27-06-2016, 10:04 PM
I agree that Sanders' attack on Clinton and her foreign policy was not anywhere near what it should have been.
IMO, HC was a very poor Secretary of State. I mean, just the case of Libya would have been enough for me not to vote for her. But when you add in the rest of her Mid East foreign policy, its even worse.
I have come to see the Clintons, not through the prism of the phony scandals that the hard right have tried to pin on them--unsuccessfully I should add. But through the work of writers like Thomas Frank and Robert Reich.
The Clintons are essentially GOP Lite agents, except inside the Democratic Party. In other words, their net result has been to make the Democratic Party like Eisenhower, since there is no Eisenhower wing of the GOP anymore. Except they may be worse than that. Look at NAFTA, and what Clinton's man on that, McClarty, did later. He ended up being the Democratic version of Kissinger in Washington as a big lobbyist.
Howard Dean had it right about what the Clintons did to the Democratic Party. They sanctified the DLC.
In my view, that is the kind of campaign Sanders should have run: a battle for the soul of the party.
But pundits like Krugman did not want it to be that. I think they banked on HC being the safer candidate. The better bet to beat Trump. The irony being that Trump has pretty much imploded. Which anyone could have predicted would happen. As far ahead as HC is over him, add about five points and that is the lead Sanders would have right now.
IMO, HC was a very poor Secretary of State. I mean, just the case of Libya would have been enough for me not to vote for her. But when you add in the rest of her Mid East foreign policy, its even worse.
I have come to see the Clintons, not through the prism of the phony scandals that the hard right have tried to pin on them--unsuccessfully I should add. But through the work of writers like Thomas Frank and Robert Reich.
The Clintons are essentially GOP Lite agents, except inside the Democratic Party. In other words, their net result has been to make the Democratic Party like Eisenhower, since there is no Eisenhower wing of the GOP anymore. Except they may be worse than that. Look at NAFTA, and what Clinton's man on that, McClarty, did later. He ended up being the Democratic version of Kissinger in Washington as a big lobbyist.
Howard Dean had it right about what the Clintons did to the Democratic Party. They sanctified the DLC.
In my view, that is the kind of campaign Sanders should have run: a battle for the soul of the party.
But pundits like Krugman did not want it to be that. I think they banked on HC being the safer candidate. The better bet to beat Trump. The irony being that Trump has pretty much imploded. Which anyone could have predicted would happen. As far ahead as HC is over him, add about five points and that is the lead Sanders would have right now.