Trump aside, why should an American vote for Clinton in her own right?
Trump? We’re ignoring him here; there are other candidates.
She’s a she? Sorry, we’re not sexists here.
Experience? Sure she has experience, but looking at her Wiki page et al she has a conspicuous lack of achievements. Why elect a failure?
Over to you.
She is one of the most qualified people to ever run for president, she is the complete opposite of a failure.
That seems like a harsh label. I’m one of the people who will be holding their nose to vote for Clinton, but your post seems like poisoning the well before you start.
Her policy stances are superior. She’s the only one who wants to raise the minimum wage, improve the ACA and move towards universal health care, reduce the need to be in debt for an education, reform the justice system, evolve the economy to deal with climate change, change income tax rates to be closer to the 90s rates, support women’s rights and improve women’s health, defend voting rights, nominate progressive and reasonable SCOTUS justices (and lower court judges), provide reasonable immigration reform including “amnesty” and a path to citizenship, not pointlessly antagonize Muslims and immigrants, and more, while also having a lot of experience in government.
She is the most qualified person in the field.
No other reason is required.
Well then, what has she actually achieved?
I’m not American. I have no vote. I have no animus here. Are you saying that Americans should be sexist? Are you saying that Americans should vote for someone who has apparently achieved so little despite their high positions? Why aren’t you voting for one of the other candidates?
How many times are we going to be asked the same questions ?
She will choose Supreme Court nominees that will bias court decisions toward a more socially liberal society. Her nominees will have this influence for 40 years to come.
She favors an aggressive stance on Syria. This means she will continue the extremely successful campaign forged by Obama’s administration at the minimum, and possibly help Turkey implement a no fly zone at the maximum.
She has shown a thoughtfulness on many of her policies over the years that allows new information to get her to change her views.
Her vision of school reform is not this alarmist shit coming out of the Republican party and doesn’t kiss the NEA’s ass either.
She supports all science-based views on the big environmental issues of the day.
She generally promises incremental changes to the big policies that have been implemented in the past 20 years or so. She just seems reasonable and not exaggerated in her approach to handling issues.
She gets what is meant by Black Lives Matter. She generally promises to treat all members of our society as full-fledged citizens.
Since women have to work twice as hard to get to the same place as men, I think there isn’t anything she hasn’t seen before.
Her Presidential salary will be 70% of what is has been. That’s savings!!
Oh, how boring, you don’t matter at all.
For example:
[ul][li]As first lady of Arkansas, she instituted cutting-edge early childhood education programs;[/li][li]As U.S. first lady, she worked with Congress and succeeded in passing a historic childhood health insurance program;[/li][li]She put women’s rights on the global agenda, changing countless lives in developing countries;[/li][li]As a U.S. senator, she led the way in getting support for the first responders on 9/11 and bringing new economic development to upstate New York;[/li][li]As secretary of state, she negotiated Iran sanctions, and she brokered an agreement between Hamas and Israel that brought about a ceasefire and helped bring security to Israel.[/ul][/li]Not to mention that as First Lady, she put into motion the changes that would result in the Affordable Care Act.
What do you mean? What kind of achievements are you looking for? What sorts of things have past successful presidential candidates achieved, and how was that reflected in their presidencies?
I don’t understand how it’s possible to read that Wikipedia page and not see tons of achievements. Far more than almost any other person I can think of. Can you explain why you think this? I’m really at a loss here. It’s like you’re arguing that water isn’t wet.
I have no intention of appointing myself defender of all thing Clinton, but the time to ask this question would have been at the beginning of the primaries. There simply are no other viable alternatives at this point.
I would like to see universal health care in the US in my lifetime. I don’t care much about having military-style firearms available to me. I believe that climate change is a real and serious problem. I see no evidence for the canard that Democrats tax and spend drastically more than Republicans, nor that if they did, that would be an unmitigated bad thing. I believe the issue of undocumented immigrants is wildly overblown for any particular group other than the immigrants themselves. In all these cases Mrs. Clinton represents a party platform that hews closer to what I believe my best interests are, than the limited alternatives.
I would also take issue with your assertion that Mrs. Clinton is a ‘failure’ simply because there aren’t enough splashy programs on her resume to suit you. Even if she is such a ‘failure’, however, I believe that by pretty much any metric a Clinton Presidency is the least likely to result in wholesale and pointless disruption to the economy and what passes for a social safety net here.
Here is a partial list:
She has achieved more than anyone else running. Period. Perhaps more than anyone else *eligible *to run.
Her tax and economic policy is whack. Driving more companies offshore to save money on wages and taxes is stupid. She only advocates these counterproductive economic policies because her voting base is too stupid to know better. If she were honest she’d continue advocating for trade instead of shifting positions merely for political reasons. Turning a blind eye towards illegal immigration strictly because the demographics favor her political party is corrupt and myopic.
Technologically she’s a dolt. She thinks you wipe a server with a cloth or a Sham-Wow.
Being the most qualified ever and getting whomped by a young senator was sad. The only reason she’s competitive in this race is she’s running against Trump.
Aside from the following, not insignificant, achievements:
Founding the Clinton Foundation
United States Secretary of State
United States Senator
Graduate Yale University Law School
Graduate Wellesley College
Not to mention all the other stuff she was involved in over the years, I’m not really sure what you are looking for as “achievements”.
The first sentence of Hillary Clinton’s wikipedia page.
That’s an achievement.
Second sentence.
Four more achievements.
Five in the first two sentences. What does the word “achievement” mean to you?
She’ll never send an email as president, she will have people for that. Most decisionmaking won’t leave a paper trail at all. We’ll get her a paper shredder. And she will pull out embassy staff at first trouble. No new ambassies! She’s prepared!
She has a lot of credentials, so I suppose that equals qualified in some people’s minds. She leveraged her husbands presidency into a Senate seat, I don’t think anyone would argue she would have ever been a political player on her own.