When Hillary Clinton stated she was a progressive in the first democratic debate, after just months earlier claiming to be a third-way moderate centrist, my bullshit meter started waving. For left-leaning candidates, the progressive label refers to someone who offers solutions to a host of societal issues, with the intent to improve equality, or to expand liberty, transparency, and/or democracy in order to improve the general welfare of our citizens.
During the second debate, when Clinton reconfirmed my suspicions by declaring the harms of a living wage (which she doesn't support), not interested in bringing a single-payer system to America (which is a choice we actually can make), coming out against marijuana legalization or decriminalization, not supporting universal education (because she wants to discriminate against the wealthy), doubling-down on regime change as a useful strategy across the globe, and declaring her vote for the Iraq War as a "mistake" (mind you mistakes are when you cut a potato in half instead of quarters; voting to send Americans to die and be injured, while killing thousands of innocent Iraqis, and destroying the environment while doing it all, is not a mistake, but a colossal fuck-up) - there was zero doubt that Clinton is not a progressive, but a third-way corporatist.
When asked about her numerous campaign donations, along with the exorbitant speaking fees she received by Wall Street in the recent past and currently to this day, and how that will impact her governance over such institutions and financial sectors; Clinton responded by talking about 9-11. In a truly bizarre attempt to distract instead of being transparent and honest, Clinton engaged in a defensive and clumsy redirect, while ignoring a fundamental issue facing our Republic today - the impact of special interests dollars on candidates, and the ability of the government to serve the public good versus those special interests, as the two are seldom aligned.
This has been substantiated in a recent extensive Pew Research Center poll
, which shows how dissatisfied we collectively are with the government and how little we trust the government. This is the fundamental issue, Americans being happy with the system of government that is supposed to serve them.
Clinton also made an unusual claim, in what appeared to be a desperate attempt to start a gender-war, by defiantly stating over 60% of her campaign contributors are females. What does that even mean, where did the number come from (obvious answer excluded), and why would that prove anything? If it did prove something, wouldn't the fact that Senator Sanders campaign, who has garnered the most female contributions in total, have a leg up on Clinton's supposed claim to fame anyhow? But, once again this highlights another key issue facing America, politicians being supported and purchased by special interests of unknown origin in many cases. 81% of Clinton's contributions
of are the large variety, compared to Senator Sanders's campaign
, where only 22% of contribution of are the large variety. Clinton has received over $16 million from Super Pacs, Sanders has received $8750.
Hillary Clinton has never appealed to my progressive sensibilities, and I just don't believe she will all of a sudden become some great progressive leader if elected into office. Her time spent as Secretary of State, her numerous and lengthy ties to special interests, her lack of good judgement in office on key issues as Senator, and her constant pandering and flip-flopping on numerous other significant issues has ensured she does not get my vote if she becomes a nominee for President.