From a biographical perspective, Hillary Clinton is perfectly qualified and I will be voting for her in the Fall.
With that said, I am amazed at the mental gymnastics that her supporters engage in in order to embellish her legacy and her liberal credentials. Bill Clinton signed onto a series of very bad laws, whose effects are still felt two decades later, and the rebuttal is "she's not her husband." Okay then, then why does she and her supporters take credit for those 24 months of wage growth in the late 1990's?
In the Senate, she has no signature legislation and her most important votes were all affirmations of George W. Bush's policies. How does the "progressive, who gets things done" manage to do so little for progressives during her tenure in the Senate?
As Secretary of State, she did what exactly? Unlike the right wingers, I will not pile on about Benghazi and her e-mails. However, we progressives should ask, what was she thinking with Libya in general. It comes off as a cynical attempt to look "tough" on national security issues.
The fact is that from "Super Predators" to the Iraq War Vote to the Libyan Intervention, she had been setting up to run as conservative of a campaign that a Democrat could run. Her political calculus is shaped in the shadow of 1972 and 1988 and she saw her path to the White House running through white, suburban communities and their irrational fears of menacing brown people.
America moved to the left, Bernie came in and got traction and she has been obliged to move sharply to the left and maybe she will, in time, prove to be a great progressive champion but it is embarrassing how uncritical her supporters are. The Queen of triangulation; the Shield of Wall Street and the politician who, in 2014, was gearing up to run against the Obama legacy and to his right, is not the progressive leader that she claims to be.
