Politico: Why does The Left hate Hillary Clinton?

[skoods]

Because there's sexist progressives as well. Somehow, people on the left seem to think that sexism and racism only applied to the right wing. That's far from the case. Look at all the 18-25 year old Bernie supporters calling her a "b&tch" or a "c*nt."

These young Bernie supporters prefer their women to be twerking not leading. That's the millennial generation. And this is coming from a 28-year old white male.

[Pyro]

Cause Centrist complacency, driving force of lesser-evilism, and a host of other clear-cut reasons.
Haven't we gone over this enough times?

She was the 11th most liberal senator when she served so this thing about her being a centrist is either ignorance or purist delusion.

If McDonald's was considered the "11th Best Fast Food Restaurant" it would still be rubbish.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Cause Centrist complacency, driving force of lesser-evilism, and a host of other clear-cut reasons.
Haven't we gone over this enough times?

She was the 11th most liberal senator when she served so this thing about her being a centrist is either ignorance or purist delusion.

If McDonald's was considered the "11th Best Fast Food Restaurant" it would still be rubbish.

That's some fine political analysis.

[Beet]

I'd also point out that Kerry did have chops as an anti-war activist from the Vietnam War era, around the same time that Hillary Clinton was supporting Barry Goldwater.

Kerry's activism was in the early 1970s. During this time Hillary Clinton was a McGovern Democrat and strongly anti-war.

[nicholas.slaydon]

Cause Centrist complacency, driving force of lesser-evilism, and a host of other clear-cut reasons.
Haven't we gone over this enough times?

She was the 11th most liberal senator when she served so this thing about her being a centrist is either ignorance or purist delusion.

11th most liberal member of the senate in the US still means she is a centrist. There is no real left in America.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Because "The Left", quote unquote, has a different political ideology to Clinton and the Democratic mainstream?

What a dumb question.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Cause Centrist complacency, driving force of lesser-evilism, and a host of other clear-cut reasons.
Haven't we gone over this enough times?

She was the 11th most liberal senator when she served so this thing about her being a centrist is either ignorance or purist delusion.

11th most liberal member of the senate in the US still means she is a centrist. There is no real left in America.

Of course, Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold were well-known centrists.

[nicholas.slaydon]

Cause Centrist complacency, driving force of lesser-evilism, and a host of other clear-cut reasons.
Haven't we gone over this enough times?

She was the 11th most liberal senator when she served so this thing about her being a centrist is either ignorance or purist delusion.

11th most liberal member of the senate in the US still means she is a centrist. There is no real left in America.

Of course, Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold were well-known centrists.

Compared to the left in the rest of the world they were not only centrists but in some countries would just be conservatives. In an international sense even Bernie Sanders is a centrist.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Cause Centrist complacency, driving force of lesser-evilism, and a host of other clear-cut reasons.
Haven't we gone over this enough times?

She was the 11th most liberal senator when she served so this thing about her being a centrist is either ignorance or purist delusion.

11th most liberal member of the senate in the US still means she is a centrist. There is no real left in America.

Of course, Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold were well-known centrists.

Compared to the left in the rest of the world they were not only centrists but in some countries would just be conservatives. In an international sense even Bernie Sanders is a centrist.

In an international sense you're a far-left nutjob.

[nicholas.slaydon]

Cause Centrist complacency, driving force of lesser-evilism, and a host of other clear-cut reasons.
Haven't we gone over this enough times?

She was the 11th most liberal senator when she served so this thing about her being a centrist is either ignorance or purist delusion.

11th most liberal member of the senate in the US still means she is a centrist. There is no real left in America.

Of course, Ted Kennedy and Russ Feingold were well-known centrists.

Compared to the left in the rest of the world they were not only centrists but in some countries would just be conservatives. In an international sense even Bernie Sanders is a centrist.

In an international sense you're a far-left nutjob.

In an international sense I am Clement Attlee and Jeremy Corbyn, neither of which are or were far left.

[Averroës Nix]

[BundouYMB]

"The Left" doesn't hate Hillary. That's way too general. Black and hispanic "very liberal" voters supported her overwhelmingly, as did black-and-hispanic-oriented politicians, unions, and advocacy groups on the left of the party.

So, clearly, lefties don't hate Hillary. White lefties hate Hillary.

And they hate her because Hillary's campaign a). ignored them and b). proceeded to prove that America has changed demographically to the extent where you can easily win the Democratic nomination while ignoring them.

[Pyro]

"The Left" doesn't hate Hillary. That's way too general. Black and hispanic "very liberal" voters supported her overwhelmingly, as did black-and-hispanic-oriented politicians, unions, and advocacy groups on the left of the party.

So, clearly, lefties don't hate Hillary. White lefties hate Hillary.

And they hate her because Hillary's campaign a). ignored them and b). proceeded to prove that America has changed demographically to the extent where you can easily win the Democratic nomination while ignoring them.

To quote yourself, "That's way too general."

A great deal of nonwhite voters, organizers, and organizations were very vocal in their opposition to Hillary Clinton, and it's pretty shameful to just cast that aside in your generalization. Clinton locked down a far greater number of establishment/governmental endorsements (like the CBC) because she represents the status-quo they wish to retain.

Obviously the majority of minority voters went with Clinton, but (looking at 2008) much of that seems to be more of an (understandable) anti-Sanders vote than a pro-Clinton one: chiefly due to the former's ineptitude dealing with issues unrelated to the economy and inability to put out a passable multi-pronged message. ie; a candidate who says, "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto," as a means to attract nonwhite voters is not going to win over any nonwhite voters.

[publicunofficial]

I recently talked to a co-worker who asked why I would support Hillary Clinton, even though she's a racist. I asked why he thought she was a racist, and his answer was "I don't have any examples, but you KNOW she's a racist."

Thoughts like that I think fuel a lot of Hillary hate.

[Pyro]

I recently talked to a co-worker who asked why I would support Hillary Clinton, even though she's a racist. I asked why he thought she was a racist, and his answer was "I don't have any examples, but you KNOW she's a racist."

Thoughts like that I think fuel a lot of Hillary hate.

I sure hope not. No offense, but your co-worker is a moron.

[RINO Tom]

I agree with the Clinton supporters in this thread: Hillary Clinton is a standard liberal Democrat, and there isn't much centrist about her (as far as America goes, which frankly is all that's relevant).

As long as they remember that come November.

[Suck my caulk]

I don't hate Hillary Clinton. She had a good chance at winning in 2008, and was rejected by the Democratic electorate, and rightfully so, because in my opinion she was not progressive enough for me. In 2016, Democrats chose her at the nominee, and I will not be supporting her, just like I did not support Obama in 2008. Neither of these people are progressives, and Clinton is even further to the right (on foreign policy, social issues until recently, and spying/NSA) than Obama is. That article told me nothing I did not already know. I'm a Democrat who would have supported the Democratic nominee blindly from 1932 (the beginning of the New Deal coalition) through 1992, but by 1996 the Democratic Party had become too conservative or right-wing, on economic issues for me. I would not have coted to re-elected Clinton in 1996, I did not vote for Obama in 2012, and I will not be voting to elect Clinton in 2016. I really do not understand why my political positions offend so many people on this forum. If the Democrats want my vote so damn bad, they should nominate someone who is a progressive, not a self-styled "moderate," which is how Hillary Clinton described herself in 2014, before "pivoting" into a progressive.

Cause Centrist complacency, driving force of lesser-evilism, and a host of other clear-cut reasons.
Haven't we gone over this enough times?

She was the 11th most liberal senator when she served so this thing about her being a centrist is either ignorance or purist delusion.

The spectrum in the United States has been moving to the right since Reagan, and Bill Clinton shifted even the Democratic Party to the right.. Bernie Sanders has consistently been ranked as the most liberal Senator in the nation, and he is about where FDR was on the political spectrum (social values aside). If Clinton was 11th in a sea of Congress members who continually move further and further to the right, she is not a progressive. Neither are Joe Biden and Barack Obama. I must say, however, that I do not understand the hatred on this forum for WV Senator Joe Manchin as a conservadem. The man has been consistently against Iraq and Obama's military interventions, TPP, and Citizen's United, and in favor of gun legislation. That is not taking anything away from Hillary Clinton's gun record, but it does not make sense why people seem to have this idea that Manchin is a Tea Partier in the Democratic Party. That is a completely false notion.

[fhtagn]

One of the many reasons I hate Hillary Clinton. I hated that the "woman" agenda was pushed so heavily, and fake "feminists" who know nothing about her flock to her simply because of her genitalia. We get it, first woman president and whatnot. However, her fake concern over rape victims (an example that's a huge feminist issue) doesn't speak to me as a voter considering how hard she tried to silence her husband's victims.

Other reasons include her horrible attempts to win the "black vote". It's borderline offensive the lengths she went to prove that she was "black enough" to earn their votes (ex. hot sauce in her purse). If this was any other candidate, there would be outrage, but she's a woman and a Democrat, and that somehow makes it okay.

While I fully support Bernie Sanders, prior to his bid for the Democratic nomination, I was fully supporting Jill Stein, and plan to return to doing so once he decides he plans to drop out. Hillary has done nothing to earn my vote.

[President Johnson]

The answer is simple: Because she's relying on big donors and a neocon.

[IceSpear]

"The Left" doesn't hate Hillary. That's way too general. Black and hispanic "very liberal" voters supported her overwhelmingly, as did black-and-hispanic-oriented politicians, unions, and advocacy groups on the left of the party.

So, clearly, lefties don't hate Hillary. White lefties hate Hillary.

And they hate her because Hillary's campaign a). ignored them and b). proceeded to prove that America has changed demographically to the extent where you can easily win the Democratic nomination while ignoring them.

To quote yourself, "That's way too general."

A great deal of nonwhite voters, organizers, and organizations were very vocal in their opposition to Hillary Clinton, and it's pretty shameful to just cast that aside in your generalization. Clinton locked down a far greater number of establishment/governmental endorsements (like the CBC) because she represents the status-quo they wish to retain.

Obviously the majority of minority voters went with Clinton, but (looking at 2008) much of that seems to be more of an (understandable) anti-Sanders vote than a pro-Clinton one: chiefly due to the former's ineptitude dealing with issues unrelated to the economy and inability to put out a passable multi-pronged message. ie; a candidate who says, "When you're white, you don't know what it's like to be living in a ghetto," as a means to attract nonwhite voters is not going to win over any nonwhite voters.

You got that backwards. 2008 was pro-Obama, not anti-Clinton. She actually started with a massive lead among blacks and still crushed Obama among Hispanics in the end. Black voters only moved once Obama was seen as a viable candidate and proved himself after Iowa. Her complete dominance this year is what would've happened had her main opponent been anyone but Obama in 2008. You're correct that Sanders as clearly not the best candidate to appeal to minorities, but no current Democratic politician would've been able to threaten her dominance there, even if they did somewhat better than Sanders did.