Opinion of Hillary Clinton

[moderatevoter]

The Democrats can (and should) do better.

[traininthedistance]

It astounds me that anyone could defend Clinton and speak of the President's "sacred duty to be truthful" in the same breath without being overwhelmed by irony.

Hillary's support for the Iraq War would be more justifiable if she had not so thoroughly backpedaled on her support in 2008, when supporting that war was politically inconvenient. And when she did this, she made exactly the sort of arguments that you see in Beet's defense - which, besides giving the American intelligence community far too much credit for their competence, allege the sort of Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy that has served as Clinton's go-to excuse for every misstep that she's made since the late nineties.

I know that the phrase "vast right-wing conspiracy" is a bit of a laugh line among right-wingers and Moderate Heroes... but, uh, if you take a look at the sort of tactics that right-wing media figures and politicos started using in the early '90s (and not really before then), well I think it's an entirely understandable thing to say and believe, modulo semantic quibbles.  I really can't fault her for that one iota, and if that makes me look like a partisan hack then oh well.

[Cory]

She is basically the person who is going to save America.

[bedstuy]

I'll just say this:

Hillary made the same mistake that most of America made in the aftermath of 9.11.  People had this mindset that "something has to be done!" which created this momentum towards reckless actions.  The New York Times and much of the Democratic establishment joined that rush to war.  That's not to excuse their behavior, it was wrong. 

And, it's not something that anyone needs to forgive necessarily.  I won't lecture anyone who chooses not to vote for Hillary based on the Iraq War.  I can respect the view that there's blood on her hands and we need to move on from the people who stood by and let that war happen.  I totally respect that view and I had that opinion last time around. 

Here's what cuts the other way for me.  Congress has historically deferred to the President in a time of war.  Hillary Clinton didn't decide to invade Iraq, she went along with it.  She didn't sign off on all the horrible management of the war or the incompetence of our generals.  And, in 2008, she was in a politically untenable no-win situation.   

So, the question to me is this, do we think Hillary Clinton is going to start wars that other Presidents would not?  Is she quick to use our military without diplomacy?  Basically, is she likely to repeat the mistakes of Iraq?  I don't think so.  I think she's basically the same as Obama on foreign policy, except perhaps that she has more grit and wisdom on how to handle foreign affairs.

What I ask the Clinton skeptics, is not to automatically rally to her side or put aside their qualms.  2016 ought to be a process and Hillary Clinton's responsibility is winning your vote.  If she runs a centrist campaign, devoid of heart and substance, she deserves to lose.  If she wants to run a "prevent defense" "vote for me!" campaign that doesn't speak to working on economic inequality and fighting back against Republican ideas, she won't deserve your vote. 

But, please don't be so naive that you won't listen because you want some ideologically pure, saint who has never fallen victim to the pitfalls of Washington DC.  The President can't necessarily be this representation of all that you believe in and identify with.  Their main job is running the government and moving better legislation through the Washington process.  On that score, I trust Clinton to get stuff done.  And, she's not Andrew Cuomo, she is actually a progressive on the key issues. 

So, there it is, give Clinton a chance to run her campaign and make her pitch.  Don't buy into the labels and the hype, just let the process work as an informed voter.

[Anonymouse]

The Martha Coakley of the presidential sweepstakes. Will she lose in the primary or the general?

It's cute that you think she could lose the primary.

who is Barack Obama

[windjammer]

Freedom Fighter, if elected (I don't think she will be), she would be like Obama.

[politicallefty]

Massive FF. I voted for her in 2008 and I look forward to voting for her once again in 2016. I'm firmly on the left in the Democratic Party, but I am not an ideologue that demands full perfection and purity.

[IceSpear]

So uh, is Nix supposed to bump a bunch of old threads from 2004 and go "No! " ?

I like how you completely ignored the rest of the post. And no, it doesn't necessarily need to be new (or old) posts on Atlas. Any evidence would suffice.

I'm not sure why it's incumbent on me to document my "outrage" every time someone who supported the Iraq War is up for a promotion, up to and including someone who ran for President when I was in middle school.

Nor do I know where you're getting the idea that I'm fond of any of the men whom you've named. The only one I've ever said anything nice about on this forum, if I recall, is Joe Biden, and I don't remember ever making an unqualified endorsement of his putative 2016 candidacy.

In any case, you're dragging this conversation in a strange, personal direction that only reinforces all of the worst narratives about the Ready4Hillary brigade and their extreme sensitivity to criticism. Hillary is very likely to be the next Democratic nominee for President. Don't tell me to ignore every blemish on her record.

Because the entire point is that it's selective outrage and that Hillary is held to a higher standard. Fine, ignore everything from before 2008 (or before you started posting, or paying attention to politics, or whatever). Even if you didn't praise Biden when he became VP, Kerry when he became SoS, etc., the fact remains that you did not vociferously oppose their candidacies despite the fact that they voted the exact same way as Hillary did on an issue that is supposedly an unforgivable sin.

[IceSpear]

The Martha Coakley of the presidential sweepstakes. Will she lose in the primary or the general?

It's cute that you think she could lose the primary.

who is Barack Obama

Because as we all know, polling in the 30s with a split party apparatus = polling in the 60s with a nearly unanimous party apparatus. People really need to do their homework before making the faulty "2008 redux!!1!1!!" comparison.

[free my dawg]

I know that you're a sensitive one, but is that Pavlovian garbage really the best response that you've got?

I know this may be hard for you to believe, but women are their own people. Mind = blown! Implying Hillary would be a dishonest president because her husband lied about an affair is one of the more disgustingly sexist criticisms I've ever seen from a "Democrat". Perhaps a blue avatar would suit you better? Though to be fair, not even many Republicans would sink that low to find justification for their deranged hatred of the soon to be first female president.

Alright, you know we're cool and all that, but you really shouldn't be throwing around DINO accusations when you've said that you're okay with Democrats embracing Wall Street. just saying.

[IceSpear]

I know that you're a sensitive one, but is that Pavlovian garbage really the best response that you've got?

I know this may be hard for you to believe, but women are their own people. Mind = blown! Implying Hillary would be a dishonest president because her husband lied about an affair is one of the more disgustingly sexist criticisms I've ever seen from a "Democrat". Perhaps a blue avatar would suit you better? Though to be fair, not even many Republicans would sink that low to find justification for their deranged hatred of the soon to be first female president.

Alright, you know we're cool and all that, but you really shouldn't be throwing around DINO accusations when you've said that you're okay with Democrats embracing Wall Street. just saying.

When did I say that? If you're referring to what I think you are, I was very clear in that discussion we had that I wasn't glad certain Democrats were doing so, just that I understood why they were considering the current political climate. As a partisan, I would prefer Democrats be tougher on Wall Street. As a neutral observer, one can easily see why they aren't: dark money flooding into campaigns at unprecedented levels which is necessary to be competitive, a lack of public appetite to take on Wall Street, and an electorate that has already been divided mostly based on social issues where very few people are going to budge based on things like financial reform and Glass-Steagall.

Partisanship or ideology was irrelevant to that comment anyway, it was sexist and gross regardless. A wife isn't responsible for her husband's sins (and vice versa).

[free my dawg]

You can talk about how social issues have distracted Democrats from economic populism, but the same applies to the other side as well. Many people who would be natural allies of economic populism are now solid Republicans due to issues such as race, abortion, gay marriage, etc. and they won't be changing any time soon, and why a "New Deal coalition" is no longer possible. That's simply the reality of 21st century politics. And quite frankly, I'd prefer it that way. I'm not going to turn a blind eye to racism, sexism, homophobia, and other bigotry just for the sake of taxing Wall Street a bit more.

You clearly said you were okay with Democrats embracing Wall Street if it meant embracing social justice.

[IceSpear]

You can talk about how social issues have distracted Democrats from economic populism, but the same applies to the other side as well. Many people who would be natural allies of economic populism are now solid Republicans due to issues such as race, abortion, gay marriage, etc. and they won't be changing any time soon, and why a "New Deal coalition" is no longer possible. That's simply the reality of 21st century politics. And quite frankly, I'd prefer it that way. I'm not going to turn a blind eye to racism, sexism, homophobia, and other bigotry just for the sake of taxing Wall Street a bit more.

You clearly said you were okay with Democrats embracing Wall Street if it meant embracing social justice.

You're misinterpreting my comment. Yes, I'd certainly prefer it that way if the dichotomy was between economically liberal/socially conservative and economically conservative/socially liberal, since at least class can be changed (even though it's unfortunately getting much harder to do so). But that's not the dichotomy we have now. The Republican Party won't be budging from hard right economics and hard right social policy any time soon. So that leaves Democrats with a problem on how to combat them. If you go left on both, you gain no voters (since SoCons are not going to abandon the Republicans based on economic issues if you go against them socially, as we have seen many times) and get completely destroyed with endless Wall Street cashing flooding solely GOP coffers. So then you have the choice. You can either shift to the right on economics and get your own Wall Street cash to combat the GOP while losing no votes (granted, without gaining any either). Or you can shift to the right on social policy and try to compete with the SoCons, but that could involve some rather ugly tactics. Other posts on Atlas have written about the decline of the "New Deal coalition" and the reasons for its demise much better than I could, but my point was that in order for Democrats to have a prayer of re-establishing it, they'd need to throw minorities under the bus in order to do so, and that's not a price I'm willing to pay. Basically, in a nutshell:

This is why socialism is and has been dead in America for a long long time. Whatever support from poor blacks you'll get, poor whites will always vote against you if you don't promise to lynch black people and crucify gays.

[Paul Kemp]

Only way to make this thread readable imo:

[IceSpear]

Only way to make this thread readable imo:

And yet, in order to complain about it, you must have been hitting the "show" button. What's even the point of ignoring then? Get some self control.

[The Mikado]

She and her husband collectively embody all the worst and most cynical and destructive tendencies in American politics and it's a lasting shame that they have any public role at all. She'll also likely be the next president.

[free my dawg]

You can talk about how social issues have distracted Democrats from economic populism, but the same applies to the other side as well. Many people who would be natural allies of economic populism are now solid Republicans due to issues such as race, abortion, gay marriage, etc. and they won't be changing any time soon, and why a "New Deal coalition" is no longer possible. That's simply the reality of 21st century politics. And quite frankly, I'd prefer it that way. I'm not going to turn a blind eye to racism, sexism, homophobia, and other bigotry just for the sake of taxing Wall Street a bit more.

You clearly said you were okay with Democrats embracing Wall Street if it meant embracing social justice.

You're misinterpreting my comment. Yes, I'd certainly prefer it that way if the dichotomy was between economically liberal/socially conservative and economically conservative/socially liberal, since at least class can be changed (even though it's unfortunately getting much harder to do so). But that's not the dichotomy we have now. The Republican Party won't be budging from hard right economics and hard right social policy any time soon. So that leaves Democrats with a problem on how to combat them. If you go left on both, you gain no voters (since SoCons are not going to abandon the Republicans based on economic issues if you go against them socially, as we have seen many times) and get completely destroyed with endless Wall Street cashing flooding solely GOP coffers. So then you have the choice. You can either shift to the right on economics and get your own Wall Street cash to combat the GOP while losing no votes (granted, without gaining any either). Or you can shift to the right on social policy and try to compete with the SoCons, but that could involve some rather ugly tactics. Other posts on Atlas have written about the decline of the "New Deal coalition" and the reasons for its demise much better than I could, but my point was that in order for Democrats to have a prayer of re-establishing it, they'd need to throw minorities under the bus in order to do so, and that's not a price I'm willing to pay. Basically, in a nutshell:

This is why socialism is and has been dead in America for a long long time. Whatever support from poor blacks you'll get, poor whites will always vote against you if you don't promise to lynch black people and crucify gays.

And that's why I proposed reframing the debate on social issues from a justice issue to a government issue. Instead of explaining that the Hobby Lobby decision is bad for women because it puts their healthcare in the hands of a man, we simply say that the Supreme Court just allowed big businesses to impose their religious beliefs on us. Instead of mansplaining about how women should have access to abortions because it gives women the right to choose their health and their destiny, we simply say that big government is trying to intrude on the lives of women, and that it will foster Kermit Gosnell-esque houses of horror instead of safe clinics.

There is a way of abandoning Wall Street and having your vision of social justice being carried out. Instead of talking about fairness and justice, we simply flip the script and tell the people that the Republicans want to use big government to impose their morals on us.