Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton

I'll be voting for Hillary, Kolyo...if she runs.

I'm actually hoping she doesn't.

The savaging she will take will be painful to me...particularly the savaging the uinrealistic far LEFT will deal her.

Since I have rarely (probably never) been described as a Progressive, this comes as no surprise to me. Then again, I've almost never liked Hillary Rodham Clinton (there was that 3 weeks in 1980; however, I was severely drunk at the time). She is about the last person we need at present, it would be a campaign based on trying to avoid her past mistakes, and wash away her dislike of President Obama.

Just hoping a viable candidate will emerge soon- from either side.



I did vote for him in round 1, however in round 2 I did not. By then I'd had enough of him and to this day, I will not and do not forgive him on the horrendous welfare reform act he signed in (using such absurd logic as that it was the only way to assure him victory against Bob Dole. Dole never stood a chance even before that). The consequences of the Welfare Reform Act are just now beginning to be felt and will be destroying pockets of the nation for decades to come.


In the end, as cynically jaded as it may be, I view most politicians (88%) as being disasters when it comes to both the country and the citizens (both here and in/of other countries)

After he renounces his citizenship will he also have to undergo radical deconstrutive dentistry in order to be a true Brit?

Hey Boob...dont worry, there is no ******* way a democrat will be voted in after how Obammy is handling ISIS.

Get used to saying, PRESIDENT WALKER.

I absolutely will never vote for any Republican. I feel we are being buffaloed into accepting Hillary, but, as with Obama, I will have to suck it up and give her my vote. The ilk of Warren and Sanders is what the country needs, but absolutely will not get.

The opposite of my exeriance, I voted for the HW's re-election andfor Clinton's second term. I just plain thought that Bob Dole had no fire in his belly and that Bill Clinton after the midterms turned into a fairly progressive moderate Republican for a Democrat.

Just because you wear a bridge doesn't mean you have all your own teeth, goooooeyjohn, so don't be signifying on Boris's grill.

President of what planet in what dimension, gooooooeyjohn?

Walker would only guarantee a Hillary Presidency.

Kinda gotta agreee.

You don't really have a left in America, let alone a far left.

You got that right.

I would like to know what Frank considers 'far left.' Over here all major parties take great pains to stress their commitment to the NHS. Even the far right UKIP has had to distance itself from comments some of its members made about introducing health insurance, instead promising a huge injection of cash if we leave the EU.

Our supposed left is not much left of Richard Nixon. People who are happy with the Democrats are blind to encroaching oligarchy, which both parties are abetting.

The far left are the complainers who bemoaned that Obama ONLY got the beginnings of a national health system into place despite the fact that no president before him managed to do so. They are the ones who demanded, despite the obvious realities of American politics, a plan similar to what the UK, Canada, or any of the other industrialized nations already have in place. The don't want to see anyone working on a foundation...they expect the entire building to magically pop p.

They are the "far left" over here. Granted, they might be considered moderates or even rightists where you are (perhaps even "the crazies" or "the naive")...but yes, they are the people on the left who cannot manage to applaud slight moves toward progressive goals, despite the fact that the right is managing to pull our country more and more in that direction.

People who complain and grouch...and think that being a grouch and a complainer is what actually gets things done!

Ya know what I mean.

If Hillary doesn't run, the chances of the Republicans taking the White House seems more of a possibility. I am not a hardline Hillary fan -- she started her political life as a Republican who worked for Richard Nixon. When she married Bill she changed parties. I don't hold "changing" or switching parties against her, but it gives me an invaluable appreciation of the Hillary persona. She was for invading Iraq, an Unnecessary war; America lost 4,500 military -- Hillary is a hardliner and is for Wall Street. She and her husband Bill are wealthier by over 100 million dollars. Yet, she, in my humble opinion, is nowhere as coldly calculating as the Republicans and because she appear to represents mainstreet America more so than the Republicans, she has more than the edge of beating the latter in 2016.

Elizabeth Warren has said she would not run. Yet, there is movement to draft Warren. If she were to decide to run, she would probably brighten the hopes of many who hold a personal disdain for Hillary. At this late date, with all the big money being sworn to Clinton, I do not believe chances of a Warren candidacy are very bright.

In the finality, I will vote for Hillary if there is no other viable candidate running. I just want to record that Hillary is not my first choice, but there simply are no others with the sure-footedness of Clinton of winning in 2016.

Just to add to the conversation: Nixon and Ted Kennedy tried to work together to introduce a single payer health care system, Nixon created the EPA, raised minimum wages, supported the ERA, passed all sorts of voting rights legislation ......... the guy was an ethical mess personally, but progressive as a President.

So your far left want what we take for granted. The same thing our Conservatives have, (publicly, and repeatedly) committed themselves to. I'd call that pretty centrist.

I have no problem with wanting what you take for granted, Izzy.

I WANT WHAT YOU TAKE FOR GRANTED.

Our far left seem to think that the change happens as the result of a wand being waved...and want to simply have it come into being without the considerable political give and take that has to occur in a country as philosophically divided as ours is right now.

Remember, there was a time when your country thought that the Labor Party would never have considerable standing.

We are going through what your country went through earlier in its history...when an elite (an aristocracy) prevailed and were helped to prevail by people who thought "staying in their place" was the right thing to do.

I want to see America move toward a more progressive perspective. The (our) far left is not helping with some of their crying and hand wringing.

It was called the 19th Century? Is that where you're saying you are?