General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: How come Hillary supporters can't present an argument for her? [View all]Sancho
(9,212 posts)I'd support Hillary, and frankly would do so over Obama (who is also far from being "progressive"
.
First, it's unrealistic to run someone who can't win. That means having resources, name recognition, appeal to independents, organization, and experience. Even though I really like Alan Grayson and Elizabeth Warren and some others, they could not win in 2016. Kerry, Dean, and Biden are not necessarily better as "progressive" except on select issues. Who else would you suggest? Are you looking for a progressive as extreme on our side as Rubio, Palin, Cantor, etc. are to the repubs?
Second, Hillary has been "progressive" on some issues over the past few decades - even ahead of her times. That includes internationals relations, women's rights, health care, and education. No candidate is perfect, and it's not fair to assume that Hillary will be just like Bill. I don't agree with every choice of every issue with ANY candidate, but Hillary would be as good or better than any others that I see out there right now. There is no highly "progressive" candidate that I've seen with even a chance of winning. Remember that the country is NOT 100% progressive, so the goal is to win with the best candidate possible.
What you do in the OP is to ask us to prove a negative: "No one can claim..." I disagree. I think Hillary might be as good or better than Obama on many of the stated issues, but we don't actually know what will happen in the future. There will be a Democratic platform (influenced by the party nominee), and I'll vote for the Democrat.