2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumHillary is PROGRESSIVE, MEGA-QUALIFIED, BRILLIANT, and WILL MOST LIKELY be the Dem nominee.
She is SURGING in the polls, is arguably THE most qualified candidate either D or R, and is BRILLIANT. And while not an absolutist purist, she is progressive. End of story.
DianeK
(975 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But completely in step with the majority of the Democratic Party.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)sheshe2
(83,793 posts)aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)One defines settling for the "status quo."
I, for one, don't see any of the Democratic candidates, including HRC, as representing the status quo.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)I expect her to govern to the right of Obama, to be honest with the exception of women's issues -- maybe.
So yeah, I think HRC represents the status quo choice.
I don't Bernie has a magic plan, but I do think he will challenge the status quo more.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and, so are about 75+% of Democrats ... So, we'd be happy, should HRC govern like President Obama.
aikoaiko
(34,172 posts)under 6 years of age currently living in poverty. 50% of young adult African Americans not finding work.
This is the status quo and I know you're not happy with that.
Don't get me wrong. I do not blame President Obama because these are symptoms of a massively systemic problems (both social and economic), but its not like there has been any leadership either.
I'm not saying that the President doesn't care about the economy -- after all he saw the stock market hit 18000 and many rich people got richer.
72DejaVu
(1,545 posts)millions and millions of people, all out of step.
randys1
(16,286 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)But in step with everyone else
jfern
(5,204 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)That makes you a sexist
emulatorloo
(44,133 posts)Thanks in advance.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Hillary has policy proposals, union endorsements, party endorsements, endorsements from civil rights hero's, and experience putting her foot deep inside Republican assholes. She has stood face to face with foreign governments and excoriated them for human rights abuses and stood up for diplomacy around the globe. She is supremely qualified to be president and lead our country forward
Kath1
(4,309 posts)You said that better than I ever could have! And you are 100% right.
You kick ass!
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)I am proud to support her
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)Solid but nothing particularly above and beyond the average.
Chaffee probably has just a good of an argument having served as a Governor and in the Senate, Webb has just a diverse, high level, and a longer career, Sanders has been a Mayor of a major city, a Rep, and a Senator, O'Malley has been Governor of a high population state.
All of or candidates are very well qualified. Biden just ran in 08, he was a long term Senator and had been chair of both Judicial and Foreign Services which I think would place him ahead on that count.
No way she has greater depth of experience than LBJ or Nixon. Jefferson and Adams? FORGET ABOUT IT, not even a contest.
Of course none of the credentials really matter, she has built a dicey at best track record on the matters of the greatest gravity whatever her experience.
If she had ever learned anything she wouldn't have to "evolve" so much in time for the next power grab.
Whatever her resume, she isn't fit for the office because she has a conservative worldview and dangerously poor instincts along with a very casual relationship with the truth and honor.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)She has well rounded experience...
TheKentuckian
(25,026 posts)candidates over the entire history of the country including the ones in this very cycle.
Hers is well rounded and respectable (though no matter what the volume or level I don't feel it did her much good as far as growth and understanding) but I'm not going to even come close to agreeing with the most experienced or qualified EVAH because it simply isn't even arguably true in my estimation. I won't even grant Chafee much less the ALL TIME hyperbole.
It's goofy but to be expected from the camp that ran on experience last time and we were talking like 8 years in the Senate kind of mid pack with no serious committee leadership and running for President a quarter of it. Essentially on par with Obama with his having spent more time at the state level easily offsetting her couple extra years in the Senate.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,747 posts)If she's nominated and then elected, she'll swing back to the center-right, just where she's always really been.
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)BootinUp
(47,165 posts)Its in the fucking bag RB.
randys1
(16,286 posts)better than any con.
But what differentiates her with Bernie, the ONE thing, is such a big thing.
I still say if the Democrats of this country, the liberals, could somehow come together and say look, we are gonna give you dems all the money you need to win elections, dont take a dime from wall street and answer ONLY to us * we could change everything
we could do this if we organized
But yes, if Hillary beats Bernie and is the candidate I will aggressively and happily work her campaign
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)Deadman
(1 post)ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)But some just give it up.
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)PoliticalMalcontent
(449 posts)I'm not really seeing it. Maybe it's because Bernie Sanders is in the picture and he's left of Hillary, but a lot of the times when Hillary takes a stance it seems like Bernie has been there for 10+ years already. So I'm curious... What makes Hillary progressive in your eyes?
Perhaps it's akin to an abstract painting where individuals see what they want to see. I'm just looking for an explanation for how I'm seeing such a different picture from everybody else.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You're not suppose to be enthusiastic.
ReallyIAmAnOptimist
(357 posts)Scuba
(53,475 posts)If she's our candidate, we're fucked win our lose.
Martin Eden
(12,871 posts)That covers a lot that should be unacceptable to Democratic voters, not the least of which is her inexcusable vote for war in Iraq and her continued hawkish foreign policy.
In October 2002 the American people desperately needed strong Democratic leaders to stand up, speak truth to power, dispel the LIES, and make every effort to prevent the most costly, disastrous, tragic foreign policy blunder in US history.
Slightly more than half the Democrats in Congress voted against the IWR.
Senator Clinton not only voted for the neocon war of choice, she stood up and vocally supported it.
By all indications, she's still a war hawk.
Hillary Clinton lost my vote, and she should have lost yours too -- not only for her actual record, but for what she is likely to do if elected president.
We cannot afford the next war that HRC will get us mired in or escalation of the current quagmires from which we must extricate ourselves.
Nearly everything of value that needs to be accomplished for the American people has been and will continue to be sacrificed in on the altar of spending for the Military Industrial Complex.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)I simply don't ever remember her claiming to be progressive prior to the debates, or people claiming she was a progressive prior to the debates - in fact I believe a month before she was proclaiming with pride she was a moderate.. I realize she's had to move temporarily further left to counter Sanders in the primary, but the new progressive branding seems over the top.
Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)You aren't helping!
reformist2
(9,841 posts)Cha
(297,323 posts)Ron Green
(9,823 posts)Is that what "end of story" means?