Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I don't think many "progressives" realise the degree their criticisms of Hillary - and especially their imputations as to her character and beliefs - have been manufactured for her by the conservative and corporate media which they seem to accept wholesale.

I find this to be more rhetoric than reality. Certainly Hillary partisans would like to smear progressive supporters of Sanders with this imputation, but as one of that group, I find it absurd. I WAS an off the chart, to the left voter who registered as a Democrat, voted for Bill Clinton after discussing with pollsters what I found attractive about Perot back in '92 and I defended both Clintons against any who criticized them, especially for Bill's poorly controlled libido. Then and until recently I thought Hillary might be a little more progressive than Bill on some things. Hillary probably was on LGBT issues and both were supportive of black constituencies, but since I started learning about economics, finance and what happened from 2000 to 2009 my opinion of both her and Bill changed.

It is inherently repugnant to me and to other progressives to have to agree with some of the allegations against the Clintons from Fox and the rest of the RW Foam Machine. But, as my father once said: "Even the blind old boar will stumble onto an acorn ever so often." The RW might be a stopped clock, but they are still right about the time twice a day. Hell, until the last few years I even thought Clinton's surpluses were a good provision for the future which Bush proceeded to squander. And I remember wondering in a post on ET why Bill Clinton had to go along with the repeal of Glass Steagall until Bruce McF explained it to me. It is painful to be so naive at 65. And in Bill Clinton's defense, his response to Rubin's explanation of why he needed to 'keep the bond guys happy' showed how little he understood about finance and its impact on politics. And he was already POTUS.

I think most older Sander's supporters have a similar memory of having loved the Clintons back in their days and of having defended them against the RW Foam Machine. They WERE better than what went before in so many ways. But, eventually, at least for some of us, the scales fall from our eyes. And that does not mean that we now believe the RW was right all along. As Bertrand Russell said about a century, 'A correct belief held without reason or for the wrong reason is just one more lie masquerading in the words that utter a truth'.    

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Tue Jun 7th, 2016 at 03:42:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]
BINGO.  I backed them in '92 and I backed them again in '96, in spite of their nonaccomplishments, sell-outs, and the fact that I could see professionally that the federalization of criminal law that Bilious Bill had achieved was going to be a bad thing.  But now I'm sick to death of that crap.  And I'm damned if I'm going to put up with a mob of little Hillbot snots who are too young and callow to actually remember a Clinton White House accuse me of being anti-Hillary because I just don't understand her, and I'm also damned if I'm going to put up with a mob of apparently senile Hillbot seniors who either can't or won't remember what the DLC/DNC has done to the Democratic Party for three decades and what happened in '68 and thereafter, the last time the party bosses smacked down a grass roots movement.
by rifek on Wed Jun 8th, 2016 at 08:50:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series