General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: This message was self-deleted by its author [View all]Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)is not an argument against HRC being a progressive? Since when is praising a war criminal a "progressive view"?
Then there is her vote for Bush's illegal war, her insistence that states have the right to prohibit marriage equality, but may not allow undocumented immigrants to have drivers licenses (translations: She is a state's rights advocate, unless it contradicts her conservative views).
And then there is the whole you can tell a person by who they choose to associate themselves, which in this case is pretty telling:
EMILY's List $541,239
DLA Piper $496,700
JPMorgan Chase & Co $446,479
Goldman Sachs $407,850
Citigroup Inc $401,217
Morgan Stanley $374,830
University of California $273,756
Lehman Brothers $253,753
Skadden, Arps et al $220,310
National Amusements Inc $219,304
Merrill Lynch $194,109
21st Century Fox $193,500
Greenberg Traurig LLP $192,800
PricewaterhouseCoopers $191,900
Microsoft Corp $184,119
Time Warner $177,956
Kirkland & Ellis $177,741
Ernst & Young $161,150
General Electric $157,621
Cablevision Systems $154,063
Oh, and yes, her views on marriage equality and drivers licenses have undergone a RECENT change of heart, but excuse me if I view that with some skepticism.
If people wish to make the argument that HRC is the pragmatic, less of two evils, choice, that's fine. But could we NOT pretend her record of on things like Kissinger is "progressive"?