- This topic has 10 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 6 months ago by
.
-
Waterfield,
To me, it says great things about her that she keeps running as a Green. She could likely have gained “power” early on, as a member of the Democratic Party, but that would have meant chucking her principles and selling out. So few politicians, in either wing of the Duopoly, have ever avoided that. It’s basically a preexisting condition of our system, which now requires nearly a billion to just get nominated, to all but sell out before hand.
In short, I don’t see her lack of political victories as important in the slightest. It’s a badge of honor, in my book. If she were to win from that perch (The Greens), she would have done something that virtually no other president has done, at least in living memory:
Avoided the complete (or close to it) sell-out necessary to win elections via the Duopoly.
Here’s her “about” page:
And if you just go by this little snippet, her “accomplishments” already trump Trump’s:
Jill received several awards for health and environmental protection including: Clean Water Action’s “Not in Anyone’s Backyard” Award, the Children’s Health Hero” Award, and the Toxic Action Center’s Citizen Award. Jill has appeared as an environmental health expert on the Today Show, 20/20, Fox News, and other programs. She also served on the board of directors for Physicians for Social Responsibility.
She is the co-author of two widely-praised reports, In Harm’s Way: Toxic Threats to Child Development, published in 2000, and Environmental Threats to Healthy Aging, published in 2009. The first of these has been translated into four languages and is used worldwide as a community tool in the fight for health and the environment. The reports connect the dots between human health, social justice, a healthy environment and green economies.
Jill was born in Chicago and raised in Highland Park, Illinois. She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard College in 1973, and from Harvard Medical School in 1979.
The left always gets tagged with much higher standards to live up to. Far, far higher.
If the “outsider” candidate is centrist or right-wing, nuff said. They don’t have to explain anything. But if the outsider candidate is left-wing, honestly left-wing, she is immediately tasked with all kinds of hoops to jump through in order to prove their viability as candidate. “What has she ever done!!”
This is something not asked by supporters of Trump, for instance, who also has never won any elective office.
This is also not a requirement for Ms. Clinton, who, while winning elective office, and publicly supporting all kinds of traditional “progressive” causes — for women, minorities and so on . . . . hasn’t actually done anything to improve the lives of POCs or women.
There are some, in fact, who say it’s quite the opposite. Not sure if you guys already posted this article, for instance:
But the Establishment, which claims to at least acknowledge Climate Change doesn’t realize Hillary has embraced fracking infrastructure at home and around the world and doing so requires a 30-50 year commitment to build the additional natural gas power plants and the thousands of miles of pipelines.
She supports fracking. She supports offshore drilling and she once supported the Keystone Pipeline. Her foundation accepts millions of dollars from the oil industry. She claims to care about climate change but wants to increase domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.
She has little credibility on environmental issues. Any concern for the environment she has seems to be purely politically motivated.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
