25
   

Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Apr, 2015 10:50 pm
@hawkeye10,
-1 vote for answering Thomas directly with a bit of tude?

I am soooooooo crushed!
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 03:21 am
@korkamann,
I felt rather neutral about Clinton, nearly all American politicians are right wing by European standards, and I pay no attention to the extremist rants of the likes of Gooey and CJ. Your comments have made me feel less optimistic about a potential Clinton presidency. Instead of blaming a need to appease the neocons, New York Jews and having to look tough, Clinton should be honest. Either she made a mistake and should do a mea culpa, or she should stick to her guns and say why the invasion of Iraq was a good thing. It worked for Tony Blair, but he was up against a bunch of idiots who had no chance anyway.

In today's climate, no party leader running in the UK would have a cat in Hell's chance if they said they voted for and still support the ILLEGAL invasion of Iraq.

I'm not the one you need to convince, I couldn't vote for Clinton even if I wanted to.
korkamann
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 05:43 am
@izzythepush,
You are correct Izzy, in that US politicians do seem more right-of-center than your British Parliament. As stated, I don't know the basis for Clinton voting the way she did (one may only speculate); it could be for a Special Interest because of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), wanting to please Israel because she most likely receives money from them as most Repukes and Dems do, or to prove she was not afraid of war, which on second thought, seems rather foolish for an adult to do; whatever, we, as onlookers never will know what was in her heart and mind. I do know, I am sick and tired of regurgitating the same old theme especially realizing there is nothing I can do about it, and neither can you as you say you're in the UK and would not vote for her anyway. It doesn't matter to me one way or another because unless I have someone who leans even closer to my ideal of a candidate with the assuredness of mind they can surpass Clinton and prevail over any Republican candidate, Hillary gets my vote, FLAWS AND ALL.

The Republicans are likely to inject considerable doubt in Hillary's supporters' mind, hoping they will sow enough uncertainty among the impressionables to put her down; I will not allow the GOP to force me to submit to their malicious puny attacks. In reality, the more the Republicans attack Hillary the more dug in I will become.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 06:06 am
If one is politician who thinks he/she can make a significant contribution...one's FIRST job is to get elected.

Hillary voted the way she did because it was the smart vote...the vote least likely to cost her election votes.

Anyone who wants to think that preventing vote loss is a negative in a politician...simply does not understand the game.

Under any circumstances...if you are one of the "progressives" to whom this thread is addressed...or if you are not a progressive, but still champion a progressive agenda...

...whoever heads the Dem ticket will be a MUCH better choice than the person heading the GOP ticket.

The Democrat may not protect and expand the much needed safety net programs as much as you might like...but the Democrat will protect and expand those programs to an almost infinitely larger degree than the stooge who will implement the GOP desires in that area.

As for wars and foreign policy...the difference between the two will be marginal at best. That should not be the determinant.

And withholding your vote or casting it for a third party...is flushing your views down a toilet.



Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 06:14 am
@ossobuco,
FP= foreign policy. Sorry, I thought i had it spelt out in the post.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 06:17 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
She cant be that dumb. So it was a lie.

A rationalization. She wanted to vote against but did not dare. Others have said so already: she basically broke under peer pressure.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 06:19 am
@korkamann,
That's fair enough, the Republicans are all fascists any way. Btw, I said I could not vote for Clinton, not that I would not. That's a purely hypothetical situation involving me becoming an American citizen and looking at what else is on offer. That won't happen, so I'd prefer to keep my attention focused on our election candidates for now. I'm still going to vote for Ed, no matter how much he looks like Wallace.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 06:30 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
She cant be that dumb. So it was a lie.

A rationalization. She wanted to vote against but did not dare. Others have said so already: she basically broke under peer pressure.


I suspect it was less "peer pressure" than it was an attempt to avoid political suicide. I personally think she had to play those cards the way they were dealt. She did not do it because she thought the vote would gain her any votes...but because she thought doing so would lose fewer than voting the other way.

Smart move, I'd say. The kind of thing politicians have to deal with every time a contentious vote comes up.
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 06:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
I agree with everything in your post up to here:
Frank Apisa wrote:
As for wars and foreign policy...the difference between the two will be marginal at best. That should not be the determinant.

I don't think this is generally true. I think if Al Gore rather than George Bush had become the 43th president of the United States, America would be in a far different place with its wars and foreign policies. To be sure, Al Gore is no angel. But abusing the trauma of September 11 to con the nation into a needless war? I don't think Al Gore would have done that, and neither would Bill Bradley, his major competitor within the Democratic party in 2000.

Frank Apisa wrote:
And withholding your vote or casting it for a third party...is flushing your views down a toilet.

I don't think that's generally true, either. Some evidence: The existence of the Libertarian Party, and the social networks supporting it, seems to be pretty effective at pushing the Republican party towards libertarian positions. And the New Deal back in the 1930s was, among other things, a shift within the Democratic party towards policies that the Socialists had demanded, and a response to losing votes to the Socialists in some local elections. The problem with voting for third parties comes from scenarios like Florida 2000, where Nader voters delivered the White House to the greater evil among the big-party candidates.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 06:58 am
@Frank Apisa,
Obama got the presidency largely because he had the smarts to vote differently, and she lost the democratic nomination because of her vote... I think she just bowed to peer pressure and miscalculated the political consequences, like you are doing now.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 07:08 am
@Thomas,
I get what you are saying, Thomas...and I agree with much of your analysis.

This is one of those things I call an "on balance" decision.

I still think "on balance" the difference between MOST Dem candidates and Rep candidates on foreign policy is negligible compared with the differences in their domestic focus. (Gore may well have been an exception...but even Bush without the clowns of Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and some of those other chicken hawk neo's might have been better.)

And here in the US...while third party advocacy does have an impact like you described...in this next national election...the third party hurt will come mostly at the expense of the Dems...

...and the very worst thing that could happen to the US and the world, would be for the American right to get full control of the government.

Anyone withholding their vote or voting third party this next presidential election is playing a game of Russian Roulette with five chambers loaded!

Just my opinion.
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 08:13 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
Anyone withholding their vote or voting third party this next presidential election is playing a game of Russian Roulette with five chambers loaded!

True in swing states like Florida and Ohio. Not true in states like New Jersey, where I can safely bet the majority of my fellow New Jerseyans will vote Blue. If I want to use my vote to tell the Democratic Party that it has competition from the left, I can do that. And unlike Floridians and Ohioans, I won't have to worry about delivering the nation to the Republican Party.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 08:18 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Anyone withholding their vote or voting third party this next presidential election is playing a game of Russian Roulette with five chambers loaded!

True in swing states like Florida and Ohio. Not true in states like New Jersey, where I can safely bet the majority of my fellow New Jerseyans will vote Blue. If I want to use my vote to tell the Democratic Party that it has competition from the left, I can do that. And I won't have to worry about delivering the nation to the Republican Party.


Okay, Thomas...you do that. And I hope you are correct.

You might look up the party identification of our big mouthed, candidate for president governor before pulling that "safe" protest lever, though.
revelette2
 
  4  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 08:36 am
@Thomas,
I live in KY, there is probably no way Hillary would win in my state. But I admit, I am struggling with the whole Hillary Clinton potential presidential run. The reason is kind of shallow as I already explained dealing with 2008.

I took a look at her record and for the most part, I agreed with a lot of them. Like Obama, I think she may have evolved since on the civil unions vs. gay marriage issue? I would wish she was not so much a policitian and Pro Israel. It is not that I want a candidate who is anti-Israel, but one who actually sees both sides points of views. I have been disappointed in Obama regarding the Palestinians as well. However, now he is saying they will weigh options of the UN/Palestinian state thing. I know that won't make it official, but it is a step.

I personally was not impressed with how she handled the whole Benghazi episode and think her flip attitude was not her best moment. On the Iraqi vote, for me, that was not or is not now a deciding factor though it may have been for some. Except a few lone democrats, they all felt and voted the same way. It was popular so to speak to be "Patriotic" and ready to go to war at the time and not seen as weak on war. It is a shame the disaster of Iraq and lives lost on all sides turned the tide on that prevailing attitude, I think we as a whole country got shook up after 9/11 and Iraq knocked some sense back into us. (Just my rambling thoughts)

I don't think Clinton just voted to swing votes, if I thought that, there is no way I could vote for her. I think she honestly believed in what she was saying voted accordingly. She was wrong, but so were a lot of other democrats.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 08:44 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
You might look up the party identification of our big mouthed, candidate for president governor before pulling that "safe" protest lever, though.

I'll check the polls before I cast my vote, promise.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  6  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 10:48 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
The best of the lot seems to be Walker.

Interesting choice. I doubt he'd be the choice of voters who worry about Hillary Clinton not being progressive enough.

hawkeye10 wrote:
he is willing to try sound new ideas and has done so a few times,

What new ideas has he tried? Sound or not, his general policy of busting unions, closing abortion clinics, rejecting universal healthcare, and privatizing education strikes me as pretty old-fashioned. Nineteenth century, actually.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 11:06 am
@Thomas,
The Fast forward job training program and throwing state resources behind apprentice career programs comes to mind. The apprentice thing would be ho-hum in Europe but not here.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 12:37 pm
@hawkeye10,
We should not further pollute a hillary thread with walker. I am game for a Walker thread if there is interest.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 12:47 pm
@hawkeye10,
If you want to start a Walker thread...start one.

If you want to dictate what can and cannot be posted in a thread...

...you are probably working in the wrong forum.

That kind of micro-managing of a thread doesn't go over well here.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Apr, 2015 12:57 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Voicing an opinion is not dictating....I speak for me only, I act for me only. So the question here is why do you get your back up when I voice an opinion?
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 12/02/2021 at 10:23:18