10 common objections to Hillary Clinton - and how to counter them
I'll start out by saying that the arguments I'm about to make are not for use with people who simply believe Hillary is a liar, untrustworthy, or Satan. These arguments are for people who have an incomplete or misinformed understanding of her policies and might be swayed by a more thorough and accurate understanding.
(Some of this was copied and modified from an in-thread post I made yesterday. Please do feel free to add common objections and your counter-arguments.)
1. Fracking: Hillary is not in FAVOR of fracking. If the choices are foreign oil, coal, and fracking AT THE MOMENT, she chooses fracking as the least damaging option - as a stop-gap solution to keep people heating their homes and getting to work. She also has environmental limits on where fracking should be pursued. At the same time, she has a comprehensive plan to build a renewable energy infrastructure and create thousands of jobs in the process: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
2. Foreign policy/"warmongering": Hillary enacted President Obama's policies as SOS. She has promised to use diplomacy up and until it is no longer a viable approach. Whether you believe her comes down to character, but in terms of her stated positions, she is no warmonger. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/national-security/
3. Opposition to Glass-Steagall: Hillary has a comprehensive plan to eliminate the banks' ability to take dangerous risks and weaken the economy. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/wall-street/
4. Super PACs: Hillary is in favour of comprehensive campaign finance reform. We need a majority in Congress to get this passed (not to mention a Democratic president to appoint SC judges who will overturn Citizens United - which Hillary has promised is a litmus test for her when choosing candidates) - and I am extremely opposed to our Democratic candidates playing a game of chicken and being the first to stop taking big money BEFORE everyone else has to stop too. We need to get into office before we can make these changes. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/
5. Speeches to Wall Street: Hillary was a private citizen, many former politicians make speeches for big money (in addition to loads of other kinds of celebrities), and there has never been any proof of quid pro quo. Also, the speeches to big banks/Wall Street were only a small portion of the total number and dollar amount of speeches she gave.
6. Opposition to healthcare for all: Hillary supports expanding and improving the ACA. Removing it entirely and hoping to get something even more left-wing passed is not reasonable in our political climate. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
7. Opposition to free tuition: Hillary has added debt-free college to her platform: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/
8. Iraq war vote: Hillary has apologised for her vote without qualification. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote-mistake-iowa-118109 She was lied to, but she says plainly that she got it wrong. It comes down to whether someone can be forgiven for getting something that monumental wrong. For me, I can forgive a mistake like that, because lots of other intelligent, thoughtful people made the same mistake, fell for the same lies, and GWB absolutely DID abuse the limited authority given to him by that vote. The mess in Iraq can be laid at the feet of GWB. But everyone needs to take responsibility for their part in it, and I believe Hillary has.
9. Protecting social security: Hillary has promised to oppose any attempts to privatise or weaken SS or Medicare. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/social-security-and-medicare/
10. Minimum wage: Hillary is in favor of a $12 an hour federal minimum wage, and state and local efforts to raise in to $15 when appropriate. This is a compromise approach that won't cripple small businesses in less-wealthy areas while still supporting big cities to pay their workers a living wage. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/labor/
Hillary also has comprehensive progressive policies regarding:
Addiction/substance abuse https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/addiction/
Disability rights: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/disability-rights/
Immigration reform: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/
Paid family and medical leave: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/paid-leave/
among many others, on her website. I encourage you to read it - the plans are really well thought-out, paid for, and realistic in our political climate.
I hope this is helpful, and please add your own thoughts.
Then they can't pinpoint why they don't trust her.
She admitted to NOT reading the intelligence provided to the Senate after every Senator who voted against the IRW implored everyone else to.
Would you trust a judge who never bothers to look at the evidence against you and decides you're guilty?
Response to liberal N proud (Reply #3)
democracy. You're free to believe whatever you want no matter how misguided the opinion.
Trust comes in many forms. I trust that those I support do there due diligence and investigate every matter that they vote on. Especially when that vote involves sending people into a war zone.
I don't expect you to understand because it's quite obvious that you have never experienced war first hand. The site of several body parts of a 4 year old who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time is a disturbing image to have to live with, especially knowing that it was your side that killed her.
If it was a vote for war, why was Iraq invaded by hans blix and un weapons inspectors. Only one person voted NO to war and that was rep barbara lee. Hillary voted for diplomacy not war
October 10, 2002
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.
Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If she is claiming to have been lied to (and stupid enough to believe those lies) then it began with Bill.
Any one who disagrees with any point you have made risks being blocked if we dare to comment.
Response to ciaobaby (Reply #4)
Of course, as an EFF supporter, those who desire to silence people for faux sensitivities or other excuses prevail.
non-believers of abusing them. It's quite obvious that they have been projecting their own attitudes/behavior onto Hillary supporters.
out there working to get Hillary elected, as we're all supposed to be doing.
I am not baiting anyone, I am not a troll, and I resent the insults.
that accused me of being a troll (now removed) and accused me of baiting people to try to get them banned. My apologies for posting it as a reply to your post.
However, your post intimates that I am trying to stifle discussion in some way. I assume, post-primary that we are all Hillary supporters working as hard as we can to get her elected. And this is a resource to help with that. That's all.
I didn't think you were trying to stifle the discussion. Just my being extra careful not to break the new rules.
I took Auntpurl's post as it was meant -- suggested positive ways to answer attacks.
I disagree with the Iraq War item as stated. She voted to increase W's power to deal with a rebellious Hussain, who was threatening to break out of the constraints we'd imposed for a decade and refusing weapons inspections. We didn't lose a single pilot in all those years we patrolled Iraq and kept Hussain confined to a third of the nation and unable to continue his genocide of people in the other two thirds.
It was W who fulfilled the worries of those who voted yes, including her, by misusing the power they gave him in bypassing more limited efforts and launching a full-scale invasion, and then failing at that. Hussain was not the only leader who needed severe constraint. She apologized in retrospect for making the wrong decision, but imo every person who voted W into power, including some here, owes the world a grave apology. We can be pretty sure he wasn't her choice.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
I won't edit my post to amend my #8 with yours because I don't want to remove any transparency about what I initially posted, but I hope people read your much better-explained post.
I'd guess for someone already favorably disposed towards her it might be helpful. But for folks more "in the middle" it doesn't really answer their questions.
Flip side is that I think one can try "too hard". Look, a fair number of the independent/middle ground voters aren't going to really develop a "trust" in her between now and November. It'd be far better to do a fair amount of comparison to their other choice, with a bit of "just how much can you trust any politician". Because to be quite honest, much of the mistrust in her comes from an active attempt by the GOP over the last 20 years to create that exact doubt about her (or them really). One can point out that NY was fairly happy with her as a Senator and that Obama (a fierce opponent at one point) thought enough of her to appoint her SoS.
But after that, really, you could just ask how they would have wanted her to do things differently that didn't involve 20/20 hindsight. Just be prepared that some thinking folks might actually have fairly good explanations and mostly you'll have to morph into something along the lines of "and Trump would have done those things?".
and removal from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors"? AKA "war crimes"? If so, please refer me to the source. Otherwise, not forgiven.
Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #9)
explained the vote, as demonstrated above, and the explanation is sufficient. She explained, in depth, everything she was voting for and everything she was not voting for. So now that the actual vote can't be used against her, now it's because she didn't do something after the vote??
Nothing will satisfy you, apparently. Every reasonable response gets met with a new unreasonable demand.
....week in July and two weeks from the Convention, what is the relevance of those questions?
Shouldn't every legislator who was in her position have called for bush's impeachment?
#6 is a red herring. No Democrat is arguing to remove the ACA first and risk leaving everyone without its protections. It is doubtful that the ACA will ever become truly universal coverage. A public option would help control costs, true; and it might help the country prepare for single payer. But the simplest solution is to make Medicare available to all incrementally by age, if necessary while still allowing private supplemental insurance for those who choose it. That would keep industry jobs viable while allowing a baseline level of coverage for everyone, and ensure better health outcomes by addressing problems early.
You did not bring up the TPP, and it is a frequent topic of criticism. I take Hillary at her word that she now opposes it, although she is on record praising it in its early stages. There are many objections to it that I could raise, but one of the most significant is that if passed, we would never be able to slow down high-frequency trading through taxation, which would end this egregious practice.
So opposition to her based on the TPP isn't viable.
The ACA cannot be converted to Medicare for all. So you're either advocating for expanding and improving the ACA, or advocating for trashing it in favor of something else.
but I am not in favor of eliminating ACA without having a replacement ready. The framing of the OP makes it sound like single payer proponents want to eliminate ACA first, then try for something better, which no one I know of on our side is arguing. Framing it that way simply enrages.
The ACA will stay in place until either a single-payer bill is passed or a Republican president signs a Republican bill repealing the ACA.
The introduction of a single-payer bill would not cause the ACA to vanish. The ACA would remain in place while the single-payer bill was debated.
The ACA would stay in effect until single-payer was passed or until a future Republican president signed legislation repealing it.
It has never been true that simply introducing a single-payer bill would, by itself, repeal the ACA. So please stop saying that.
"Hillary enacted President Obama's policies as SOS." She did argue in favor of violent regime change in Libya. And she did argue in favor of even larger troop increases in Afghanistan than Obama approved.
"Removing it entirely and hoping to get something even more left-wing passed is not reasonable in our political climate." No one on the left supports removing Obamacare entirely and then trying to get something better passed.
"For me, I can forgive a mistake like that, because lots of other intelligent, thoughtful people made the same mistake, fell for the same lies, and GWB absolutely DID abuse the limited authority given to him by that vote." Clinton failed to read the NIE report prior to the vote, and that report cast doubt on some of Bush's lies. Also, prior to the war, Clinton told the Code Pink people that she believed Hussein would not comply with the required weapons inspections. So apparently she believed that war was coming and didn't object. Even on the eve of the invasion, she did not oppose the invasion. And as for Bush's "limited authority," the IWR gave Bush the authority to invade should he deem it necessary for national self-defense to do so. That was a really broad authority.
than a defense. I will forever be disappointed in the dems that capitulated, that I believe voted in favor out of fear of committing political suicide. The country was so ready to kick someone's ass after 911 and W was being hailed as a "strong leader". Yes the Bush administration lied to them and the country, but I think they knew they were being lied to. Some Dems like Sherrod Brown had the courage to say so. Hell, most of us knew it and that was before we were on DU or social media. We just f-in knew Al-Queda was responsible for 911 and that had nothing to do with Iraq. How many of us protested, screamed BS at the TV when Colin Powell, W, Cheney, et al were making the case for war? That vote and W's horrible execution of everything that had to do with Iraq has changed the ME for the worse. But, she is human and humans sometimes make horrible, god-awful mistakes. I don't like that mistake and that's the primary reason I supported Obama in '08 and Bernie in this year's primary. But now that she is the presumptive nominee and the choice is between her and Trump, there is no debate in my mind. She is clearly the superior choice. She does have many other positives and she will be making appointments to the SC that will help shape our country for a generation.
I'm not trying to argue with you. I do appreciate the time and thought that you put into your post. I'm only offering the above because sometimes countering an objection starts with acknowledging the person's objection and then offering them something else to support.
I get the justification--she represented New York, she had to listen to the bullshit Bush was spouting, and true, it wasn't a vote for war itself, but I wish she would have voted against it. She herself says it was a mistake.
I do not know how to respond to her statements about coming in under sniper fire when television crews were there and stated nothing like that occurred. And now concerning the FBI 's statements that she was not truthful, I don't know what can reasonably be said in her defense
Do you realize that we are talking about 3 out of 30,000 emails? Two now have been determined to not be classified, and the FBi stated they had no reason to believe she lied to them. So I have no understanding of where you are coming from, or perhaps I do. I think you are not being very truthful about your ideology or where you seem to getting the information that has led you to these conclusions. I'm more likely not to believe you.
I may come back to this from time to time because it is SO helpful.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.