2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]SanAntoneRogue
(20 posts)... what's the alternative? Her husband was not a wildly Liberal President, but the nation did very well with him at the helm. Night and day better then when W. Bush took over.
Bill Clinton certainly didn't take a "principled stand" against the campaign financing operation in existence, but to do so (I would submit) would be tantamount to throwing the election. With current rules, politicians MUST raise money or they lose. That's the bottom line. It should change, but until it does, we gotta play by the rules competitively.
As to "trustworthiness", you follow by calling her statements "populist platitudes". What is that? It's not trusting her.
Her record of serving Democratic ideals comes greatly from serving the people of New York for two terms as Senator. She got her second term because her record was not made by "populist platitudes", but instead by ACTIONS to serve her constituents.
I certainly don't find Hillary to be the perfect candidate to my liking ... I'm more radically Liberal than pragmatic on issue stances. Bernie Sanders speaks more the way I believe, but I AM pragmatic about American Politics, and if we Democrats run Sanders, we will lose the general election. Ditto Liz Warren, who I admire greatly. Fantastic people, and do great good for the nation. But they're too far left to win nationally (my opinion. My dad was disappointed several times voting for Adelai Stevenson).
Whatever Hillary's shortcomings from Liberal "purity", the alternative would be a Republican, and that is grossly worse in every way. I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the possible.