Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton

@izzythepush,

Something to think about.

I've often thought a change of a parliamentary system might be an improvement.

But I cannot imagine selling ideas like that to the people who would have to enact that kind of proposal.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

apparently most feel a run at this time isn't going anywhere.

And yet it'd be an effective and transparent way to affirm a leftist agenda. Now I understand the left of the party is trying to force Clinton to take position on free trade, etc. But she's the consummate politician; she will promise whatever and then forget...

I guess the question boils down to: What do other potential candidates stand to loose?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
apparently most feel a run at this time isn't going anywhere.

And yet it'd be an effective and transparent way to affirm a leftist agenda. Now I understand the left of the party is trying to force Clinton to take position on free trade, etc. But she's the consummate politician; she will promise whatever and then forget...

I guess the question boils down to: What do other potential candidates stand to loose?

I have no idea, Olivier, but they obviously feel a run is not a reasonable option for them...or else they'd all be running...just like the mass of humanity that is the Republican assemblage.

Hillary knows where the goal line is...and that is what she is aiming for. That is the only kind of politician that appeals to me.

The ones who put principle and (yes) honesty before doing what must be done to be elected...in my opinion are too naive to be effective if they ever get elected...which they won't.

FIRST: Get elected.

Then do what you think should get done...as best you can.

BUT FIRST...get elected. Avoid, evade, promise, lie if you have to.

First get elected...and then do the doing.

I recognize that intelligent, well-meaning people can disagree with these thoughts...and I appreciate why they do. But this is how I feel.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

I guess the question boils down to: What do other potential candidates stand to loose?

The calculus is that the big donors will not support them this cycle, and that if they defy the Clintons now by running then the Clintons will to their last breeth set out to **** them. This is the caliber of people we are talking about sending to the White House again.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

FIRST: Get elected.

Then do what you think should get done...as best you can.

BUT FIRST...get elected. Avoid, evade, promise, lie if you have to.

First get elected...and then do the doing

Then we pray that the thing is not to start a world war and also employ the final solution to the black problem.......

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I alluded to Bernie, because Warren refuses to enter and I don't know enough about the other potentials to write about them.

Thanks for clarifying, but you're not the one I was criticizing. Smile

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

The problem is that, once elected, one generally wants to be re-elected.... so there's no reason to end the lying and little prospect of actual, meaningful reform.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

The problem is that, once elected, one generally wants to be re-elected.... so there's no reason to end the lying and little prospect of actual, meaningful reform.

Our politicians can be very inventive, Olivier. (Almost all politicians can be.)

In any case, UNFORTUNATELY, the United States is not ready for a decent, progressive government at this time. It is something that will come in slow increments...or in one huge revolution, like the ones that France and Russia experienced.

I have no problem with the way Hillary is handling things...and would be turned off on her if she suddenly became the left's equivalent of some of those right wing yahoos.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

The whole representative democratic ideal is in crisis, IMO. It's just not working anymore. Too many parasites.

In this particular case, I gathered that money is the main deterrent to other candidates. Hillary is running unopposed because she is personally richer and more able to tap into corporate America's deep pockets than other potential candidates. Therefore some other potential candidates stand little chance to win and don't want to run. Makes lot of sense but it also implies a form of "money-cracy". It's not democratic.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case, UNFORTUNATELY, the United States is not ready for a decent, progressive government at this time. It is something that will come in slow increments...or in one huge revolution, like the ones that France and Russia experienced.

Independently, just because the American constitution is conducive to two-party government, that doesn't mean the same two parties must always run the government. Ask any Federalist or Whig in your neighborhood --- if you can find one.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Good possibility that is the case, although I think it goes deeper than that. I think many people have been waiting for Hillary to run...and to be president. Perhaps she is the hope for females to finally break this absurd glass ceiling that has been preventing them from the nation's chief exec role.

I think that if she stays interested in the job...she will be the candidate and the winner.

We'll see.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Correct.

I see no groundswell for a different party, however, and considering what the alternatives are today...the D gets my vote before the R.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

think it goes deeper than that. I think many people have been waiting for Hillary to run...and to be president. Perhaps she is the hope for females to finally break this absurd glass ceiling

This assumes that, if Hillary runs through the primaries essentially unopposed, she will stand a better chance of getting elected than if she was opposed by some significant dem candidate during the primaries.

I personally see no reason to assume that. On the contrary, I see a risk for Clinton having too easy a run: she might not be careful enough, not determined enough; she might come across as a shoe-in, or appears as if she thought the presidency was some sort of family entitlement for her; she might lack media exposure if the race is contested on the right but not on the left, as the media will constantly report what's happening on the contested side... The republicans will run the show.

So for the good of Hilary and women political rights, she should IMO be challenged during the primaries. If she's unopposed during the primaries, she will have lesser odds to win the presidential election.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

My guess is she will be challenge.

Not very hard...and not especially successfully...but she will be challenged.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Let's hope she will be seriously challenged. It's for her own good.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I've often thought a change of a parliamentary system might be an improvement.

How about allowing more credible third party challenges by requiring a 51% minimum win? If no candidate has 51% The two top voted run off. Also: add a "none of the above" option and if none of the above wins, the election wins.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Thats certainly the way I feel. I think the Senate is better served with Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren serving in it and the nation benefits, too. At least let Warren serve out a term or even two. I don't want Hillary, but I don't think either the Dems or the Reps will field a candidate Hillary. I am 75% certain I will be voting for Hillary and I won't be happy.

1 Reply

http://irregulartimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/PatriotActClintonSandersBumperStickerthumb.png

http://ivn.us/2015/04/13/5-hillary-clinton-quotes-executive-power-spying-privacy/

Like all U.S. senators except one, Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the Patriot Act in 2001. When campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008, she tried to paint Sen. Obama, a critic of the 2001 act, as disingenuous when he, like Clinton, voted for re-authorization. She charged him, saying, “You said you would vote against the Patriot Act – you came to the Senate and voted for it.” Clinton’s case was ineffective in two ways. It was noted that Obama, who was not in Washington in 2001, worked and voted for a revised version of the Patriot Act. Additionally, as support for the Patriot Act was waning, Clinton argued that supporting and continuing the Patriot Act were winning political issues.

-----------------

Clinton voted Yes every time

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00313

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00029

Bernie Sanders voted NO every time

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll398.xml

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-votes-against-patriot-act-extension

0 Replies

There are alternatives to Hillary Clinton in case she falters. Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, O'Malley of Maryland, and many others willing to enter this race. The reality is not one of these aforementioned hopefuls possess the expertise and the gravitas of Hillary, who by anyone's estimation is a political heavyweight.

Look, Hillary is certainly not perfect with her obvious ambition, love of money and power, but let us be realistic, we need someone like Hillary to keep the loathesome reptilian Republicans at bay. One poster mentioned "I don't want the Republicans selecting my next United States Supreme Court justice" and to that I say I agree wholeheartedly. Can you imagine another Clarence Thomas (definitely UNqualified), Anton Scalia (too ultraconservative); these two sell their services to the Koch brothers; or Samuel Anthony Alito, who allowed foreign countries to contribute as much money as they like to candidates? That kind of money is subverting our justice system! The country is too screwed up with Republican political corrupt influence so please, to the powers that be, LET HILLARY CLINTON WIN!!!!!!!

1 Reply

@korkamann,

Quote:

LET HILLARY CLINTON WIN!!!!!!!

clearly you have no understanding of the value of competition. The Presidency is not something that should be handed out to the one who is best at doing the backroom deal, which is exactly what happened here.

2 Replies

Five Reasons No Progressive Should Support Hillary Clinton

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know