big bucks and drown any challenger in attack ads while playing mock humble). It's not accidental that Hillary's opening video presented everyday Americans on their own, not as part of a movement in struggle.

But the populist movements of this time offer Hillary an answer, not a threat. Republicans will paint her, in Karl Rove's words, as "old and stale," Obama's third term. She's tied to Wall Street's money and its influence. Oppo researchers will roll out endless stories of unseemly money deals around the Clinton Foundation. Republican candidates are already contrasting their humble roots with her regal lifestyle.

By standing with people who are organizing and championing their cause, Hillary could paint herself in the tradition of Roosevelt -- Teddy and Franklin -- and make herself a far more convincing agent of change.

In virtually every case, the causes that people are mobilizing around -- higher wages, balanced trade, investment in education, taxing the rich and corporations, cracking down on Wall Street excesses, getting big money out of politics, expanding Social Security, immigration reform, rebuilding America -- are very popular, particularly in the broad Democratic coalition.

Movements are messy, polarizing, angry and irreverent. Hillary's instinct -- and that of the advisors around her -- is to stay above the fray. Like Obama, she wants to present herself as someone who can bring us together and make Washington work. She could easily end up looking like the status-quo candidate: "The economy is working; we need to do a bit more; I know how to make Washington work." If the change she represents is primarily to be the first woman president, she will have a hard time mobilizing the Democratic coalition.

The populist movements aren't driving Hillary to the left; they are inviting her to join the emerging majority of Americans and champion the change we need.

5. Hillary's candidacy will test the new populism.

The populist temper inside and outside the Democratic Party continues to build.

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio announces he'll enlist progressive leaders to put out an Inequality Contract for America to force the debate. Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Rep. Elijah Cummings launch a Middle Class Prosperity Project, promising hearings across the country. Three major national grassroots groups and the Campaign for America's Future will announce an alliance to drive a Populist Platform across the country. The AFLCIO promises convocations on raising wages in all the early primary states. The Center for Community Change and other groups plan to launch a campaign for jobs.

Hillary's campaign will test this activism. Her campaign juggernaut will inhale liberal money. Unions, civil rights groups, women's groups, and environmentalists will be pushed to sign up and chip in. Pressure will build on progressive leaders to get on board. Already there's talk that a contested primary would be disruptive. No one wants Republicans to gain control of the White House. The temptation will be to paint Hillary as "likeable enough" (in Obama's demeaning phrase), as progressive enough, as a reformer worthy of support.

This won't do. The wealthiest 1 percent are capturing 95 percent of the income growth coming out of the Great Recession. This doesn't happen by accident. It happens only because the rules have been rigged to benefit the few. It can only be altered with fundamental changes in policy and direction. Despite the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression and the worst military debacle since Vietnam, the elites and institutions that dominate our economic and national security policy remain largely in place.

As Frederick Douglass taught us, "power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will." The lesson of the Obama administration is clear. Those movements that continued to mobilize, drive the debate and challenge the administration made progress. Those that folded into the White House operations got lost.

After a quarter century at the apex of American government, Hillary is an unlikely champion of the fundamental changes we need. But she is brilliant and resilient. It's clear that the argument posed by Elizabeth Warren has already concentrated her mind. She'll lead the charge only if populist movements and upheavals make her do it. This isn't a time to stand down in the name of party unity. This is a time to turn up the heat.

You can read the article here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-l-borosage/hillary-is-in-the-challe...

While Borosage has pushed the right populist hot-buttons, he seemed more focused on establishing ways for Hillary to assume the mantel of populist leader, and that raises a very large red flag.

And some of his statements suggest the current push may be less grass-roots driven, and more tactical, and the chances of it being used as a vehicle to disarm progressives by having Hillary emerge as a new leader who has seen “the light” is alarming.

The platform contains enough populist champions to maintain credibility, but there is a danger of conflating the fight against Fast Track and the TPP with the grass roots populist movement, and while both movements have a common goal, true populism doesn’t generate change by asking a leopard to change its spots.

In fact, the easiest way to discredit a populist movement is have it embrace the leaders it is trying to oust.

I like Dave Johnson. He has been a very strong voice in the fight against unfettered free trade, but now that I’ve seen his ties to Robert Borosage and Roger Hickey, and knowing a little bit about their past efforts, I’m beginning to question his agenda.

I’ve worked on enough PR campaigns to know that something isn’t kosher about Meteor Blades article; especially given the USSR style disinformation makeup of the Dkos.

Or maybe six years of fighting Obama’s duplicity has just made me paranoid.