2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: What specific POLICY POSITIONS show Sec. Clinton to be "Not Liberal" or "Not a Democrat?" [View all]Chan790
(20,176 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 23, 2016, 02:30 PM - Edit history (1)
You want to say "you can't talk about {this} or {this} or {this}" but that's the crux of the argument against liberal or Democratic Hillary.
All those things she did 20 years ago, or 8 years ago or the IWR. She was laying out liberal policy proposals and platforms then too...that she abandoned to do those RW things you want to exclude. "Getting things done" has long been Hillary code-speak for "willing to adopt RW positions in order to get a resolution she can call a win" and it's been long exposed. The story of Hillary is "Quacks like a progressive duck, tramples over progressive ideals like a GOP elephant and calls that progress."
It's not credible anymore. She's not credible anymore. As my Uncle Bob (a staunch mainstream RW Republican) said last Sunday at family dinner: "Really, I'm voting for Hillary. she's the best Republican still in this race." He changed his voter registration explicitly so he could vote for her in the CT primaries because as a life-long Republican that supported Nixon, then Reagan, then Reagan, then Bush, then Dole, then Bush, then Bush, then McCain, then Romney...Hillary is the candidate out of all the remainers that best matches his political ideals. If you don't see that as problematic in terms of you really don't want to be on the same side of the fence as Bob, I don't know what to tell you...he's literally supporting her because she's the (edit: best) ideological heir of Ronald Reagan. (edit: still in this race.)