Progressives: if you try to fight for what you believe are genuine social concerns, you’re special snowflakes! There’s no possible way you can take an ethical stance without it being an ego trip!
Real smart there, buddy.
I’m not saying it’s likely (unless a landslide gives her the House as well)!
How about telling us what they are, then? What can you, given your minority status, realistically ask for and work for and consider it an accomplishment? That’s the question you and the OP are evading.
Tell us what that stance is, for a refreshing change. :rolleyes: And no, Not Being Hillary isn’t one.
The OP, and you, are asking what she can do to make you feel as special as Uncle Bernie did. But you’re still not getting the part about it not being up to her, but to you. Nobody is going to suck up to you in this world. You have to play your part in it, and that starts with recognizing the nature of your part.
Republican voters see the current Republican senate as weaklings who do nothing but follow Obama’s agenda. They are not fed up with a do nothing congress, they believe congress has been doing everything the Democrats want and they want it to stop. Take what the GOP has been doing for the past 8 years and turn it up to 11, that still wouldn’t be enough for them.
Not start any new wars. That’s the main thing that concerns me (a liberal) about a Clinton Presidency.
Yep. The first three are rather likely.
Yes, I expect all of that. But would it be “endearing”?
Why? The most recent war was started by GWB.
Trump is much more likely to get us into a war.
This idea that Hillary is a warmonger, just because she - and most of congress not to mention the American public- was conned and lied to by GWB to start his war is crazy.
Well, she *has *been fighting ISIS her whole adult life. :rolleyes:
No, it isn’t.
Plenty of people opposed the Iraq War at the time Clinton voted for it. If she got conned, then she is too easily conned into going to war. That’s a bad thing.
But she is also quite clearly a hawk.
Plus, for the typical progressive, *Obama *is too hawkish. And he is way more dovish than Hillary.
If she does nothing else but replace Scalia with someone rational, her entire presidency would have been worth it.
Bill’s main job might end up being “congressional liaison”.
That might be taken care of before she even takes office. It depends on how boxed-in McConnell and Grassley will feel about confirming Garland as lame ducks.
I think this is one of the areas where gender plays a role. Women who want to be taken seriously as a potential commander-in-chief must be hawkish, at least the first woman commander-in-chief.
I don’t think this excuses her on moral grounds, and I don’t like it, but I think it’s reality. What she could do to appease me is to leave the Middle East in a better position than she found it.
I hate to say it, but it really has come down to that. If she can keep us out of any new military adventures, I’ll be happy. No more Iraqs, but no more Libyas either. Unfortunately, she will probably ramp up our involvement in Syria beyond what Obama has done. I can see that happening in the 1st year.
I agreed with that perspective (which is certainly true as a political observation about the unfortunate place women find themselves), until I read more reporting about her deliberations as to Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. I am convinced now that she is just a hawk, in the sense that she believes in using American military power to achieve American interests even when America’s national security is not directly threatened.
In all likelihood, she will continue Obama’s expansion of the drone program. She may well set up a no-fly zone in Syria, which has a chance of sucking us further into armed conflict there. She could easily deploy forces to somewhere like Indonesia if terrorist groups started threatening the Straits.
I think you’d be crazy not to vote for her in this election, but that’s IMO the reality of her candidacy.
Edit: while I’m entirely unconvinced that your posts are appropriate for this forum, I’m entirely convinced that the appropriate response to your well-poisoning is not appropriate to this forum. So you’ll have to live with not having your question answered.
Why would she want to?
She could push to reschedule marijuana and mitigate some of the worst excesses of the drug war, like Obama has done by releasing large numbers of non-violent drug offenders.
She could build up tribal sympathy over the years by pushing back against Republicans and making nice speeches. Would be interesting to see how the left reacts when/if America gets embroiled in another Middle Eastern intervention, or Eastern Europe as the case may be.
Yeah, I don’t think Hillary is overcompensating to dispel the belief that women are weak on defense. She believes in projecting American power overseas. Obama would have stayed out of Libya if not for her (and maybe a few others) urging him on. She’s on record as supporting a No Fly Zone in Syria, so that would be no surprise.
I don’t expect she’ll be sending in ground troops by the hundreds of thousands, but she’ll be more hawkish than Obama for sure.
Inappropriate how? Well-poisoning in what way? Or don’t you have an answer to the OP’s question, “What could Hillary actually accomplish as president that will endear her to progressives?” Note the word “actually.” I liked most of what Bernie said and if he were 20 years younger I’d’ve voted for him, but I have my doubts that he could’ve accomplished anything. Politics is a business of what’s possible as much as what’s desired. What do you want that is also possible?
I’m happy to talk with the OP; I don’t think that’s where the well-poisoning occurred. Will post more later.