What specific POLICY POSITIONS show Sec. Clinton to be "Not Liberal" or "Not a Democrat?"

[kaleckim]

29. I think they call this a hanging curveball

Let's see, she and her husband were the two people principally responsible for pulling their party to the right in the 1980's and 1990's. Did you forget about their instrumental role in the DLC and what that meant for her party? She rose up with Walmart money, surely the sign of a progressive fighter, LOL. She supported building more prisons and much harsher prison sentences (prison privatization too, individuals involved in the private prison industry were bundlers for her this election cycle). She supported all of the things her husband did for corporate interests in the 1990's, and for a long time bragged about it. That includes NAFTA, the WTO, gutting New Deal financial regulations, bailing financial capital out in Mexico in the mid 1990's and SE Asia in the late 1990's, he was working on a plan to privatize Social Security (even formed a team with Rubin, and they were far along), but then the Lewinsky affair broke, etc. She supports that trade model overall, which has been a utter disaster (as senator she voted against CAFTA but voted for the bilateral trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, Australia, Morocco and Oman). She has supported the three free trade deals under Obama (South Korea has been a disaster, Panama a now well known tax haven, more union organizers are killed in Colombia than the rest of the world combined), she was in favor of the TPP until she faced Sanders. She supports that trade model, period. She supported bailing out financial capital in 2008, opposes a financial transactions tax, opposing re-instating Glass-Steagall, and opposes breaking up the banks (she says they would if they posed a systematic risk, which we already know they do, so she doesn't support it). Surely the banks being her largest donors over her career and them giving her tens of millions of dollars has nothing to do with that, cause she's Hillary. She is a pretty extreme hawk, at least by her party's standards. Not only her support for war in Iraq, her support for disastrous policies in Libya, Syria, the Ukraine, Haiti and Honduras (she was called out by a well known environmental activist for this a few weeks before that activist was assassinated). She cites Kissinger's support (which should be a red flag) and now is calling for a more "muscular foreign policy" (which people are sick of, especially on the left). She also ran to Obama's right on guns in 2008, why her followers forget this is beyond me. Her strong support for fracking, actually created a group at the State Department devoted to spreading fracking worldwide (surely her support from those interests has nothing to do with this, cause she's Hillary).

I have lots more, I am sure after I post this, I will think, "Oh, should have included this or that", but this is off the top of my head. The entirety of her career in politics is her taking positions different from the left. It is inexcusable that her followers continue to ignore this. Maybe they should take it upon themselves to research this stuff and to read from sources that won't simply affirm their already held beliefs.