My disapproval of the whole “Clintonista” movement is public record. Nonetheless, would I prefer her election to any of the candidates offered by the Forces of Darkness? Would I prefer acne to smallpox?
She has many of the Republicans that I personally despise truly crazed, fearful, and foaming at the mouth. Its like she’s a magnet that pulls out and exposes every Nutjob that calls in to those Morons on AM Talk Radio.
If she ever pulls out of the race, I hope its from a trapeze over a gigantic wood chipper so each and every one of her detractors can serve America better as mulch.
Are you aware that Barack Obama has been President for over seven years? And Hillary Clinton is just running for President? There might be a reason their lists of actual presidential accomplishments aren’t the same.
adaher’s just repeating right-wing glurge, as per usual. Carly Fiorina started this one back in September 2015.
For me, it’s very hard to pick just one, there are so many. I guess what impressed me the most were her numerous successes as Secretary of State. It’s a long list.
Reining in Wall Street and the financial sector.
Orchestrating the sanctions against Iran is probably her single biggest achievement and it laid the groundwork for the later deal. S-Chip was a moderate success from her time as first lady. She did some good work on education reform in Arkansas. It’s a fairly thin list relative to her time in politics but it’s still better than anything you can come up for Sanders, Trump or Cruz. Hillary is clearly not a first-rate political talent but she is the least bad option this election year.
I’m sure Hillary has caused a few right wing idiots to stroke out, so I feel a little tingle of pride at that.
It should be a measure of a candidate who claims 40 years of experience.
What in her record suggests she would keep us out of war? And what kind of “Slow and steady progress” are you referring to? There’s been slow and steady progress on MY priorities, but I’ve seen nothing at all that she’s accomplished for progressive values. And no one else here has yet named anything either. So yes, Clinton will make slow and steady progress on conservative goals as President, while a Republican president will make much faster progress on conservative goals. That TOTALLY explains why someone would support Clinton over Sanders. Why can’t Clinton supporters just admit that the only rationale for supporting her is that a Republican is worse? We just aren’t going to get a progressive President anytime soon.
And GIGO cites another example of her hawkishness. Yes, she is very good in that regard.
:dubious:
In the case of Iran, being hawkish would mean IMHO to press for invasion, not sanctions. In the case of Israel I would think that being hawkish would be to support Israel and support the bombing of Gaza off the face off the earth. In recent years a cease fire is the next best thing from a peace accord.
It’s a long list of people accepting the “challenge” of naming something useful she’s done in 40 years.
Bill Burton: Sanctions on Iran- Yeah, I’m proud of that too. Since when did progressives get excited about her hawkishness?
Howard Dean: Sanctions on Iran
Harry Reid: Clinton’s hawkishness.
Anita Dunn: SCHIP. Now that’s a real one and I didn’t know that she was a major behind the scenes player. What SCHIP also showed is that she can work with Republicans. SCHIP passed a Republican Congress. But how is SCHIP minor, as some have put it? Hasn’t SCHIP covered almost as many people as ACA?
Chuck Schumer: Lily Ledbetter. Okay, that’s a real, progressive accomplishment.
Leary: She was great for looking out for New York’s interests as Senator. Um, that’s kinda part of Sanders’ criticism of her.
Kucinich: She’s awesome! No, I have no examples.
Wow, lots of citing her hawkishness on Iran, going by the experts, that’s her biggest accomplishment. I agree, that is quite an awesome thing. But at least now we do have two genuine progressive accomplishments: SCHIP and Lily Ledbetter.
Again :dubious:, you really have a very peculiar definition of hawkishness regarding Iran and Harry Reed was most likely referring to Libya, not Iran. Again the hawks wanted to get to blows with Iran, not to fiddle with sanctions and less with agreements.
Funny, I don’t remember many progressives calling for tougher action against Iran. Quite the opposite, actually. Conservatives were the ones wanting tougher sanctions. Clinton delivered for us, again.
I couldn’t help but notice the “she makes Republicans’ heads explode!” as an “accomplishment”. What if Republicans actually appreciated her as much as we should? Would that change your opinion of her?
Not of her. Of Republicans, perhaps. But it ain’t gonna happen. They have been too deeply invested in irrational Hillary-hate for too long to start getting rational on the subject now. We can look forward to nothing from them but what we’ve seen under Obama – 4-8 years of intractable obstructionism on points where the Pubs, in terms of their own values and agenda, have no good reason at all to obstruct. A nominal Democrat can never win their favor by acting like a Pub, the (D) after the name is an insuperable obstacle.
Funny, that was the POINT you only ignore what were the tougher actions mentioned then. You forget that things like that are not happening in a vacum, back then the hawks like McCain were demanding to bomb, bomb, Iran.
Appreciate her? Now THAT is funny. I will not be surprised that you can find examples, but that is not what one is getting from the Republican echo chamber or from a congress that only says Benghazi! When Clinton is mentioned.
You really don’t understand how progress works, do you? You have to lay the foundation before you build the house.
Just use your imagination. You know, at least from this board if nowhere else, what the things are we most need to get done next.
She took millions of dollars from Saudi royals Sheikhs, and used it to provide highly cost effective health care to young African mothers and their children.
It would take 300 lifetimes of computer security faux pas to counterbalance that win.
As a Republican, let me explain the complicated relationship we have with the Clintons: we hate them. Passionately. They stand for everything we are against in terms of how people should conduct themselves in office and in Bill’s case, in his personal life. We are also hypocrites, but you know that too. However, we’ve always been able to do business with them. And it’s actually a rather stupid strategy to hate on them so much. If we really wanted to destroy them, we’d treat them the way we treated Joe Lieberman. And really, Hillary deserves to be thought of like Lieberman, because I’ll bet you can’t find a dime’s worth of difference politically between Clinton and Lieberman aside from the fact that Clinton is a loyal Democrat and Lieberman is not since 2008.
@adaher, I really do hope you satisfy my curiosity and identify the antecedent of “us” here.
Us, as in conservatives who supported the war(which was most of us, except for some paleocons like Pat Buchanan).