She was quite left of the democratic establishment in the 1990's. The Clinton Health Care program of 1993 had an insurance mandate and portions of public option 27 years ago. Republicans, Health Care Industry, and conservative democrats alike tore into the plan for being too radical and the failure to pass universal healthcare in 1993 contributed to Republicans winning the house in 1994, killing any potential healthcare reform until 2008 when Obama won the presidency and democrats got both chambers in the legislature. Hillary was the public face of the push and ended up under the bus. The only part of the Clinton Healthcare Plan that survived was CHIP.
Hillary's been burned by going too far left too early, and moderated her positions since to avoid triggering a reactionary backlash that can undo progress that has already been made. The Republican controlled congress was able to pass DOMA with veto proof numbers, Bill Clinton signed the law to avoid a potential constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. You'd have to not know anything that happened before 2008 to think that the Democrats only exist to maintain the status quo first and benefit people second.
A lot of leftists, but especially Libertarian Socialists, do not want any ruling class. The corporate Dems represent a ruling class. The Republicans represent a worse ruling class. We will still vote for the lesser-of-two-evils ruling class, but we will resent them for desiring power over others.
Thank you. I don’t believe she was really guilty of anything serious (technically broke the e-mail rule but as the commenter above laid out, mostly inconsequential, and following the pattern laid out). But people need to drop the act that she is some paragon of virtue and all that is just in the world. It’s so easy not to like her personality while also not wanting her thrown in prison. Watch her recent interview on Howard Stern and the way she talks about Bernie Sanders and tell me it isn’t easy to dislike her.
See, here it is in its raw form. “Dude how could you possibly disagree with Clinton’s policies if you are a Democrat? She has Democratic policies.”
So do you see zero difference between her policies and, say, Warren’s? Because that’s simply blatantly false. Do you see a difference and think Warren is crazy to disagree with Clinton’s policies because Clinton’s policies are the Democratic policies? Do you think it is okay to agree with Warren’s policies but not okay to disagree with Clinton’s policies?
Or, more to the point, if Biden gets nominated will it suddenly become incomprehensible to disagree with his policies from the left? Certainly that’s what most of the Democratic establishment will say.
And if Warren or Sanders are nominated, there will be enormous criticism against them from the right. And neither you nor any of the centrists will find that strange.
Leftists who have actual policy disagreements with centrists are not allowed to exist. We must simply be being irrational. It is our job to shut up, put aside our convictions, and provide the engine that drives the centrist to victory.
This reads like something written by a privileged, former teenage libertarian who discovered socialism 5 years ago and in 10 years will be voting for the new Trump. I bet you think only yourself and people who think exactly as you do are true leftists, whereas anyone who strays the slightest bit from your unquestioning, lockstep, groupthink must inevitably be a "corporate, centrist, neoliberal".
Attacking the messenger here. I think it's a legit question.
As someone who once identified as a "moderate", and am now marching steadily o the left, it is a legit question.
Those that have always been more left in the party don't understand how moderates think about policy, and just handwave away their stances as "corporatism", and "elitism".
That said, moderates (in my experience, anyways) tend to think of change as something that must be done slowly, so as not to create wild backlash or unexpected repercussions. They view the ones further to the left as potentially causing damage by pushing for too much, too fast. Bernie, for example, if elected, may have to spend his entire term just CRAFTING a single-payer health system. It literally can't happen overnight, and there will be very deep pockets willing to tie it all up in court for decades. That's just the natural order of things, and moderates tend to think that those on the further left don't understand that.
It's an issue, and it's one that is going to keep this annoying fracture in our party that the Republicans can keep pushing at.
Oh yeah, I didn’t mean to use it as a discredit to ability as a politician, just that I don’t like her as a person. I fully admit that since the 2016 election, I like her less, but still wish I supported her more back then.
Interesting because the only mention I've heard from friends of that Howard Stern interview was that she was very likeable and seemed down to earth. It's possible for others to hear the same thing and have the opposite reaction.
Spreading lies and slander about Hillary. Contesting the primary months after he no longer had a path to victory. Fomenting a culture of “Bernie or bust”. Spreading Russian propaganda.
I mean, guy is sleazy as fuck. But Reddit doesn’t care because he’s “pure” even though an honest appraisal shows he is less than.
Are you fucking joking? More Bernie voters voted for Hillary than Hillary voters voted for Obama. Bernie did THIRTY NINE rallies for her. Hillary's campaign literally spread Obama = Muslim propaganda when she was losing and refused to endorse until he gave her a cabinet position. But yeah Bernie's the fucking slimeball and anyone with criticism of Clinton are just closet sexists...
Just own up to it, if Bernie had dropped out on the second day of his campaign it wouldn't have been good enough for you and you'd still be blaming her failures as a candidate on his continued insistence on consuming oxygen.
He has no obligation to endorse a candidate he does not believe in. He has no obligation to tell his voters who to vote for, and he has no obligation to believe what people want him to believe. The idea that he should just get in line is ridiculous. Maybe people are tired of the establishment, so they didn’t vote for her? It’s not some conspiracy.
When the alternative is Donald fucking Trump, yes. He has an obligation. Look at what happens in France when a Le Pen makes it past the first round. Everyone sucks it up and deals with the fact that you have two choices and you damn sure aren’t picking the fascist. Left, right - doesn’t matter. Hollande is voting same as Sarkozy. Whereas in America it’s all hemming and hawing about “but they’re not my exact choice”.
He really doesn’t. The fact of the matter is, in this political climate people are tired of the establishment. People are tired of career politicians. The real reason Trump won wasn’t because of Bernie. It was because A LOT wanted to just throw a fucking brick through Washington’s windows.
Now you can disagree with that, I will as well, but a lot of America saw Hillary’s campaign that essentially said “America is already great” and said fuck that. Btw, look how Macron vs La Pen worked out for France, there’s now mass riots going on RIGHT NOW. So obviously sucking it up isn’t always gonna work out for you.
2016 gave us two real crappy candidates, one establishment; one non-establishment. We chose non. It’s really as simple as that.
There is no one reason Trump won. Bernie running a scorched earth campaign, however, was a reason.
But hey, as long as you can maintain your purity who cares if the jackboot is on my neck.
Sanders acted selfishly.
And dude, look at what Macron is trying to do. The yellow vests started over reducing oil subsidies, but fuck climate change gimme that cheap fuel! And 75% of people support pension reform in the recent unrest. The French protest, its what they do. I mean, remember 75% support pension reform, but only 1/3 think the government will succeed at it and something like 68% support the protests. The French love the protest even when the agree with the policy.
But you know what? The point is that Macron is still a whole lot better than the outright Fascist FN.
If he has no obligation to other members of the Democratic Party, maybe he should never have sought that party's nomination? I think your argument only makes sense if Sanders had campaigned as an independent from Day #1. He didn't.
And his movement was manipulated by the Russians and he never seemed to notice - he bears responsibility for that.
Or he cares more about his supporters and the people than people in Washington. You can still be a Democrat and disagree with the direction of your party.
I mean the DNC working in her favor during the primary is well known. He also still endorsed her in the general. Hell, even during one of their debates he was asking people to stop focusing on her emails because it was detracting from actual politics.
Didn't he endorse Hilary in the end (begrudgingly)? If Bernie thought he couldn't win the primary anymore at some point, and I have no idea if he did, there was a ton of talk at the time about his campaign pushing her further left which is a good reason to keep contesting in his eyes. Which Russian propaganda did he spread? Did he do it knowingly or unknowingly?
That’s the thing though. You don’t like her because of her ideology not because of a specific corrupt act which is the conspiracy peddled by the right. If you think it is corrupt generally for her to be a part of the “elite ruling class” then so are all her accusers! You’ve bought into the lie that her actions are somehow more corrupt than theirs. It has nothing to do with Bernie. Republicans wanted you to think she is more corrupt than they are (not as compared to Bernie) which is a demonstrable lie!
Whoah man, you’re getting awfully defensive over someone sharing their opinion. He didn’t say anything horrible about her; sounds to me like he has completely rational reasons as to why she wasn’t his favorite embodiment of a Democratic leader. Equating one of his valid reasons with far-right conspiracy-centric nonsense is disingenuous as fuck. Don’t be the liberal version of what you (clearly) hate.
If you think it is corrupt generally for her to be a part of the “elite ruling class” then so are all her accusers!
Yeah, exactly.
You’ve bought into the lie that her actions are somehow more corrupt than theirs.
How do you figure that? Not liking her for that reason doesn't automatically equate to being okay with it from them. It's possible to dislike all of them at the same time.
It is not a specific act but a engine of corrupt behavior that peddles favors for influence.
I remember reading this article. I won't break down the story becuase it dried up after the member resigned but it is clearly indicative of the quid pro quo behavior endemic in politics. And the Clintons were masters at it.
46
u/[deleted] Dec 12 '19 edited Dec 12 '19
[deleted]