The Clintons have always been as liberal as circumstances allowed them. I think Democratic voters have failed them by sheer apathy, letting Republicans take Congressional majorities from 1994 on. The Clintons have been resilient in the face of unbelievable calumny ever since, and stayed active where I would’ve just given the world the finger and walked off!
They have compromised, because that’s the way to, you know, actually make progress in a democracy. I want leaders who will keep their eye on the ball, and reliably move it forward. Quarterbacks who only want to throw end-zone touchdowns don’t impress me much.
I want to make common cause with people who temper their passion with common sense. Who stay true to their own goals, but can build coalitions with others. Who, above all, stay resilient, focused, and reliably vote!
I think Hillary’s the right leader for that, and those who would vote for her in November are the right folks to band together with.
A lot of crap has been thrown at the Clintons over the past three decades. In their position, I’d have cashed in my chips at the end of Bill’s first term, taken some cushy gigs and enjoyed a great life there on out. Remember, the money the Clintons made was after Bill’s second term—anyone who makes a lot of money can be attacked by innuendo, but what, exactly, was wrong with it?
The 1994 crime bill built prisons! Oh, horror! But that was also the first Violence Against Women Act! And included an assault weapons ban, and a data privacy law. Should Bill have vetoed them as well?
DOMA discriminated against gays! Well, yes, it did. It was also back in 1996. Remember those days? Bill pushed through the “don’t ask, don’t tell” weak tea, and that was a big struggle! DOMA had passed by a veto-proof majority. And two of Bill’s appointees voted for Obergefell. ‘Nuff said!
Hillary’s biggest mistake was the Iraq war vote. Poor decision, since it was obvious how dishonest and cynical Bush and Rumsfeld were. But that was my OPINION, and while I’m smug about it now, there were many who judged it otherwise. Some were cynical, some were stupid. But some others just made the wrong call. It’s right to hold this against her, but it’s one thing in a long career. She’s acknowledged the mistake, and it’s not like she ran the disaster of a war or the subsequent occupation. Don’t know about you, but I’ve moved on.
Hillary does have a problem with poor campaign tactics. It hurt her in 2008, and has cost her some goodwill this time round as well. There’s no point in saying Bernie wants to delay environmental regulations, or that he wants to destroy Obamacare. There are valid criticisms to be made, but they could have been phrased better. On Obamacare in particular, the Firebagger “single payer or nothing” crusade was and is transparently stupid. As is conflating single payer and universal care. So she should say that, rather than maladroitly claiming Bernie wants to undo Obamacare. That’s bad phrasing and poor optics. But nothing more!
I’ve actually wasted time reading the Politifact “20 lies of Hillary” or whatever they call it. Bunch of misstatements dressed up as lies. “Whites three times more likely to be given a mortgage” is a “lie”. And the truth? “Blacks three times more likely to be denied a mortgage!” Well, fuck me! Try reading the Lies of Bernie while you’re there as well—also a waste of time!
And what’s with all this crap about her speaking fees? So she should refuse money? Why?? Would YOU turn down good speaking fees? Her point is valid: show me where her fees have caused her to changed her policy positions or votes! And if you can’t, take a step back and learn the larger lesson: don’t respect people who rely on innuendos!
The Clinton Global Initiative is doing good around the world. They released all their donor lists back in 2007/2008, and stopped taking foreign contributions while Hillary ran State. What the fuck is the problem with the Clintons running what is basically a global charity, and getting donations?? Would you rather they did nothing? I’m sure Hillary and Bill could rake in many millions a year by just sitting on corporate boards, and lifting not a finger. Shit, I know Silicon Valley dweebs who do just that, with hardly a tiny fraction of the qualifications the Clintons bring to the table! I appreciate the Clintons making the effort they do.
For some people, it’s not enough that your own cause be good. All your donors have to be fucking saints as well! Well, whatever.
That’s why screams about Hillary being a kleptocrat piss me off. We’ve HAD a kleptocrat in office for 8 years, people! Have you already forgotten Halliburton Dick Cheney? And Hillary is the kleptocrat? Have you SEEN the Clintons’ tax returns for the past 30 years??
So, to sum up: Clintons are good liberals. We, the voters, failed them by losing the Congress back in 1994. They did us proud by making the best of a bad bargain after that, in the face of unbelievable nastiness, and with lukewarm support from us at that. Hillary’s positions on all the key policy topics are excellent, detailed and practical. I believe in them, and in her.
I LIKE leaders who compromise when they must. I can’t stand purists who’d rather preserve their reputations than, you know, achieve actual good results for the country. Had Firebagger purists had their way, there would have been no Obamacare. Perhaps Bernie would have been happier with Obama, and wouldn’t have suggested primarying him in 2012. But what about the 15 million newly insured under Obamacare??
Bernie’s point in 2011 was that primarying an outstanding Democratic President would force him to move left. Actually, I’ve always thought that was backwards: the way to enable Obama (or any other Democratic President) to move left would be to give him or her a more liberal Congress to work with!
And that finally brings me to why I oppose Bernie. I think he’s a good man, clearly an honest man, a man of integrity. He’s also a boutique politician, happy to have found a corner of the country where he can keep his purity of position and still get elected to office. Good for him, and we need people like him to give voice to the liberal position.
How does that help in the rest of the country, though? Ask yourself this: why didn’t Bernie run for President in 2004, when we so badly needed to kick out Bush? Or in 2008? Hell, how about in 1992 or 2000, for that matter? Because his boutique brand of politics wouldn’t have worked nationally. So he stayed home. Well, GHW Bush in 1992, Dole in 1996, McCain/Palin in 2008 or Romney/Ryan in 2012 would’ve done quite a number on the country, and thank god Bill and Obama stepped up. They compromised, they triangulated, whatever. But they won, and moved the ball a bit. Hell, just the 700-odd judicial appointments they made makes it worthwhile, even if they had done nothing else—and they did a lot more! Love them for it, don’t bitch at them for not throwing Hail Marys the whole time!
I’m beginning to think that Bernie is a nicer version of Nader. So consumed by one point of view that he always wants to bet everything on it. Luckily for him, not so luckily for the rest of the country, his fundamental goodness obscures this deadly trait. But Nader really fucked the country, and the world, pretty badly back in 2000. Bernie is not a narcissist, he’s a very decent man. But his campaign might have the same effect as Nader’s in 2000!
Vote Hillary. She’s smart, she’s honest, she’s strong. Yes, she’ll piss you off occasionally. So did Obama, I’m sure. So what? She’s the real deal. Don’t fall for happy slogans which will never get delivered.
Vote Hillary. The country can’t afford not to.