Hillary Clinton and the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

[eridani]

http://inthesetimes.com/article/19068/hillary-clinton-and-the-soft-bigotry-of-low-expectations

What we might create from the uncertainty of 2016 is still unknown. For the first time since the 1960s, truly profound progressive changes seem possible—in the realms of racial justice, environmental justice, economic justice and more. Clinton comes off as inauthentic—not because she's too ambitious, as the criticism often goes, but because she isn’t ambitious enough. She doesn’t appear true to her own values or equal to a moment that begs for something more, begs for someone who will expect more from herself, and from us.

Last fall, a friend and I were talking, and one of us asked the other who the Republicans would nominate. We made halfhearted cases for each of the candidates. Finally, once none of them seemed like remotely plausible presidential material, my friend said with a smirk of resignation, “Why don’t they give it to Clinton now and get it over with?”

For me, that smirk of resignation summed up just about everything there is to say, good or ill, about Hillary Clinton. Her candidacy has seemed fated all along. It’s easy to imagine a much, much worse president—and a much, much better one. She would no doubt be perfectly competent at coordinating and presiding over the same old song and dance of the last few decades. She wouldn’t exactly stand in the way of progress, but probably wouldn’t help advance it much, either.

And her election wouldn’t be a tragedy. It would just be the last, saddest chapter in the Class of 1969’s renunciation of its youthful ambitions, and the final leg of its long, half-century march toward diminished hope and lowered expectations. Young people have lived with the burden of that soft bigotry for most, if not all, of their lives. Is it any surprise that they now seem ready to try their hands at “the art of making possible”?

[merrily]

1. "She wouldn’t exactly stand in the way of progress..." I don't know about that.

Almost as soon as ONE state recognized equal marriage, she was on the floor of the Senate speaking against it. She did not speak out for it until AFTER the Supreme Court had declared unequal marriage laws unconstitutional. IMO, that qualified as at least an attempt to stand in the way of progress.

The SCOTUS has decided that the Constitution of the U.S. says certain things about choice. The SCOTUS decisions have not gone as far as many pro choice men and women would like. Because of those decisions, however, cutting back from them would now require a Constitutional amendment. During this campaign, Hillary Clinton put such an amendment on the table. Even though she has not been very specific, I think that is, at the very least, expressing a willingness to try to reverse some of the progress that women have made.

According to many of the DUers now supporting Clinton against Sanders, the ACA was supposed to be a step toward Medicare for All. Hillary (and many of those DUers) are now saying Medicare for All is a pipe dream for which Hillary will not and should not try. That may be arguably standing in the way of potential progress.

Sanders has proven that financijng at least a primary campaign does not require hiding behind Citizens United holding, which Hillary purports to abhor. She could have advanced the cause of getting dark money out of elections by saying that she would finance at least her primary campaign the same way as Sanders. She didn't.

She could have raised this primary campaign substantially above the rather low bar set by her 2008 primary campaign, leaving out religion and other indicia of lower uses of identity politics. She hasn't.

She could have spoken out about irregularities in the primaries and caucuses that have already been held. She hasn't.

I could go on.

[That Guy 888]

2. I didn't know about speaking against equal marriage. So that's why she wanted an abreviated primary.

The longer it lasts the more Democratic voters remember how disappointing the Clintons are.

[merrily]

3. I don't want to overstate it. Judge for yourself.

(Sorry for the wording superimposed on the video: Unfortunately Republicans on youtube do use this against both her individually and Democrats in general.)

In fairness, I believe she was speaking against a Constitutional amendment to ban equal marriage. Of course, during the 2008 primary, she did embrace her husband's administration, which included DADT and DOMA. There was an instance in which gays confronted her, saying that they had worked hard to help get her husband elected and then were so disappointed in his policies vis a vis gay people. She replied, "I thought we did very well" or words to that effect.

[That Guy 888]

8. I don't think you're overstating it, but as someone who has an interest in history I must say

..."the mists of history"? Someone needs a new speechwriter. Not just better at writing, but someone who doesn't use right-wing talking points. Marriage was most often arranged by families and involved settling feuds, forming alliances and sometimes (like in poorer countries today unfortunately) getting extra mouths out of the house. None of those reasons seem sacred to me.

Between one man and one woman? Not always, whether you're talking about "the mists of history" or today. Sometimes it was a rudimentary support system for widows, sometimes a guy just wanted more wives(looking at you Solomon).

Thanks for providing the video link despite the added text it's always good to see the evidence.

[merrily]

11. If the OT qualifies as the "mists of history," Abraham, God's chosen to found Judaism,

married his half sister. IIRC, Abraham also let some ruler add her to his harem for a while because Abraham was too chicken to speak up and say she was his wife. And then, of course, he slept with his wife's maid because his wife had not given him a son--then (essentially) threw the maid and the son to the wolves once his wife did birth a son.

Of course, Hillary, being such a Bible student that she can spout Bible verses in a bakery in a scenario that was not at all an engineered campaign scenario, would know all that and, oh, so much more. http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-election-faith/

[merrily]

20. Delayed reaction: You know what else was in the mists of history? Zero rights for women.

I wonder why Hillary was willing to kick over the traces for equality for women, but not equality for gays. Hmmm. Let me think.

[uponit7771]

4. Sanders immoral gun stance advance any? Again, he can't throw stones... no one outside of Podium Bir

... Bird land thinks this guy is a saint

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. You don't like that Sanders' gun stance and that somehow counter-weights Clinton's

privately taking money from corporations with interests before the US government while she was SoS.

approving arms deals to the worst of governments

a coup in Honduras

an illegal war in Libya

secret speeches

using an unsecured email server for all of her SoS email correspondence

lying repeatedly in public about her unsecured SoS email correspondence

opposing marriage equality

opposing single payer


We don't need Dick Cheney 2.0.

[uponit7771]

6. There's nothing immoral about privately takin money from corporations which 10s of millions of

... Americans do daily, all the claims of bribes from FAUX news sources get igonred and are noise.

There's something immoral about the NRA helping him out early in his career and him voting for corporate gun immunity and against the brady bill five times...

Immoral is what immoral does and those are facts when it comes to Sanders not right wing TV noise

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. Tens of millions of Americans don't hold cabinet-level positions in the US government

If guns are such a deal breaker for you, chew on this --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511820623

[uponit7771]

9. She took the money as SoS or is this another faux news story? She never said she was

... against guns just immoral quid pro quos votes like Sanders has been involved with.

Horrible attempt at strawmen

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. Can you explain why it was immoral?

Seeing as there actually a legal and moral right to self-defense. Oh, and political speech is also a moral and legal right.

Then, perhaps you can take a moment to explain how it's moral for Hillary, as Secretary of State, to privately take money from interests --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511549624


And since you hate guns so much, please explain why it's immoral to take money from a group that advocates for a legal and moral right but it's moral to -- from a position of power within the US government -- authorize the selling of weapons to governments that do not recognize the rights of citizens to defend themselves --

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511425860


In the US it's legal for a woman being attacked by a rapist to shoot and kill that rapist. In the nations Hillary was approving weapons sales to women who are raped are forced to marry their rapists or are stoned to death for leading the man astray.

Sorry. No Fox News sources could be found.

Vote NO! on Cheney 2.0

[uponit7771]

14. Cause it exempted the gun industry from certain pretrial actions everyone else has to go through ...

... including deciding on whether the suite was legitimate or not.

That should be left up to magistrates and pretrial motions not congress.

The vote was immoral at best and looks like quid pro quo since the NRA helped Sanders earlier in his career

and like anyone else with a weak position you have to claim something about the person they never claimed themselves


...I don't hate guns, just the people who allow them and their use to be horrifically unsafe.


Sanders vote was immoral, full stop

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. Legislatures routinely set laws as to what does or does not constitutes a civil liability.

To claim this is a special carve-out for gun manufacturers is to be divorced from history.

For example you cannot bring suit against vaccine manufacturers --

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of a suit by a Las Vegas couple whose baby son suffered seizures and died after an immunization shot, saying such suits were precluded by a 1986 federal law.

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Parents-can-t-sue-vaccine-manufacturers-3894230.php

I'm sure the anti-vaxxers are upset and think this is "immoral" but for those of us who do not share their mania we appreciate the fact they are not allowed to file frivolous suit after frivolous suit in an effort to bankrupt a legitimate industry.

And neither the 1986 vaccine law nor PLCAA prohibit litigants from bringing suit in instances where defect can be demonstrated. So there isn't much an actual complaint other than, "BLARGH! NRA!"

Now, as I asked previously, could you -- with your supposed distaste for guns -- explain why it is moral for Hillary to approve hundreds of billions of dollars of WEAPONS SALES to repressive regimes that deny their citizens to resist not only tyranny but even rapists?

Why is Saudi Arabia allowed to have guns but a single mother living in a crime ridden city not?

Why is Hillary allowed to personally profit from transaction to repressive regimes and increase her political power but decent, peaceable people should be denied protection?

[kcr]

18. Routinely, huh? So, I'm sure you can list lots of other examples.

Since it's so routine.

Oh. You do realize that they aren't completely barred from suing. They can still sue civilly if the vaccine court rejects their claims. So, really, not exactly like the law Bernie Sanders initially supported.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. You're arguing a point I made myself.

And neither the 1986 vaccine law nor PLCAA prohibit litigants from bringing suit in instances where defect can be demonstrated.

[eridani]

16. So why does NRA give him a D minus? n/t

[uponit7771]

17. that's still horrible...

[Bonobo]

12. This article strikes right to the core of it for most of us. K&R

[Octafish]

13. Helen Thomas wondered what happened to political 'Vision'

The only leaders around when I heard her say that, about in 2010, could only see what's in front of their eyes. We need people who can dream of better ways of doing and living.