You can be progressive and support Hillary

[Onlooker]

Last edited Sun May 8, 2016, 03:54 PM - Edit history (8)

It's not difficult to make a progressive case for Hillary Clinton. Any Bernie supporter who is already resigned to voting for Hillary ought to consider that there are many people just as progressive as you who support her. They are not half baked. So, if Bernie loses the nomination, you can choose to hope your progressive brethren are right. If you're going to vote for Hillary anyway, why feel miserable about it?

I think Hillary represents a different kind of progressive than Bernie. He is an economic progressive, while she is a social progressive. He is more in the European tradition of social democrats, while she is more in the American tradition of liberalism. I like Bernie's politics very much, but I also like Hillary's and on some things I agree with her more than I agree with Bernie. I think that I am typical of a lot of progressives and cannot be disappointed by whoever wins the nomination. In Hillary's case, I

- have deep admiration for the woman or minority who rises through the incredibly competitive white male establishment to achieve perhaps the most important position in the world.
- identify to some degree with the oppressed groups that in large numbers back Hillary, so I back Hillary as a way of backing them.
- think she's just as about as progressive as anyone on gay rights, civil rights, and womens rights.
- think she's just about as progressive as anyone but Bernie in supporting funding for various social services, including healthcare.
- reluctantly support the US being engaged if necessary in military matters involving threat of genocide or transitioning out of the mess we created under Bush.
- believe Hillary's plans for health care, tuition, and minimum wage all represent a good first step.
- back the full support Hillary gave to the Arab Spring including Libya.
- know that Bill Clinton did an enormous amount for gay rights at a time the country was very homophobic.
- know that Bill Clinton stood up for affirmative action even when Congress and the Supremes were beating it down.
- like the fact that Hillary voted 93% of the time with Sanders.
- believe that Hillary's Wall Street proposals aren't bad, but not as good as Bernie's.
- am comfortable with Hillary's continuation of Obama's energy policies.
- believe her goal of a 30% reduction in greenhouse gases in 10 years is as lofty as Bernie's, but she supports scientists who favor nuclear energy and limited fracking (which both produce cleaner energy) as part of the transition to clean energy.
- believe that the Clinton family foundation will be fully defensible on ethical and progressive grounds, and will be a campaign asset.
- view Hillary's scandals, including the $40 million taxpayer funded Lewinsky scandal, as a part of a vast right wing conspiracy.
- don't fault her for getting rich off speeches anymore than faulting Gore and Kennedy for getting rich off inheritance or Kerry for getting rich off marriage.
- know that Hillary is imperfect, but like where she is now.
- have some legitimate concerns about Bernie, related to issues like guns and immigration, but also some concerns about Hillary.
- think that if the vote tallies are being manipulated by the powers that be, then the only Democrat who has a chance is Hillary.
- respect that she has devoted much of her life to people of every race, nationality, and ethnicity, so has a unique understanding of the world.
- admire her resume.
- believe that a Sanders movement is more powerful as an outsider movement.

So, it's not that Hillary is in every way better than Bernie. In some ways, he is better, but overall, I don't think it's too difficult to understand why many progressive individuals support Hillary.

[basselope]

1. No you can't.

[Stallion]

7. Every Major Liberal Democrat in The Country Will Vote for Clinton-Bernie, Jane, Reich, Warren

all of them. Approximately 100% of Democratic officeholders-moderate, conservative and liberal will vote for Clinton. Name a major Liberal Democrat that won't?

[basselope]

13. Democrats make up 29% of the electorate.

So what they do doesn't matter that much.

So yeah, the establishment will vote for her.

And that's about it.

[Stallion]

19. Try 35.6%

highest levels since the months after Obama's inauguration in 2008 and higher than when Obama beat Romney in 2012. Good to see you agree that all Liberal Democrats will vote for Clinton-if you don't you probably aren't a Democrat


http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/party-identification

[Loudestlib]

30. LOL

You know that's because independents joined to vote in the primaries.

[basselope]

31. LOL.

I'm NOT a democrat, although I did join the party to vote for Sanders and will be changing my registration the MOMENT I get home from voting.

Yes, SOME Liberal DEMOCRATS (those who decide to show up) (which make up a minority within a minority) will vote for Clinton.

But, that will not be enough to get her over the finish line in Nov.

[Zorro]

36. I will be quite glad when defeatist trolls are fumigated from this site

[basselope]

37. Yes, it must be nice in the safe little bubble.

Then you can all cry together when you lose in November and wonder why.

I can tell you the answer now.

You didn't REALLY think about the independent vote

[Zorro]

39. So you "think" the independent vote is a monolithic bloc?

Oh yeah, that's what an independent voter is all about. Who knew?

[basselope]

43. Not at all.

But it is pretty easy to predict which was they WON'T go.

Obama LOST the independent voters in 2012 after winning it in 2008

http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2008/
http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/us-elections/how-groups-voted/how-groups-voted-2012/

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/11/13/infographic-obama-lost-the-independent-vote-in-almost-every-swing-state


Now, why is that? Was Romney more appealing to independents than McCain? Why was there such a drastic swing? I know the answer. Obama RAN on a platform of change, but got in, put the usual suspects in the usual positions and then turned out to be just another center right politician.

Do you REALLY believe that Hillary Clinton, who is even more establishment than Obama is going to win that block of voters? Really? Running as Obama's 3rd term she is somehow going to win BACK supporters he lost?

What you are counting on is the fallacy that the very brief growth in democratic rolls are due to interest in the party platform.. I know otherwise. It is because that the democrats have a chance to nominate an outsider, someone who isn't for sale. If that ends and the bought and sold candidate is the nominee.. those people are gone and the democratic party sinks back to where it was... 29%

The independents. Some will stay home, some may vote Clinton.. but MORE will vote for the "outsider", the one who is defying the system.

So, no, they are not a monolithic bloc, but their motivations are known and easy to discern. Clinton can't and won't win them over.

[Zorro]

45. Whatever.

Keep plucking that chicken.

[basselope]

47. LOL

Sorry the truth hurt so much.

[Baobab]

73. She's lyig to us about her HCR, it was actually a diversion from a war on public services

globally effectuated through trade policy.


http://www.iatp.org/files/GATS_and_Public_Service_Systems.htm also see this video - it all came true-

[Katashi_itto]

66. +10000

[sacto95834]

75. HRC still needs the Independents

The Independents still make up the largest voting block. To win in November, you still need them. So far in this primary season, HRC isn't attracting them as successfully as her opponent.

I'd be interested to see how she courts them after the convention. i think it will be an uphill climb.

[KPN]

2. Not if you are economically progressive, NO.

[passiveporcupine]

15. Actually, not even if you are socially progressive

I think Bernie is far more socially progressive than Hillary. He's on the right track with social issues way before she is. She's just been more vocal about her support of women and children, and she's had the platform to promote herself, whereas he hasn't.

No, I don't think real progressives (who should care very much about the economy because of how it affects everyone in this country) would be able to support Hillary's past, or her present.

[RiverLover]

3. If you like fiction.

This post makes some good points. If any of it were based in reality.

[Buzz Clik]

57. If you like fiction, you listen to the shit Bernie's campaign has been selling....

... and you accept it without reading or thinking.

The OP nailed it.

[Ferd Berfel]

4. No

[Amimnoch]

10. Others conflict.

Hillary


Bernie

[basselope]

14. LOL. The nolan chart.

That's funny.

Let's sum you up in 10 questions.

[Amimnoch]

16. Imo better than one that hides behind anonymity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass

The politicalcompass.org website does not reveal the people behind it, beyond the fact that it seems to be based in the UK;[14] [15] at the bottom of any page on the website, it is stated that the Political Compass's copyright belongs to an organisation named "Pace News Limited."[4] According to The New York Times, the site is the work of Wayne Brittenden, a political journalist.[2] According to Tom Utley, writing in The Daily Telegraph, the site is connected to One World Action, a charity founded by Glenys Kinnock.[16] An early version of the site was published on One World Action's web server.[17]

The website does not explain its scoring system in detail and some writers have criticised its validity.[14][16][18][19]

However, if that's what it takes for you to feel better about things. More power to ya.

[basselope]

17. Much MUCH more comprehensive.

You can take it yourself.

[Chan790]

5. I do not believe so, no. n/t

[Vote2016]

6. Of course, you only have to redefine "progressive" as getting "stuff" done (like shitty trade deals)

[Doctor_J]

41. And more expensive healthcare. And capital punishment. And ever more war.

[Vote2016]

46. Her agenda is less progressive than Nixon's

[Trust Buster]

8. Can you be a functional progressive and ignore the current political split in Congress ?

[Ken Burch]

94. Nobody IS ignoring it.

That's largely caused by the fact that our party's leaders are completely incompetent at running midterm campaigns. They continue to use the doomed tactic of trying to appease "swing voters&quot a group that, nowadays, pretty much doesn't exist) by blurring the differences between the parties rather than doing the only thing that ever can win midterms and firing up the base and the potential base among the poor and the alienated.

[sixersixersixer]

9. No. I cannot.

I cannot support Clinton at all without compromising my principles.

[OilemFirchen]

11. Ahyup.

I am and do.

[Dem2]

12. Of course you can

And you're right. The in this thread is just the internet talking, real people are more pragmatic.

[passiveporcupine]

22. So we are just ones and zeroes, not blood and bone to you?

How insulting of you to try to disparage any voice you don't like as non-human. That's bigotry, isn't it?

Oh yeah, those Bernie supporters who think they are the real progressives are sub-human, like being a black Muslim lesbian.

Way to go. If that's what you call being progressive, you need a new dictionary.

[Dem2]

27. Sorry, this is the internet

People in real life rarely act like the uncompromising jackasses that they do on the internet.

Your interpretation of what I said is humorous.

[passiveporcupine]

35. Are you speaking about yourself?

I notice a lot of projection from Hill supporters.

[Lil Missy]

55. you are votes. Anonymous voters on the internet.

[NanceGreggs]

18. If you read DU more often ...

… you would know the answer to that question:

All Hillary supporters are DINOs, Republican-lites and/or low-info voters who are enamoured of endless war, the destruction of the middle-class, and the ruination of the country. They are either members of the 1%, or supporters thereof. They are traitors who embrace “oligarchy”, and are only voting for Hillary because she has name recognition and a vagina.

On the other hand, all Bernie supporters are pure of heart, mind and spirit, and are progressier-than-everyone. They are true patriots who care deeply about their fellow citizens – which is why many of them are willing to risk a Trump presidency by refusing to vote for the (D) candidate in November if it’s not who they want it to be.

Does that clear things up for you?

[elias7]

23. There is a tendency

To glance past a handful of unobjectionable comments until an objectionable one is found, then get so incensed by that one that it is taken for the norm. Your characterization of both stereotypes are based on your response to a minority of supporters who are getting under your skin. If I, as a Bernie supporter were to judge HRC based on those supporters of hers who are, by the way, just as obnoxious as those BS supporters you lump everybody else in with, I might write a post the one you wrote.

We are in this together....

[NanceGreggs]

34. My response is based ...

... on what I see daily on DU. It should be understood that what gets posted on DU has no resemblance to real life whatsoever.

In the real world, many progressives support Hillary, just as many conservatives support BS. There is no line to be drawn where either candidate is solely supported by one group or the other - as many here would have you believe.

The "stereotypes" are a fabrication created by posters who want/need to believe that if they support Bernie over HRC, they are part of a group that is solely comprised of people who are more politically knowledgable, more intelligent in their thinking, more "with it" in their attitude.

We are in this together? Not so. I am "in this" with fellow Democrats who want to see the Republicans defeated in November. That group does not include posters here who have never said a positive word about Bernie (the candidate they allegedly support), but have restricted their posts to anti-Dem/anti-HRC rhetoric, often based on RW talking points dredged up from RW publications. That group does not include people who refuse to vote for the Dem nominee over the GOP nominee. That group does not include people who are hoping for the Democratic front-runner to be indicted on criminal charges before the GE in November.

As for HRC supporters being "just as obnoxious", again the real world is miles away from DU. It was Bernie supporters who left vile comments on the FB pages/websites of Democrats who endorsed Hillary. It was Bernie supporters who threw people like Howard Dean, Al Franken, Gabby Giffords, and John Lewis under the bus the second they came out in support of Hillary. It is BS supporters who are now threatening super-delegates if they don't switch their allegiance from the candidate that has garnered more votes and delegates to the clear loser who can't come close to HRC's numbers - a clear loser who has denigrated the Democratic Party for decades and now thinks he should be elected to lead it.

[bigwillq]

20. Yes (nt)

[auntpurl]

21. This is such a good post.

Seriously, thank you.

I expect you'll get shellacked for it, but honestly this is one of the few sensible posts I've read here in weeks.

[Onlooker]

42. Thank you! n/t

[MineralMan]

24. Of course.

Once there is a nominee, things change. The general election is a binary choice in reality. The divisions may be broader, but progressives have just one option if they want their vote to play an actual role in the decision.

It's important to remember that every opponent of one of the Democratic primary candidate may not actually be a progressive. Each of us needs to make the best choice, based on outcomes.

Consult your common sense and act accordingly. You future and the future of many others depends on it.

[sacto95834]

77. Interesting

A harsher read of your post is Stockholm Syndrome. We identify with Party X, and no matter who they run, we are told it's better to remain with them and vote for their candidate because Party Z is worse. The candidate from Party X, then proceeds to put into place all kinds of policies and pass laws that hurt us economically or socially, but we are told that its still better than Party Z because they are worse.

One day the victim, I mean voter, will come to the realization that they are mad as hell and won't take it anymore.

[DinahMoeHum]

25. I can and I will, if she's the nominee.

But regardless of who gets the nomination in the summer and the general election in November, our work as progressives is just beginning.

One way to take our message beyond November is to participate in the new PAC just formed by Bernie supporters called Brand New Congress
These folks aim to stay active, find progressive candidates, and campaign beyond this year for offices in the off-year 2017 and for the mid-terms in 2018.

http://www.brandnewcongress.org

https://twitter.com/BrandNew535

https://www.facebook.com/brandnewcongress/

[brooklynite]

26. I will always vote for the most progressive candidate...

...who can actually win the election.

[silvershadow]

28. No. nt

[mcar]

29. Yes

[Major Hogwash]

32. I believe Hillary when she said . . .

. . . Iran is a country that is an enemy state of the United States.

See her AIPAC speech to get the full gist of what Hillary was saying about how badly she wants Iran to be the next country the United States invades.

So, the answer to your question is . . not just no, but HELL NO!!!

[apcalc]

33. Of course

[Rex]

38. I'm half baked and I support her.

[Rebkeh]

40. No

You can support progressive policies by supporting her, assuming she would follow through on them. (ftr, I assume she wouldn't follow through on most of them)

But no, progressivism is not based on policy alone. It's based on a foundation of principles, ideologies, values and even a direction. One direction goes towards progress, the other direction doesn't. If a candidate talks one direction but walks the other, that's a problem. Simply stating you are progressive does not make you one. And simply comparing yourself to the opposite extreme does not make you one either.

Edited to add:

Her gender is irrelevant to me, a potential woman president is something to be happy about for sure, but the way I see it is the first woman should be the right one. She just isn't it.

Secondly, progressive positions on social issues are not enough to claim the label. Not by a long shot - the 80's and 90's are over. No more distractions.

[riderinthestorm]

44. She's a conservative on climate change which trumps (heh) everything else.

This is the #1 issue this year.

Any claim to being a progressive is nullified if you support Hillary since her climate change proposals fail us.

[Onlooker]

48. She's not conservative, just more with scientists than environmentalists

She is not conservative, but sides more with the scientists than the environmentalists. Unlike Bernie, she believes that nuclear energy and fracking, both of which are reduced carbon forms of energy, are necessary parts of the transition to renewable sources. In a practical sense, she largely opposes fracking by saying it should be left up to the local communities, should not be used where it harms groundwater, and the fracking chemicals used should be made public. That means she wants to put much tighter environmental controls on fracking. She is also trying to balance the matter of climate change with the economic advantages of energy independence. The low cost of energy has helped the US stay ahead of the rest of the world in our economy recovery. But, her overall climate change plan sets big goals and has a number of big ideas for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 30% over the next decade. Bernie may be better in some ways, but Hillary is certainly progressive on climate change.

[pinebox]

51. Fracking and voted for off shore drilling

These are conservative positions

[Onlooker]

70. Not quite ...

Last edited Tue May 3, 2016, 05:45 AM - Edit history (1)

... Many climate scientists support fracking and it's played a big role in reducing the US greenhouse emissions. Like nuclear energy, it's considered by many experts a lower-greenhouse gas transitional energy source while we are developing and implementing better sources. There is debate over this issue, but Hillary's views (saying she supports fracking provided it doesn't get into groundwater supply, the chemicals used are made public, and local communities can decide) is certainly not conservative.

As far as off-shore drilling, Hillary voted the same way as Sanders during her time in the Senate (against offshore drilling), so Sanders is not that much better than her on this issue.

Sanders of course doesn't explain where we'll get our energy from if we ban fracking, off-shore drilling, and nuclear energy, while Hillary and Obama believe there needs to be a balance between affordable energy (to keep the economy strong) and fighting climate change. You can't have one without the other.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/262837-how-fracking-has-helped-the-us-lead-on-climate

[pengu]

65. Fracking, Offshore drilling

She's god awful on climate.

[BootinUp]

49. You put some real effort into this.

And I think you make a a lot of sense. Of course I am not one you need to convince.

[Onlooker]

91. Well, hope you don't mind but ...

I'll use your post to kick this!

[BootinUp]

93. No, not at all. nt

[pinebox]

50. No you can't

That is an oxymoron.

Hillary may be progressive on like 2 issues and that is about it. Before her "caretakers" come in here and say "she was one of the most progressive senators", who was #1 do you think? "One of the most progressive senators" in an otherwise conservative senate isn't hard to do.

We all know the schtick, her voting record proves it. How can you say you're progressive and vote for off shore drilling, Iraq, call for children migrants to be sent home, vote for a border fence, on and on.

You want to see progressive? Look at the votes in the senate which divide Bernie & Hillary;

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html

Now THAT is telling!

[MrMickeysMom]

52. It's taken me a full 24 hours to stop laughing over this ridiculous new spin...

So, she's a "different" kind of progressive, eh?

Hey! Maybe if they keep beating that dead horse, it'll work... ( )

[Buzz Clik]

63. The Sanders clan invented the notion she isn't progressive.

It was necessary to sell him as not being insanely radical in his extreme views.

[Onlooker]

68. Be careful of narrow-minded ideologically based arrogance

Your comment is dripping with ideological arrogance. Maybe that's because you don't respect the many people who were involved in civil rights, gay rights, and women's rights struggle, who believe that social justice is just as important as economic justice, or who recognize that if Bernie can't win the support of minorities and goes around advocating for a European style socialism, he's going to be easy to defeat in the GE. You may think better of Bernie than Hillary, that's fine, but your condescending response is classist and arrogant.

[baldguy]

53. If you're a real progressive - meaning one who wants to see *progress* - Clinton is the best choice.

[hobbit709]

54. depends on how much one is willing to overlook

[Buzz Clik]

58. Or how much you're willing to lie about HRC.

Politics is funny stuff.

[hobbit709]

59. In your case, a lot.

[Buzz Clik]

60. And you are willing to quote a lie I just told?

Or are you just attempting to insult me in the absence of a substantive response?

[hobbit709]

61. Just now or in the last few months?

your transparency page shows who's doing the insulting.

[Buzz Clik]

62. So you were just insulting me because you have NOTHING

Pathetic.

[hobbit709]

71. Neither do you.

[Buzz Clik]

56. +1

[pengu]

64. No, definitely not

[Bobbie Jo]

67. I'm a liberal

have been for 30+ years.

After seeing some of them in action, I've had my fill of so-called "progressives."

[JoePhilly]

69. The self-proclaimed high priests of liberalism appear to disagree.

[nemo137]

72. Thank you for this post.

I think we can get so caught up in the primary, and so wrapped up in our echo chamber (and as valuable as DU is, it certainly can become an echo chamber), that we lose sight of the entire field.

[BootinUp]

74. kick

[Onlooker]

78. You're incorrect

Bernie was passionate as a very young man about civil rights, but then moved to Vermont, a state that is less than 1% black, not exactly a place for anyone passionate about civil rights.

And, while Bernie was a reliable vote on gay rights, he was never passionate about the issue. True, 6 weeks before the national elections, the Republicans pushed DOMA, and Bernie, like liberals from liberals areas, voted against it, but he never spoke up about it at the time. True, Bernie came out for gay marriage before Hillary, but 5 years after MA legalized it and at least a month after the Vermont legislature legalized it. So, the fact is Bernie is not passionate about racial justice or gay rights. If he was, he'd have more support among PoC, gays, and the major groups and organizations that were actually passionate about those things. The fact is that PoC and gay people don't fall for Bernie's fans trying to rewrite history. Bernie was supportive of gay and civil rights, but not passionate at all.

[Onlooker]

81. You defend Bernie by attacking gay and civil rights activists? Pathetic.

You cite the one example from 1995 of Bernie condemning the use of the word homos, and he deserves credit for that. But, he has no significance in the history of gay rights.

The Clintons risked political capital to fight for gay rights: Bill Clinton granted gays from oppressive regimes asylum, appointed 150 gays to government jobs, spoke of gay rights in the State of the Union address, barred discrimination against gays and people with AIDS where he could, pushed hate crimes legislation (failed), with his wife's help blocked Congress from passing anti-adoption laws, his wife was the first First Lady to march in a gay pride parade, and she gave a great speech about gay rights while SoS (gay rights are human rights, human rights are gay rights). Bill Clinton pushed for gays in the military, but was met with such backlash by both Republicans and Democrats he was forced to settle for DADT. On DOMA, Republicans introduced it 6 weeks before the national election, so only liberals from liberal areas voted against it.

What is Bernie's history with gay rights? He voted against DOMA, but said nothing about it at the time; he did make that statement you refer to in 1995 (and deserves credit for that), and he did come out for gay marriage before Hillary (and deserves credit for that). That's hardly what I would call passion.

Bernie is passionate about economic justice, but while he's a reliable vote on gay rights, civil rights, and women's rights, he has no history with those movements (except civil rights around the time he was writing about his rape fantasies). That's why he has so little support from the people who actually fought for those things.

And for you to disparage the groups that actually fight for gay rights is really insulting. Without Bernie gay rights would be exactly where it is today; without the Clintons it would be further behind; without the gay rights groups it would be even further behind.

[Onlooker]

83. That's a lie

Of course, there are many individuals who have endorsed Bernie, but there's no evidence that I've seen that the leadership of any of these groups went against the membership. The fact is that most polls show Hillary winning handily among PoC and beating Bernie among gays (though the national polls about gays are a couple months old at this point).

But, by all means, post a link showing several examples of your claim. If you don't, then you've either been reduced to lying or have been fooled by others.

[Onlooker]

87. Fail!

You posted articles showing that the leadership of groups supported Hillary, but not articles showing that the leadership went against the membership. The intercept's headline suggests that the membership would vote otherwise, but offers no evidence of that, and the HuffPo article was by an individual who supports Bernie. Further, the intercept's article is primarily about labor unions, which is not what we are talking about.

Again, you are being dishonest. There is no evidence that the leadership went against the membership in the case of gay or civil rights groups. Further, polls show gays and PoC support Hillary in large numbers, so one can reasonably conclude that their organizations are representative of them.

[w4rma]

80. She is not any type of progressive. Hillary is a neoliberal. (nt)

[TrueDemVA]

84. Amazing spin

I have to hand it to you, that was well written. To say she is progressive and make it seem she would be a good choice is an opinion so many people do not share.

The best part in this story is saying, "she is a different kind of progressive..."

Wow! Great attempt.

Still not voting for her. She is different, but just be honest. She is a moderate republican, not a progressive.

[pokerfan]

85. No.

You can not.

[VulgarPoet]

89. ...This has gone clear from drinking koolaid to straight up snorting it.

"So, if Bernie loses the nomination, you can choose to hope your progressive brethren are right. If you're going to vote for Hillary anyway, why feel miserable about it?"

Just because all my friends are jumping off a bridge...

[Onlooker]

90. But, maybe your friends are smarter than you? n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

92. Only if industrial grade vise-grips are up to the required nose holding.