Why Should I Vote for Hillary?

I have a very simple question for Hillary Clinton Supporters:

Why is Hillary a better choice than Bernie? 

In the past five to six months I have been asking this and have not gotten one substantial answer. The typical replies are: She's better than Trump/Cruz/GOP or I get accused of voting for Nader. Both replies ignore the actual question. The question is: "Why is Hillary better than Bernie?" - not better than the GOP or some third party candidate. Why should she be the candidate of the Democratic Party? It's very simple. If you are still confused, here's a diagram:

Now, let's talk about Clinton's record:

She apologized for her Iraq vote, right? So what? She may have realized that war was a terrible decision but it's obvious she learned nothing from it considering she has actively supported the same (or similar) strategies in Libya, Afghanistan, Syria and even Yemen. Clinton was unanimously known as the war-hawk in Obama's administration and advocated for the most aggressive policies alongside Robert Gates. She continues to use antiquated Cold War thinking in regards to Russia and Iran, and advocated for every single one of our military "interventions" since her disastrous Iraq War vote.

Oh, did I mention she also defended torture during the Bush years and endorsed McCain over Obama on foreign policy in the 2008 election?

So, considering her vast foreign policy experience there is no secret how she will lead as Commander-in-Chief, which means, if you support Hillary Clinton, you implicitly support an escalation of our disastrous foreign policy and war profiteering which has exponentially made the situation in the Middle East the chaotic hellhole it is today. But heck, what's a few million lives lost and ruined in a far-off part of the world? At least she's got good domestic policies, right?

Is Clinton better than Sanders on domestic issues?  Her policy stances depend on which day you ask her.

Her ties to Wall Street and allegiance to the 1% with no real concern for economic disparity and environmental protection are well known so I'll skip those.

Some will bring up her gun advocacy but they conveniently forget her stance in the 2008 campaign against Obama when she had the same stance as Sanders. But, she went further claiming Obama was an "elitist" who didn't understand rural gun culture like she did. She even fondly recalled her duck hunting days to prove she was a supporter of gun rights.

When it comes to #BLM let's remember how as a candidate for the senate she stood alongside Al Sharpton denouncing NYPD violence against the black community than did nothing about it once elected. She can talk a good game but her actions speak louder than words. And her refusal to deal with our failed "War on Drugs" and stance against the legalization of Marijuana (even though her husband, our current president, and many other notable public figures have admitted to using the drug) is just plain hypocritical and a relic of the 1990's "tough on crime" garbage that lead to so many failed criminal justice policies in the first place. Add to that the financial support she's received from private prison companies and it's clear she still doesn't truly grasp the depth of the corruption behind so much of our prison-industrial complex and the damage it has done to poor communities (of all colors but especially black communities).

On education she voted for No Child Left Behind and supported charter schools and Common Core until just last month. In 2008 she campaigned for privatized "Retirement Savings Accounts" as a fix for Social Security saying "Through the discipline of good planning and the miracle of compound interest, you should be able to build wealth for yourself". She also campaigned alongside Bob Johnson — a public advocate of Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security and an active proponent of Bush’s plan to eliminate the estate tax.

Then there is her history of condemning Gay Marriage which she didn't evolve on until two years ago - well after any reasonably rational person had accepted gay marriage as a necessary Civil Right.  It's not just that she didn't support it, it was her actual words that were truly appalling (and historically wrong): "Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman." Anyone who believed "one man/one woman" has historic precedence is ignorant of the many forms marriage has taken in human history.

On almost every important issue, other than Women's Rights, Clinton has either evolved just in time for the campaign or is still on the wrong side.  I could go on about domestic policy problems like her support for spying or flip-flops on the TPP, Keystone XL, Too Big To Fail banks, corporate welfare, poverty, and so much more, but let's move on.

Hillary Clinton has no party loyalty. Am I being melodramatic here? Nope.

As I said above, she endorsed John McCain over Obama on foreign policy in 2008 on television interviews and in a national debate calling Obama "irresponsible and naive" and implying he would need a "training manual". What if, instead of an economic meltdown, there had been another terrorist attack right before the election, and voters believed Clinton that Obama wasn't capable of protecting us? Clearly, she was willing to throw the election to McCain rather than lose to Obama.

She also started/amplified the racist condemnation of Obama with Reverend Wright and Louis Farrakhan by demanding - in a televised debate and on TV interviews - that Obama denounce both Wright and Farrakhan. Those attacks had nothing to do with substantial policy differences and everything to do with destroying her Democratic opponent with no regard for Party unity.

So, if you are a Clinton supporter do not complain about Sanders being an Independent with no party loyalty. He is running for the Democratic candidacy, he has already stated he will support Clinton if she is the nominee, and is doing everything he can to build a Democratic coalition. His only criticisms of Clinton have been on policy and he's even defended her against trivial attacks by the media and GOP. That is what party loyalty looks like.

Hillary Clinton is not more electable than Bernie Sanders. Stop saying that. She is not.

Almost every poll states Sanders would do better than Clinton against a GOP candidate in the general election. Also, Sanders has a better track record of getting legislation passed, working across the aisle, and winning over independent voters. So, when Clinton claimed she is a "Progressive who can get things done" there are no facts to back her up - unless by "getting things done" you're talking about starting more wars. Also, she proudly embraces her reputation as a "moderate".

Now, please tell me: Why is Hillary a better choice than Bernie?

If you support Clinton's positions over Sander's positions don't be ashamed, just say it. But, if you consider yourself a Progressive or Liberal then please tell me why you support Margaret Thatcher Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee for president over Bernie Sanders.

 

Personally, I prefer a candidate with the moral maturity to know right from wrong without polling data or decades of tragic mistakes to enlighten them.

Left is Right

Yes, I Photoshopped this. The sign originally said: "Free Tibet".

64% of Americans say Afghan war isn’t worth fighting.

Yet, back in 2001 things were different. Those of us who were against this war were told we hate America. We were only 6% of Americans who thought this war was not worth it.

This is not Photoshopped.
This is what Freedom™ looks like.

This is one among many important issues that we on the so-called liberal fringe have been vindicated on - even if this vindication comes in the form of great tragedy while we endure continued derision and/or invisibility in the media, political discourse and nation at large.

Protests have been spreading around the country as citizens fight back against union busting efforts, privatization of essential industries and the erasure of democracy by their elected leadership. More Americans are realizing that millions of jobs have been lost to developing and third world countries and economic disparity is at the highest it's been in nearly a century and only getting worse with the top 10% of Americans owning 70% of the wealth, 6 banks controlling 64% of our GDP (up from 17% in 15 years), and corporate profits setting new records while actual joblessness remains around 20%. Yet, a small percentage of us who protest WTO gatherings, NAFTA, deregulation of essential industries and financial markets have been called "commies" and other derogatory names. Even the guy who wrote the book "The Supply Side Revolution" and Reagan cabinet member Paul Craig Roberts admits what a failure these "trickle-down" policies have been.

The environment is another issue that us "tree-huggers" have been on the losing side of opinion for a long time. Our current crop of government leadership is doing all it can to defund and eradicate environmental regulations and investment in clean energy. They even mandated the use of Styro-Foarm and plastic in what can only be seen as a childish act of frivolity. In fact, concern about climate change is declining in America. Yet our impact on the environment has never been more obvious. We're causing earthquakes in Arkansas, we're ruining our fresh water supplies and destroying mountains, causing disease and illness from air pollution and so much more.

With more than 60% of bankruptcies due to medical bills in the US, essential industries becoming more and more privatized and profit driven (life and liberty should not be commodities), more subsidizing of the rich while taking from the poor and countless other issues us "radical liberals" yammer on about endlessly starting to affect larger percentages of Americans I wonder when and if we will ever be welcomed back into the public dialogue. Earlier generations of liberals struggled and fought to bring our fellow countrymen the civil rights movement, labor movement, child labor laws, clean air and water, Social Security and Medicaid, labor unions, desegregation, public education and a few other things that helped make our country strong, fair and looked up to. If we start wearing teabags on our head and carrying automatic weapons to protests can we be invited back to the discussion table?

Moral Authority "Laughable"

Three American journalists have recently been imprisoned in Iran and North Korea.

Roxana Saberi, a 31-year-old dual American-Iranian citizen, was arrested and sentenced in a closed court to 8 years in prison for spying in Iran.

North Korea said this week that it would put the two American journalists (Laura Ling and Euna Lee) on trial, and suggested that they could face years in a prison camp.

Our government and human rights groups are working hard for their release and concerned for their treatment.

The response has been humbling:

North Koreans scoffed at any suggestion that the Americans were receiving harsh treatment.
"They laughed. 'We are not Guantanamo.'

Iranian judiciary spokesman Ali Reza Jamshidi told reporters, "That a [U.S.] government expresses an opinion without seeing the indictment is laughable."

How can they find our concerns so "laughable"? Maybe because of the case of Sami al-Haj.

Pakistani forces apparently seized al-Haj at the behest of the U.S. authorities who suspected he had interviewed Osama bin Laden.

But that "supposed intelligence" turned out to be false.

"This is wonderful news, and long overdue," said Clive Stafford Smith who has represented al-Haj since 2005.

Al-Haj was never prosecuted at Guantanamo so the U.S did not make public its full allegations against him.

Al-Haj was the only journalist from a major international news organization held at Guantanamo and many of his supporters saw his detention as punishment for a network whose broadcasts angered U.S. officials.

For six years, an innocent man was imprisoned with no charges, no trial, constantly shifting allegations, brutal treatment, no visits with family and not even a phone call home... by the U.S. government.

Sami al-Haj's response to his imprisonment is worth thinking about:

”My last message to the US administration is that torture will not stop terrorism — torture is terrorism.”

But even more important considering the fate of three of our own journalists are the words from The Committee to Protect Journalists:

"His detention for six years, without the most basic due process, is a grave injustice and represents a threat to all journalists working in conflict areas."

- - - -
UPDATE:
Roxana Saberi was set free after an appeals court reduced her punishment to a two-year suspended sentence. So, Iran allows actual trials and appeals to their enemy combatants... And they're the "evil" ones?