Thought Experiment: What a Sanders Supporter Likes About Hillary Clinton as a Candidate

[DirkGently]

Yikes. It's getting thick and deep in here. Reminds me a bit of the savagery I saw back in my 20s on the forums I visited for little hot-rodded import cars -- every post taking the discourse a notch lower; biting a bit harder. And that was just kids arguing about how fast their not-very-fast little Japanese four-bangers were. Then every once in a while, we'd pull back, take a breath, and try to say something from the point of view whoever we were yelling at.

So I'm going to try to say something positive about the candidate I least favor for the Democratic nomination. Hopefully neither overbearingly earnest or seemingly backhanded. If it works, maybe someone else will try something similar, and we can analyze the coming decision with a bit more precision and a bit less hostility. Or maybe not.

If not, well it's Saturday and overcast in Orlando, so I'm inside anyway.

What I Like About Hillary Clinton as the Potential Democratic Nominee for President
-- by DirkGently, a pro-Sanders Duer

1. Experience.: Yes, both candidates have it, but there's no question in my mind that as a part of two previous U.S. administrations and as Sec'y of State, Hillary Clinton has seen it all. All the dirt, all the tricks. All the buttons to push and the arms to twist. I see her as a tough, sharp-elbowed lawyer, a personality I'm familiar with. No one will surprise her if she becomes the leader of the country and the party.

2. Efficacy: For all my support of sweeping change and the independent point of view of those of us shouting from outside the glass, a sophisticated operator of the machinery of power does have the ability not only to get things done, but to fight the inevitable battles from with other side. No one is going to blindside her, and she would be damn hard to outmaneuver politically or diplomatically. She's at the front of the Democratic bench because she has won a million battles already. She can win a few more.

3. The upside of political flexibility: This one has the potential to sound backhanded, but I mean it. I think the momentum we've seen already from the liberal base of the party has the potential to push not only the country, but Hillary herself toward more small "d" democratic principles. The substantive issues I have with what I perceive to be her attitudes on things like Social Security, health care, and foreign policy are subject to adjustment based on public opinion. I think she can be moved in the right directions, and will embrace better policies, as she has in the past, with the right incentives. Presidents lead, but they also follow.

4. She may have broader appeal in a general election: I'm stretching a little here, because I unconvinced that Republicans can more readily smash Sanders as a pinko tax-raiser than they can smash Hillary for being the Democrat they have hated beyond all others for decades. But she seems to be holding on to parts of the Obama coalition, she doesn't frighten upper-middle-class Dems, and I'm sure there are parts of the country that will need a lot more convincing that Sanders isn't some exotic radical here to plunge us into Stalinism or whatever. Of all of these, I think this issue is the most in flux at the moment, but at least to begin with, Hillary is slightly easier to picture as someone who could win enough states to beat whatever candidate the Republicans pick from their box of horrors.

5. General toughness: I have been impressed with my preferred candidate Sanders debate performances and his responses to sharp-edged questioning by the press. But no one's been attacked with more relentlessness and ferocity than Hillary, and as near as I can tell, she laughs off small attacks, and gets lightly angry at larger ones.

SHE WILL FRIGHTEN OUR ENEMIES!

Okay, small joke there, but seriously, no one on Earth thinks they can intimidate Hillary Clinton. That may be true of Sanders as well, but no one knows it for sure yet.

Phew. There we have it. In conclusion, I'm still pulling for the other guy, but Hillary is not the worst candidate, or person, in the world, and I would welcome her Presidency over absolutely any Republican anywhere, never mind the bottom-of-the-barrel collection they are putting forward this time around. I'd like to see Dems focus more on her strengths, and Sanders', and on how we can get one of them to the White House, than on a million ways to inflame and irritate each other on our way to picking one of them.

P.S.
I would ask, although obviously I have no ability to require, that any responses do not drag things into the current poo-flinging battles. "That's all fine except for all the @#$$! from those #$%*S&! supporting that #$$#*!!!!!" would kind of miss the spirit of the thought here.

[BlueCaliDem]

1. Well-written and thoughtful piece, DirkGently. I enjoyed reading it.

Thank you for sharing.

[nashville_brook]

2. Big fan of rear wheel drive. 6-speed over-rated.

Oh wait!

Good job...hope it goes well. Ducking out now.

[DirkGently]

6. It's VTAC for the win,

yo!

[Betty Karlson]

3. No, I'm not happy about those characteristics and here is why:

1. Experience: her experience is as a war hawk and water-carrier for Wall Street. Not what I want in our nominee.

2. Getting things done? Again, what she gets done (the TPP, cuts to social wellfare, opposition to equal marriage rights, authorisation of more costly and bloody wars, support for undemocratic regime changes if a left-wing goverment is not "friendly" enough to Wall Street's vested interests) hardly deserves my support.

3. Policical flexibility: with the right incentive she always moves into the right direction? Wouldn't it be better to nominate someone who doesn't have to move so much, because he has held the right positions for decades? Besides: the only incentives Clinton has shown herself susceptible of are polls and focus groups telling her she absolutely has to abandon some status quo position. And even then, she drags her feet until there is no ground left to drag them on.

4. Broader appeal in the GE? No. I shudder at the thought of her negative coattails. Sanders has a big cross-over appeal on Republicans and Independents. Clinton has the potential to push away vital parts of the Democratic base. Her coattails are NET NEGATIVE! Clinton would lose us the House, the Senate, maybe even the White House. Sanders would basically guarantee the White House, possibly win back the Senate on his coattails, and maybe even flip the House. He'd make Georgia and Louisiana swing-states. No way that Clinton would do so. The 20th century is over. No more 20th century campaigns. The status quo is now untenable, and any candidate campaigning on a status quo platform will probabaly lose.

5. General Toughness? Yeah, we all remember the success of "Cut it out!" at her last 675,000 speaking gig for Goldman Sachs. They really didn't know how to ignore that admonition. Not buying it. Especially since you should remember that it is arrogance like hers that gives Americans such a bad reputation all over the globe. Can we really afford (even IF she wins the GE, which is a big IF) a president who riles our allies the wrong way, and antagonises our enemies with more bombs and more wars? I think not.

---

No, Clinton cannot be trusted. She is a liability in the GE, and her politics and character don't bode well for 99% of us if she succedes (with the help of Debbies and other corruptors) to become president.

[DirkGently]

5. Can you find something positive to say though?

The strongest opinions come from open-minded consideration of all factors.

Can you think of anything you genuinely find appealing or worthwhile about the candidate you least prefer?

Seems like anyone interested in discussion about this rather important choice we are making could, no?

[Betty Karlson]

7. A few months ago, I might have. But then Clinton showed her true colours. And Debbie too.

"She is not as bad, as vulgar, as evil, as the Republican presidential candidates" is about as nice as I can be.

And she may genuinely love her grandchild.

[DirkGently]

9. There is a danger to partisanship.

I don't know about you, but I find myself wanting to respond to what I perceive DWS or others arguing on Hillary's behalf say, or say about Sanders, or Sander's supporters, than on the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates themselves. Reaction breeds reaction ad infinitum.

Part of my personal political identification is that all of the tricks and spinning and undermining that people who believe they are working toward some political end employ are worthless at best; and more often harmful. Some of the loudest voices, regardless of the contest we're talking about, seem absolutely enamored of weak, disingenuous rhetoric designed to enrage or belittle the "other side."

I am more convinced by people who seem intelligently engaged, realistic about the mixture of good and bad that come with all human candidates, and dedicated to trying think through these things.

When people get tangled up in a zero-sum fight to the death over something, the original meaning of the thing disappears. We need to be able to filter out some of this fighting-for-fighting's sake stuff and look critically at everything.

It's not easy when emotions are high, but it's worth fighting to cut through the noise and get to the signal I think.

[Betty Karlson]

11. You mean the danger of wanting to destroy the other?

You can't blame the left for wanting to do that to Third Way after 30 + years of abuse. But you are right: the desire for change shouldn't be overtaken by a desire to destroy anything smacking of moderation. Sanders will need the moderates too, and is more than capable of wroking with them.

Have you started a similar thread for Clinton supporters about Sanders? Because the acrimony over there is pretty ugly too.

[DirkGently]

12. I don't think I have the right to speak for Clinton supporters.

I had this small aspiration of "going first," from my own point of view as someone who prefers Sanders, swimming against the prevailing trend of OH MY GOD WE WILL DESTROY YOU PEOPLE coloring so much of the discussion here lately with an attempt at objectivity and some areas we could maybe all discuss without devolving into poo-flinging.

It wasn't "for" Sanders people or Clinton people, so much as attempt at a discussion anyone could join. But the last thing I would attempt is to try to craft something suggesting how Clinton supporters might approach things, because at the end of the day I agree with them less.

But I'm fine saying to anyone that a billion variations on the theme of "your person sucks" is neither persuading anyone nor illuminating anything particularly useful for the practical business of picking a candidate.

[GoneFishin]

4. I sincerely agree with some of your points. Good job.

[DirkGently]

10. We ARE the smarter party.

I understand why the Republicans are tearing themselves apart. The built a corporatist party on hateful populist rhetoric, and now they're stuck arguing about giant anti-immigrant walls and how to better abuse Muslims, when all they really want is ALL THE MONEY.

But we're the thoughtful ones. The grownups in the room. We can look at a couple of solid candidates and talk about what we think, what we need from them, and how we can win.

Theoretically.

[NurseJackie]

8. Nicely done.

[Arazi]

13. I'll have a go

1. I admire Hillary for her genuine love for her family - it's obvious, transparent and charming. I didn't actually find Chelsea's comments that awful instead I found her support for her mom to be admirable. Bill too. Whatever the state of their marriage, they've made peace with it and there's real warmth there which seems to be almost a miracle with what they've been through

2. Which leads me to my second point, she IS tough. She really has endured everything that can be thrown at her and she's done it with grace and even humor. Bravo

3. She wears her age proudly. I suspect she's had some plastic surgery but she's obviously a lovely, older woman. I like it. It's real. I also like that she wears sensible clothes - I know that seems small but she's endured a bit of ribbing for her pantsuits.

4. It's obvious she's incredibly smart - most likely the smartest woman in the room wherever she goes. When I watch her at the debates she's really answering the questions off the cuff (heh, no Teleprompter needed), I love her focus on Bernie when he's speaking - it's respectful and involved. You know she's always going to answer well and it's not going to be a canned part of her stump speech (I'm looking at you Rubio and Cruz)

Thanks for the suggestion DirkGently! This was pretty easy to do actually. To be fair, I really disagree with her on pretty much everything and I'm a firm Sanders supporter but this was a good exercise

[DirkGently]

14. Nicely done!

I have no problem seeing Hillary as "Presidential." She carries herself with dignity and self-assurance and exudes intelligence at all times. I see these things in Bernie as well, of course.

[Arazi]

17. Thanks! Good OP Eom

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

15. Finally - a thread in this forum that I can stand to read. thnx . All the yammering here makes me

wonder how many of these posts are legit, well reasoned concerns by actual progressive voters... and how much the work of provocateurs.

I am absolutely serious. Divide and conquer - it works.

Repubs go negative on their opponent because the nastiness taints both candidates, and the resulting demoralization drives down voter turnout of both parties .... and repubs tend to win when that happens.

Why is it being used here, by (presumably) progressive voters? Its an honest question.

EDITTED TO ADD (in the spirit of the OP) : I like her because as a Dem candidate, she can be "gotten to" and pushed into corners to take more progressive stances. The pushing would be totally up to "we the people" of course but at least it would remain a possibility.... unlike if a R wins the election. As I see it even if Bernie is elected he will still need to be monitored. People tend to think you elect a president and that's it, you can loaf and not pay attenin for 4 yrs. No - they can only take courageous stances if they're backed by overwhelming popular demand. This is especially true with a pres. facing an all repub congress and conservative court.

[DirkGently]

16. Yes! Grassroots people need to keep

"grass-rootsing&quot ?) at all times. The whole idea is that we can never just "plug in" the right elected official and be assured all is well. Someone I know reminds me regularly that LBJ kept telling Martin Luther King that he needed to keep the pressure on to "make" him do the right thing with civil rights. Obama told us all to keep his feet to the fire.

It never ends. Whoever we elect needs to be convinced that their political life can be sustained (and endangered) by the opinions of people, and not just the handful with lobbying firms behind them.

[nashville_brook]

18. just a kick b/c why not.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. I will even go ahead and rec it

and kick it up

I am not a fan of sanders or HRC, but I find her to have a few incredibly good assets.. I will vote for is my business.

She is a hard worker for example,with a strong work ethic. That will take her far in any job. She is also a fighter for things she actually believes in. She also will work to make the country better, in a way that she understands this to be. I will have to qualify this, from being a political observer, that every candidate running believes this. Some I do not agree with, but they all do, with possibly one exception this cycle..

Neither she or anybody else, wants to do what is wrong for the country. This I know will not be a popular thing but people who run for office, with a few exceptions, and I do not believe she is one of them, are there just because they like the power, or the perks. (Though I think Trump might be). Most run becuase they do have a vision whether this is city hall or the presidency.

Cover politics long enough and you come to realize this, FAST.

Oh and yes, like the rest of them, she puts her pants on the same way we all do in the morning, one leg at a time, and she is quite human.