2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: A slightly more nuanced take on whether Hillary Clinton is "establishment" [View all]U of M Dem
(154 posts)Like you, I would love for this world to be gender equal, but as you say, HRC is the establishment candidate in this most paramount of Presidential races.
HRC's establishment credentials, albeit limited in some ways by her gender, are in other ways made more dangerous by the same fact. HRC has an almost automatic "under dog" appeal that her gender allows.
There is a natural desire vacuum of having a woman president which seems to trump decision making from a policy perspective. It is in my opinion, the same bait and switch tactics from the election of Obama*. The establishment used his minority status and social reform promises to smokescreen the continued plunder of taxpayer coffers by the MIC and wall street with more unending wars and secret trade deals. *IMO Obama gets important things right but he is by no means the reformer that we all wanted.
There is a strong air of cognitive dissonance in your argument, that I believe many HRC supporters hold. You simultaneously posit that HRC: the female liberal candidate is to be desired for her femininity (among other things), while HRC: the establishment politician is undesirable for her history and ties to the 'war and plunder' establishment.
Giving her the keys to the car still keeps the establishment and their financiers in the driving seat in their continued race to the bottom of the economic, environmental, and social realities for the vast majority of people in our country and abroad.
We have a responsibility after allowing our house to get so messy, bloody, and broken. The Friedman / Reagan / Clinton / Bush establishment house party , brought to us by the MSM, Wall Street, and the MIC is over, and it is time to clean house.
It is time to get on board with the political revolution that Sanders is only the beginning of. We are due for it in the worst of ways.