# This pro-Hillary rant is cathartic for me **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 3, 2016, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026 "2016-02-03T04:44:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/101 "2016-02-04T02:49:57Z")
She won’t say any of that out loud. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone, online or off, who has. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/102 "2016-02-04T02:50:04Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > No, what’s radical is that I don’t think we need a “political revolution”, or to get money out of politics or make other fundamental changes to our electoral system, or that America needs to get great again, etc. If you call me up and poll me, I’m one of the “right track” people. I was also one of those who approved of Congress when Democrats were in charge, and liked everyone in the leadership. I do not believe we live in an oligarchy, or that the vast majority of Democratic elected officials at least are corrupt. > > Are you going to tell me that someone can openly say these things in either party and get anywhere with voters? If not, that makes it radical. Dude. Radical is not a synonym for “unpopular.” It’s a word with a meaning. If what you’re doing is making up a brand new definition for the word, please let us in on the definition so we know what you’re trying to say. By current definitions of “radical,” supporting the status quo is the exact opposite of “radical.” Which is fine, it’s a perfectly legitimate position and one I’m inclined toward. It’s just not radical. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/103 "2016-02-04T03:57:50Z")
I think [EJ Dionne](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-theory-of-change-to-believe-in/2016/02/03/c2939c16-caa9-11e5-88ff-e2d1b4289c2f_story.html) has a great article on the two candidates. It pretty well sums up my ambivalence about both of them. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/104 "2016-02-04T04:11:44Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Again, this is pretty problematic. Your implication is that folks like myself–folks who since the 1980s have been hoping the US would move toward more of a Western European/Canadian model of democracy in terms of government services and taxation levels–don’t look to Sanders and see a politician who would help nudge the country in that direction; instead, we see someone who we can “imagine is [our] buddy,” who we could “drink a beer with,” who is a “surrogate parent figure,” whom we can “transfer all [our] hopes and dreams on to.” > > No. It’s perfectly possible to be clear-eyed about the situation and also to think that Sanders’s political approach is salubrious for our country. > > I don’t say nasty sneering things about Clinton supporters. I try to defend her from nasty unwarranted personal jabs. I’ll thank you to offer me the same courtesy. I don’t intend any disrespect towards Senator Sanders. He seems like an honest man who is presenting his platform openly. And while I’m not in full agreement with that platform, I don’t find it abhorrent either. But I feel there is a realism gap among his supporters. I feel too many of them aren’t noticing the difference between what a politician wants to do and what a politician can do. So while I believe that Sanders wants to make greater changes than Clinton does, I also believe that greater changes would actually occur under a Clinton administration than would occur under a Sanders administration. ---
**Author:** ![Octarine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/22d042/32.png) [@Octarine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Octarine)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/105 "2016-02-04T04:15:57Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Both are traitors to the party and deserve to be kicked out of it. “Traitors to the party”? What is this, 1984? If a Clinton supporter genuinely thought Rubio or whoever else would be a better President than Bernie (unlikely, but possible), or vice versa (OK, pretty much impossible), they should be loyal to their\* country\* and cast a vote for their favored candidate. I realize I’m about 250 years too late on this one, but this party above country stuff is cancerous. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/106 "2016-02-04T08:00:34Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Dude. Radical is not a synonym for “unpopular.” It’s a word with a meaning. If what you’re doing is making up a brand new definition for the word, please let us in on the definition so we know what you’re trying to say. > > By current definitions of “radical,” supporting the status quo is the exact opposite of “radical.” Which is fine, it’s a perfectly legitimate position and one I’m inclined toward. It’s just not radical. I really don’t think the definitions of “radical” are as constrained as you claim. There is after all [“radical centrism”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism). And in my trusty American Heritage Dictionary (5th ed.), the second definition given is “Departing markedly from the usual or customary”. I think my appreciation for the political system as it is qualifies. 😛 But I also want to note that I am not taking up for the status quo more broadly. There are many changes I strongly favor in government policy, such as: –Providing a universal health benefit of an [HDHP/HSA plan;](http://www.hsaconnect.com/hsa-health-insurance/hdhp-high-deductible-health-plan.php) –Catching up to the rest of the world in [fully paid family leave;](http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/norway-is-proof-that-you-can-have-it-all/story-e6frg9zo-1226679266322) –Not only repairing and rebuilding our [crumbling infrastructure](http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/), but retooling it to be more [walkable and bikeable;](http://thecityfix.com/blog/people-oriented-cities-designing-walkable-bikeable-neighborhoods-active-transport-claudio-sarmiento-matthew-roe/) –Ending the war on drugs once and for all; –Paying [reparations](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/06/the-case-for-reparations/361631/) for slavery and Jim Crow; –Weaning the U.S. off fossil fuels altogether; –Instituting a [guaranteed basic income](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/) These hardly represent the status quo. But I firmly believe the Democratic Party is already well positioned, with leaders like Hillary Clinton. to move incrementally toward eventually implementing all these policies and more. No “revolution” needed! ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/107 "2016-02-04T10:01:05Z")
Off the top of my head, without even doing a search: I know Hillary is opposed to reparations (as is every white politician in the country). I know she’s for the War on Drugs. I know she’s supported by the fossil fuel industry. I know she’s\* strongly against \*single-payer, so any “universal” insurance she proposes will not really be universal, but spotty. I haven’t seen any indication she gives a flying fig about a basic income guarantee. I would believe she might support some infrastructure spending only if you can find a cite for her actually positively saying she will pursue it. She might not be against fully paid family leave. So, on half of those, you are _imagining things_ if you think she’s on your side. This is the problem. Leftists want Hillary to be their ticket, but electable. But her “moderation” has more to do with what she actually doesn’t stand for (as in, progressive economics, radical environmentalism) than with her electability. Hillary will be known as the nominee of the Socialist Tax-Raising Commie Baby-Killers if nominated, just the same as Bernie. She just won’t \*do \*the stuff you want her to do. You may get from her candidacy more of the electoral disadvantage of running a Socialist Tax-Raising Commie Baby-Killer than you get the policies you want out of it. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/108 "2016-02-04T10:08:13Z")
This thread just indicates to me that Hillary Clinton is benefiting from supporters who assume that she’s more liberal than she is, and that the difference is one of style. Actually, no. If it were just style, so what? I think Hillary will be seen as a dangerous Commie by the Right, just in “sheep’s clothing.” If she’s ashamed of leftism enough to hide it, how does that advocate for left-reform? The policies mentioned in post #106 will become more viable if they’re more popular. How do you make something more popular if you’re ashamed of it? How do you make a lefty policy more popular if even the Democrats run away from it? But–even worse–if she advocates for something to the right of Nixon, we continue to define “leftism” to mean conservatism in practice. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 11:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/109 "2016-02-04T11:01:12Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It almost sounds like she’s saying that liberals like Sanders _because_ he has messy hair. While I wouldn’t be surprised to find three people in the country for whom that’s true, for the vast majority of us, we like him for completely unrelated reasons, and don’t give a damn about his hair. If Sanders had the exact same message but neat hair, then we’d feel the same way about him. It’s not like “getting away with having messy hair” gives him some sort of big advantage. _Oh boy oh boy_ do you misunderestimate the _extreme raw power_ of [Wild](https://theconservativetreehouse.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/albert-einstein1.jpg) [Hair](https://img0.etsystatic.com/008/0/5851351/il_fullxfull.370263870_r8lg.jpg)! ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/110 "2016-02-04T12:43:37Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > She just won’t \*do \*the stuff you want her to do. Hillary supporters tend to be older and conservative, so this might be you projecting from what you want her to do. Someone from one of the parties might as well be the “I won’t set everything on fire” candidate. ---
**Author:** ![SlackerInc](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slackerinc/32/275_2.png) [@SlackerInc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlackerInc)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/111 "2016-02-04T13:42:20Z")
Older, yes. Conservative? Uhhhh. BTW my mom served on a foundation with her in the 1980s and found her to be quite progressive. My mom is a Bernie supporter and laments how much Hillary has changed since then. I think in her heart she has likely not changed much but it is just a pragmatist. ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/112 "2016-02-04T16:03:15Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Riiiight, because that Vermont GOP is so well known for its shit flinging. Hello, Jim Jeffords anyone? The guy switched sides because he didn’t like how the national GOP was becoming a bunch of meanies. It’s certainly true that Vermont Republicans are generally saner and more reasonable than the national party is. Very much like New York Republicans, in fact, which is the only kind Hillary has ever actually defeated in an election. So I guess we’ll call that a draw. I will magnanimously overlook the minor detail that Bernie has done this _ten times as many times._ ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/113 "2016-02-04T16:08:20Z")
Clinton has faced national level shit flinging. That’s a little silly. I mean not during an actual election, but all the accusations are out of the bag. But I agree that Sanders has more election experience. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/114 "2016-02-04T16:08:53Z")
I mean, let’s get real–who exactly are these Sanders supporters who don’t realize that Republicans are going to tell all sorts of stupid hyperbolic lies about whoever the Democratic candidate is? Who exactly are these Sanders supporters who will be surprised by Republican attacks? Let’s name names. It’s very easy to sneer at your political opponents for how stupid you fantasize they are. It’s a lot harder to admit that people of thoughtfulness and intelligence may have come to a different conclusion than you. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/115 "2016-02-04T19:02:46Z")
So this happened… > **[This awful Morning Joe clip shows how not to talk about Hillary Clinton](https://www.vox.com/2016/2/3/10909354/morning-joe-hillary-clinton-shouts-bob-woodward)** > > Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology,... > [@](#): > > MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Wednesday featured a tone-deaf discussion of Hillary Clinton’s tone, which you can watch in full here. > > “She shouts,” journalist Bob Woodward said of Clinton. “There is something unrelaxed about the way she is communicating, and I think that just jumps off the television screen.” > > That kicked off an eight-minute, slow-motion train wreck of a conversation that used Clinton’s alleged problems with volume to support arguments about how voters find her untrustworthy — and even to suggest that Clinton doesn’t know or trust herself as a person. > > “I’m sorry to dwell on the tone issue,” Woodward said later, “but there is something here where Hillary Clinton suggests that she’s almost not comfortable with herself, and, you know, self-acceptance is something that you communicate on television.” > > Host Joe Scarborough compared Clinton unfavorably to 1980s conservative icons Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, both of whom were apparently self-confident enough to keep the noise down. > > “Has nobody told her that the microphone works?” Scarborough said. “Because she always keeps it up here.” The “genius” of Reagan, Scarborough said while dropping into a deep baritone for emphasis, is that Reagan “kept it down low.” > > And Thatcher, he said, would often “find a man in her own party that she would reduce with little more than a whisper.” Clinton, by contrast, is “always up here” (gesturing above his head for emphasis), and that’s “just not natural.” Good God almighty… and an example of how Hillary Clinton has to watch her tone a bit more than most people may realize. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/116 "2016-02-04T19:04:38Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Which will almost certainly be true, though whether sufficient to account for the results would remain debatable. > [@SlackerInc](#): > > If it’s true, then we shouldn’t take that chance. Nice though to see that you’ve already got your excuse teed up well in advance. :rolleyes: And you’ve got a complete narrative already built and figured out, that just so happens to end with the obvious conclusion that the candidate you support is the winner, so of course any opposition should just stop now. :rolleyes: > [@Octarine](#): > > Hillary is far from the only unprincipled politician married to the establishment; the outpouring of hatred towards her from liberals acts as a how-Bernie-are-you contest, but I think it’s unnecessary and will ultimately be damaging when she gets the nomination. Concern about damaging a candidate before they get (or don’t get) a party nomination is ridiculous, full stop. Clinton is, as you say, not unique in her relationship with the establishment (or whatever words you want to use to describe it). Bernie, on the other hand, _is_ unique in his relationship, and it’s a difference that many who support him find vitally important. ---
**Author:** ![ISiddiqui](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/97f17d/32.png) [@ISiddiqui](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ISiddiqui)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/117 "2016-02-04T19:13:55Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > BTW my mom served on a foundation with her in the 1980s and found her to be quite progressive. My mom is a Bernie supporter and laments how much Hillary has changed since then. I think in her heart she has likely not changed much but it is just a pragmatist. IIRC, a number of books on the Clinton Administration in the 1990s reported that Hillary Clinton was the leader of the left faction in the White House (along with James Carville), who did battle with the more moderate faction in the administration. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/118 "2016-02-04T19:22:19Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > I really don’t think the definitions of “radical” are as constrained as you claim. There is after all [“radical centrism”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_centrism). But [radical centrism](http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_radical_center.htm) demands radical **changes.** Your politics does not. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/119 "2016-02-04T19:34:00Z")
> [@SlackerInc](#): > > Older, yes. Conservative? Uhhhh. Comparatively. [FYI.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=19074923&postcount=56) ---
**Author:** ![Thing\_Fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ecb155/32.png) [@Thing\_Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing_Fish)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2016, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026/120 "2016-02-04T20:21:10Z")
Most Americans Don’t [Like](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating) or [Trust](http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2311) Hillary Clinton. Her unfavorable rating is **52%**. She is only slightly more popular than Donald Trump. This is the safe, reliable candidate we can’t afford to take the risk of NOT nominating? [Sanders ratings for comparison](http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating). H [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-pro-hillary-rant-is-cathartic-for-me/745026.md?page=7)