The moral case for Hillary Clinton

[moonshaz]

The moral case for Hillary Clinton: Even if you might dislike her, this isn’t the year to back a third-party candidate
Voters planning to support Jill Stein or Gary Johnson should take a moment to examine the potential consequences “What would it take for you to vote for a third-party candidate

Comments

[blackjedii]

i still dgaf about voting for Clinton. Like... no thanks. No thanks.

I am ok with voting for kaine the "soccer dad" memes will be a thing of glory

[blackjedii]

also just mostly ish skimming this article but it still doesn't strike a "hey Clinton is an awesome lady look at the thing she did!! so much as "Trump is an unmitigated disastuh of a man who hates everyone and everything but himself and his Twitter"

Which is not a case for Clinton so much as a "hey look what your other choice is"

Which is still a problem

But unfortunately a problem much bigger than electing Clinton would fix

[mimblexwimble]

Why is Kaine okay, but not Clinton?

[blackjedii]

It's 30% state pride and 70% better the devil you know.

[blackjedii]

You know what...

Just don't go there.

[blackjedii]

Because I am a Virgnia snob.

But more seriously it's because I have the lived experience of a Kaine administration to fall back on as some comfort that he's not going to completely screw me over. He is still a Corporate Dem and still more on the Neolib scale but not to the degree of McAuliffe (who is very much a Clinton Jr.) So i's less "this is a great choice!!" and more "If given a choice I can support this person because I've already been through it and lived to tell about it" without having to cringe at the constant reminders that they're war hawks, or have "Oops my bad" moments, or get constantly shamed for NOT supporting them.

With Clinton there is none of that familiarity and personal experience to fall back on and people have YET to really give me reasons to be excited for her besides... she's not Trump.

[spiritoftherain]

Being a woman president isn't enough???

(I know, I know, couldn't resist the sarcasm after the above commentor.

[blackjedii]

Does that mean I should have also supported Margaret Thatcher, who had an absolutely shitty record on human rights, class warfare, warmongering, and along with Reagan ushered in the start of Neoliberalism which has done MASSIVE damage to everyone for the past 30+ years?

Does that mean I should automatically support Angela Merkel given how she's been the most ardent supporter of austerity politics that screwed Greece over?

I realize it's a big thing for *~glass ceilings*~ but it's largely irrelevant to someone's policies and stances.

eta: dude I swear Imma gonna make a meme of that so I can fall back on it whenever I need to facepalm and facepalm hard

[spiritoftherain]

I know, and I agree. I want Elizabeth May to take the seat of prime minister here in Canada, so I obviously have no problem with women leading--especially if they have policies that deeply resonate with me.

Bringing up the Thatcher comparison--especially with the neoliberalism roots--makes people I talk to about it react with, "Hey she's not THAT bad!..."

[blackjedii]

It's one of the interesting things I've read lately wrt this election is a lot of older Feminists are like, GOBSMACKED that young girls / Millennial women are not all that excited that Clinton is potentially going to be President but I think that it's a good sign that for us as a generation the idea is normalized? Ie why wouldn't a woman be able to be in office is perhaps a more positive mindset than "it is a big deal that they are."

She may or may not be that bad. We shall see. It's like sticking my hand into Schrodinger's box and waiting with bated breath to see whether my hand gets shredded by angry cat claws or like, I am going to feel happy fluffy fur.

[hikerpoet]

I agree with you that gender should not excuse bad policy...but how is it normalized? Like at all

[blackjedii]

The idea of women being part of government and leader is normalized for Millennials and young girls.

It's not true now, I agree. BUT most of us under like, 35, don't use gender as a metric as to whether someone is electable or not because for the younger group there is no reason a woman CAN'T be.

Now if it pays off with more women being involved... we'll have to wait and see. It's going to have to come from more grassroots like anything else but many of the hurdles wrt "lol women can't rule they have periods" are gone for the up and coming voting blocs.

[hikerpoet]

You're right that it *shouldn't* be a metric. And shouldn't be a factor in inexcusable-to-you-policies.

But we're not in such a post-racist or post-sexist world that when it comes to comparing multiple candidates those elements shouldn't be a factor in analyzing their arc, their real and actual opportunities, the way that how people react to them over their life affects decisions and behavior, and more.

[_marquis]

I feel you. Millennial women thinking the idea of women in power is fine doesn't mean jack shit until it actually happens. So much talk from millennial women about "empowerment" and not a whole lot of actual power gaining. And it kinda rubs me the wrong way that we have to wait for some perfect 100% ideologically pure woman candidate to feel comfortable voting for them, when we so often and so consistently vote in mediocre men who are considerably less qualified. So I'll take an imperfect, but intelligent, qualified, capable woman over the dumpster fire that is Trump. (I don't wanna hear about 3rd parties, IMHO irrelevant until they get a real grassroots movement going, the greens expect what the republicans and democrats took roughly 150 years to build to be done in an election cycle).