Support NeoGAF

[gogosox82]

At the end of the day, they will vote Clinton but the Clinton campaign should be concerned about a lack of enthusiasm with young voters. A lack of enthusiasm usually means they won't vote or at least they won't vote for her when they do vote which could hurt her in key swing states like Ohio.

 

[TestOfTide]

This. She is the Wall Street / Washington elite embodied. She is the corporate interests of the left establishment embodied. Same as her husband.

The Republican alternative is obviously dumber/worse, but we shouldn't have had her as the Democratic candidate in the first place. There was a much better one running. And there was a much better one than both who didn't run who should have: Elizabeth Warren.

I'm sick of this dumb idea that Hillary should never talk with big businesses.

It's one thing to say she shouldn't be wasting time appealing to social conservatism since that is plummeting in popularity.

It's another to reject people that could potentially help the Democrats become more competitive. Rejecting people just because they aren't entirely on your side is what led to Trump winning the GOP primaries.

And thinking that Elizabeth Warren would have had an easier time appealing to more voters is ridiculous. She's popular in Massachusetts, but that doesn't translate to national appeal for more than people that mostly/always agree with her views.

The simple, unfortunate fact is that economic conservatism is not plummeting in popularity like social conservatism. You can't become competitive everywhere you need to be without making at least some appeals to business type conservatives and moderate conservatives.

And if you want the best example to prove my point, let's look at who else is popular in Massachusetts: Charlie Baker. He's popular because he doesn't waste time pushing social conservatism, but he still is economically conservative.

 

[MWS Natural]

“He’s a racist, and she is a liar, so really what’s the difference in choosing both or choosing neither?” another young black woman from Ohio said.

Uh...one is DEFINITELY worse then the other.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

I remain expecting this to be the lowest turnout in a US presidential election in a very long time. And that remains scaring the shit out of me.

It reflects the apathy and distrust of public government institutions. It's not just politics but many across the board, and that should scare us. When people don't believe in the system- Be it law enforcement, prisons, health care or the IRS, society can take a backseat and people can get hurt.

Is false equivalence your word of the day? Are you trying to see how many times you can use it in a thread?

What those sources speak to is a well regarded notion in American political science. Something that the Op-ed you hand waved away spoke about. That positions and candidates that are deemed outside of the mainstream will all but certainly lose elections. That moderation is a more consistently strong path toward victory in a general election then running as a major disruptor or far outside the mainstream. The study you derided spoke to that. That the term socialism still carries with enough negative connotations, based on the evidence we have, to make a person like Sanders very prone to attacks that would label him outside the mainstream and all but doom his candidacy in the way Dukakis experienced in the 80's. His only saving grace would be him running against Trump. Based on what evidence and analysis we have, that is your best argument that could carry weight and only because of how shitty a candidate Trump is.

To try and misrepresent what was in those pieces I provided to try and pack them into that neat straw man you want to keep beating up while substituting in your own unqualified assertions has run its course with me. You can have all the fun you want arguing that trends, polls, academic research, well sourced op-ed's and historical truisms should be set aside because "we just don't know for certain" but until you yourself can offer up evidence to speak to your own assertions, you are the one holding an empty bag, trying to tell others that it is full of gold.

The onus is not to me to disprove something you cannot prove with your shitty unsubstantial links. You passing off an opinion post from washingtonpost as "academic research or a well sourced op" is complete bullshit, and you keep doubling down. I am not the one who made the accusation that Sanders would be unable to win. YOU'RE the one who is falling off your soapbox throwing temper tantrums because nobody likes your shitty links. I'm looking for the receipts, not what your biased "well regarded notion" of what is what. You're one who are using your feelings and world view try and stand on an argument, completely disregarding for all the differences that has transpired during this election. That is false equivalency, as a text book example. I'm really stunned by this level of juvenile tantrums you're throwing. It's a catch 22, and one where you have completely lost the script. You don't even know what you're arguing, you're just hurt because I haven't acknowledged your shit link posting. You googled these links and shitposted them hoping nobody would read the dates (2001, come the fuck on) and hoped it would slide as "scientific proof" which is a bad form to discuss. I hope in the future we can discuss things without treading the same waters like this, because nothing of value has been attained in the last many pages.
I just went through and read every post again, and this hostility from you is not the way we should debate. PM me if you want to talk further.

Do you have any examples of Bernie voters saying this? The whole "Diamond Joe" thing seems to be among moderate liberals who either supported Hillary or hoped Biden would run

I've seen no mention of Bidens speech fiasco from when he ran back in the day. It's so crazy that, that was a controversy enough to tank him, given where we are now with Trump and the bed of nails.

 

[TestOfTide]

Did you really bump this thread to claim that the Washington Post is not a good source?

 

[gogosox82]

Did you really bump this thread to claim that the Washington Post is not a good source?

It is a bad source if your trying to say its academic research. He wouldn't be able to use the Washington Post like that if he was writing an academic paper so it is disengenous to claim that it speaks to "well regarded notions in Political Science" which really just comes across as "political Ideals I agree with" which is not the same thing.

 

[excelsiorlef]

It is a bad source if your trying to say its academic research. He wouldn't be able to use the Washington Post like that if he was writing an academic paper so it is disengenous to claim that it speaks to "well regarded notions in Political Science" which really just comes across as "political Ideals I agree with" which is not the same thing.

As his only source no. As a source absolutely

 

[A Link to the Past]

One thing that frustrates me about Bernie is that there's a lot of mythos being formed around him (like the whole thing with black millennial supporters). Particularly, a friend of mine who is very much a Bernie Buster said that he has been a strong supporter of gay marriage rights, and yet

"In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told the Associated Press that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality. (To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too “divisive.”) At the time, he also opposed a federal anti-gay-marriage amendment—but so did his Republican opponent for the Senate seat, Richard Tarrant, who also supported civil unions. With a wide lead in the polls and little at stake, Sanders declined to differentiate himself from his opponent by taking the lead on gay rights."

It's just so frustrating to see people waving Bernie's banner while talking about Hillary's past wrt same-sex marriage.

 

[Aaron Strife]

One thing that frustrates me about Bernie is that there's a lot of mythos being formed around him (like the whole thing with black millennial supporters). Particularly, a friend of mine who is very much a Bernie Buster said that he has been a strong supporter of gay marriage rights, and yet

"In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told the Associated Press that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality. (To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too “divisive.”) At the time, he also opposed a federal anti-gay-marriage amendment—but so did his Republican opponent for the Senate seat, Richard Tarrant, who also supported civil unions. With a wide lead in the polls and little at stake, Sanders declined to differentiate himself from his opponent by taking the lead on gay rights."

It's just so frustrating to see people waving Bernie's banner while talking about Hillary's past wrt same-sex marriage.

Posted this in the other thread (Hillary's coughing fit) but it's probably more appropriate here.

The problem is that Bernie hasn't spent 25+ years under the microscope the same way the Clintons have. The Clintons have always been on the left of the political spectrum, but the left has moved further left over the years. They've moved left with it.

So while there's a lot of instances where the Clintons have moved left, many of the Bernie supporters don't have the context of those positions. Bill very explicitly ran as a pro-LGBT rights candidate and was demonized by the "family values" crowd for it. Hillary was the first First Lady to march in a gay pride parade. But the only story millennials usually get is that Bill is the one who signed DADT and DOMA into law. Never mind that DADT was a compromise (Bill ran on lifting the ban entirely, and gays were being actively rooted out of the military - being able to serve while closeted was an improvement, even if it wasn't as dignified) and that DOMA was supported by overwhelming majorities in Congress and the country. But that's what people associate the Clintons with and they're viewing it in today's context.

Meanwhile Bernie has the luxury of cherry picking votes where he broke against the conventional wisdom of the day to paint himself as a liberal warrior all throughout his career. No doubt he's been a solid vote for Democratic proposals, but this brushes aside votes for the crime bill, supporting trade agreements similar to TPP or NAFTA or interventions similar to Iraq, his tightness with the gun lobby, against immigration reform, wishy-washiness on LGBT issues etc. And people are more inclined to believe his version because this is generally the first they're hearing of him.

Ironically when Bill first ran for office, he was the underdog. Democrats in the lead up to the 92 cycle thought he was unbeatable. He was seen as a champion for minorities and for the poor. Hillary was a go-getter career woman in an era where the First Lady was expected to host parties and bake cookies, not work and especially not getting involved in politics.

And frankly, no liberal would be talking about how horrible the Clintons were if they exited the scene after Bill's presidency. But the fact that they stayed involved in presidential politics has kept them under the microscope that much longer.

 

[Macam]

And frankly, no liberal would be talking about how horrible the Clintons were if they exited the scene after Bill's presidency. But the fact that they stayed involved in presidential politics has kept them under the microscope that much longer.

This is laughable, considering a) how many liberals really hated the Third Way/New Democrats approach Bill Clinton popularized, b) let alone the fact that Clinton was a sitting president for two terms and helped enact and advocate for some major prices of legislation that we can now, two decades later, get a much fuller picture of their consequences.

 

[Jonm1010]

It is a bad source if your trying to say its academic research. He wouldn't be able to use the Washington Post like that if he was writing an academic paper so it is disengenous to claim that it speaks to "well regarded notions in Political Science" which really just comes across as "political Ideals I agree with" which is not the same thing.

Thankfully that Op-Ed was well sourced itself and I provided other sources along with it that spoke to what I was speaking about (some of which were the ones the op-ed linked to save him the trouble). If I felt like I was having an honest conversation with honest dialogue I might be bothered to keep going.

Compared to his what was it? Oh yeah, zero sources. Not just in terms of this conversation point but for his entire rambling, incoherent output in this thread.. Whose total word count now probably outnumbers the rest of this thread combined.

 

[ErasureAcer]

One thing that frustrates me about Bernie is that there's a lot of mythos being formed around him (like the whole thing with black millennial supporters). Particularly, a friend of mine who is very much a Bernie Buster said that he has been a strong supporter of gay marriage rights, and yet

"In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told the Associated Press that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality. (To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too “divisive.&#8221 At the time, he also opposed a federal anti-gay-marriage amendment—but so did his Republican opponent for the Senate seat, Richard Tarrant, who also supported civil unions. With a wide lead in the polls and little at stake, Sanders declined to differentiate himself from his opponent by taking the lead on gay rights."

It's just so frustrating to see people waving Bernie's banner while talking about Hillary's past wrt same-sex marriage.

From my understanding, Vermont had just passed civil unions in 2000 ...that was the will of the people's representatives and Gov. Dean. After the smoke cleared in 2009 and Gay Marriage was being debated in VT...Bernie was in favor of it and despite your fanciful story, was for it before then as well. Hillary is for "gay rights" at the state level in 2006 appears, civil-unions(that's all) neglecting the fact 1,063 rights or whatever it was on the Federal level can only be obtained through marriage which homosexuals couldn't do because her idiot husband signed DOMA. She reluctantly got on board the gay marriage train in 2013...the last "progressive" to do so. Hillary is against DOMA or so she says but then gets on the Senate floor talking about how marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman for millennia to raise children and she sees no reason to change. So she wasn't against DOMA....another lie! Giving lying Ted a run for his money.

If Clinton somehow loses, she is the reason why.

There's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas! It says "Fool me once, shame on....shame on you...You fool me - can't get fooled again!"

 

[Jonm1010]

From my understanding, Vermont had just passed civil unions ...that was the will of the people's representatives and Gov. Dean in that state a few years earlier. After the smoke cleared in 2009 and Gay Marriage was being debated in VT...Bernie was in favor it.

Now contrast this with Hillary who didn't hop on the gay marriage train until 2013. I could cover all the flip flops on gay marriage alone but this video does that and more. If Clinton somehow loses, she is the reason why.

There's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas! It says "Fool me once, shame on....shame on you...You fool me - can't get fooled again!"

It's almost as if both candidates are politicians or something? Engaging in possible political expediency?

Carving out positions that don't push them too far out of the realm of what is acceptable to the constituency they are trying to remain in good favor with. And that since one was running nationally(and then served for the president) and the other in a very liberal state, one was gonna have their winds blowing them sooner and faster.

 

[ErasureAcer]

It's almost as if both candidates are politicians or something? Engaging in possible political expediency?

Carving out positions that don't push them too far out of the realm of what is acceptable to the constituency they are trying to remain in good favor with. And that since one was running nationally and the other in a very liberal state.

They are. They do. Hillary doesn't believe in anything however. You can point out facts and she'll deny them. Only Trump makes her look sane. Look to the polls! The American people hate her and find her untrustworthy. They just hate her opponent more but I guess we'll see on that.

 

[Jonm1010]

They are. They do. Hillary doesn't believe in anything however. You can point out facts and she'll deny them. Only Trump makes her look sane.

Yeah, no. That's not even remotely true. Someone already posted the charts on her honesty ITT. Thats just not factually supported.


She is a pragmatist. Maybe even to a fault, but she certainly has her ideals. If she didn't she would literally look like the most bi-polar politician ever. Supporting a path to UHC one minute and then advocating against Obamacare the next.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Yeah, no. That's not even remotely true. Someone already posted the charts on her honesty ITT. Thats just not factually supported.

She is a pragmatist. Maybe even to a fault, but she certainly has her ideals. If she didn't she would literally look like the most bi-polar politician ever. Supporting a path to UHC one minute and then advocating against Obamacare the next.

By health care you mean health insurance, right? Hillary v69.4 supports Universal Health Insurance

She does look pretty damn flippant...hence why she's lying all the time.

 

[Monocle]

By health care you mean health insurance, right? Hillary v69.4 supports Universal Health Insurance

She does look pretty damn flippant...hence why she's lying all the time.

All the time? Like, as frequently and severely as Trump?

 

[Jonm1010]

By health care you mean health insurance, right? Hillary supports Universal Health Insurance.

She does look pretty damn flippant...hence why she's lying all the time.

Same thing really. She has an ideal of getting America to how every other industrialized country is in terms of providing all people with comprehensive health care and making the system suistanable.

Like I said to your last point, she's a pragmatist. Which means she is going to move around and shift her positions and policy relative to her ideals based on what the political conditions are. Her underlying ideals are stable though. Of course because the electorate can be rather superficial, she, like most candidates not named Trump, will try to avoid too much shifting in fear of being labeled a flip flopper or indecisive. Something that has killed many a politician.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Flip Flopping is responsible for most of the important advancements our country has made. LBJ didn't sign the Civil Rights Act because he thought Blacks were equal to Whites and needed protection under the law, he did it because it was clearly a losing battle, and would pave the way for Democrats to claim minority support for the next 60+ years. In the same vein, Lincoln didn't free the slaves because he thought it was morally the right thing to do, he did it because it would end slavery and force the Southern states to embrace the Union.

Historically, tons of politicians have signed legislation that they didn't agree with, because it was the right thing to do, or the will of the voters. Truly great Presidents leave their ideals behind and remember that they are elected officials whose sole job is (technically) to represent voters. Changing stances shouldn't be seen as an immediate sign of weakness.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Flip Flopping is responsible for most of the important advancements our country has made. LBJ didn't sign the Civil Rights Act because he thought Blacks were equal to Whites and needed protection under the law, he did it because it was clearly a losing battle, and would pave the way for Democrats to claim minority support for the next 60+ years. In the same vein, Lincoln didn't free the slaves because he thought it was morally the right thing to do, he did it because it would end slavery and force the Southern states to embrace the Union.

Historically, tons of politicians have signed legislation that they didn't agree with, because it was the right thing to do, or the will of the voters. Truly great Presidents leave their ideals behind and remember that they are elected officials whose sole job is (technically) to represent voters. Changing stances shouldn't be seen as an immediate sign of weakness.

Thanks for pointing out how those leaders weren't really leaders just opportunists, like Hillary. Which goes back to the thread title...young people of color wondering whether or not Hillary actually cares? She doesn't.

 

[Jonm1010]

Thanks for pointing out how those leaders weren't really leaders just opportunists, like Hillary. Which goes back to the thread title...young people of color wondering whether or not Hillary actually cares? She doesn't.

I think your understanding of leadership needs quite a bit of maturing if you don't think Lincoln or Johnson had or were that. Political leadership when it comes to legislation is very often oppurtunity being effectively capitalized on and leading to successful execution and achievement.

Personally I don't fully agree with that posters account of history but it is quite naive to suggest LBJ and Lincoln were just mere opportunists.

There is a lot of revisionist history and unearned and also uncredited history coming at LBJ these days but he certainly was a good leader in many ways - though definitely not in others.

You seem to just want to find angles to keep shitting on Hillary though, so yeah.

 

[neurosisxeno]

Personally I don't fully agree with that posters account of history but it is quite naive to suggest LBJ and Lincoln were just mere opportunists.

It's a bit sensationalized, but the sentiment is accurate. LBJ and his close political allies had a very different name for the Civil Rights Act after all. I think both were great leaders personally, because they put their personal beliefs aside and did what was best for the country.

 

[ErasureAcer]

I think your understanding of leadership needs quite a bit of maturing if you don't think Lincoln or Johnson had or were that. Political leadership when it comes to legislation is very often oppurtunity being effectively capitalized on and leading to successful execution and achievement.

Personally I don't fully agree with that posters account of history but it is quite naive to suggest LBJ and Lincoln were just mere opportunists.

There is a lot of revisionist history and unearned and also uncredited history coming at LBJ these days but he certainly was a good leader in many ways - though definitely not in others.

You seem to just want to find angles to keep shitting on Hillary though, so yeah.

If Hillary would stop shitting on herself I wouldn't add to the pile.

That's some enlightening LBJ commentary. Sure you didn't get that from somewhere else and just plug in LBJ?

That posters assessment of those historical figures as explained is pretty spot on IMO. Sure there is more to them but for their "great" acts...he/she hit the nail on the head.

Leaders are trailblazers. Not opportunists(in the negative sense) taking calamities and spinning it into something else(much of how politics is done...so in essence there are no leaders in politics) all the while they probably ignored what lead to the calamity in the first place. Nor are effective leaders waiting for public polling to guide their life. Either there is or isn't a truth of where the group needs to be going. If you don't have or can't make a strong case for your positions you're not a leader. If it's taking you too long to speak while many others are and have been, you're not a leader. Which brings me to the third key(I could come up with a million but let's stick to 3). A leader has to be trusted. Telling lies over and over and it's on tape for all of eternity is not good. You're not a leader. One, you're lying to yourself, also to me and everyone else and to the future of mankind. Have some dignity and real sanctity for human life.

 

[A Link to the Past]

From my understanding, Vermont had just passed civil unions in 2000 ...that was the will of the people's representatives and Gov. Dean. After the smoke cleared in 2009 and Gay Marriage was being debated in VT...Bernie was in favor of it and despite your fanciful story, was for it before then as well. Hillary is for "gay rights" at the state level in 2006 appears, civil-unions(that's all) neglecting the fact 1,063 rights or whatever it was on the Federal level can only be obtained through marriage which homosexuals couldn't do because her idiot husband signed DOMA. She reluctantly got on board the gay marriage train in 2013...the last "progressive" to do so. Hillary is against DOMA or so she says but then gets on the Senate floor talking about how marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman for millennia to raise children and she sees no reason to change. So she wasn't against DOMA....another lie! Giving lying Ted a run for his money.

If Clinton somehow loses, she is the reason why.

There's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas! It says "Fool me once, shame on....shame on you...You fool me - can't get fooled again!"

Now try talking about Bernie's record on supporting the LGBT community without mentioning the Clintons. I'd be curious to see how glowing of praise you can create for him when the quality of his support isn't "you think that's bad? Look at Hillary!" (who was the first First Lady to march in a pride parade).

 

[Torokil]

Biden is worse than Hillary in terms of "leftist purity" and ties to wall street but since he has a penis and tells funny jokes its ok.

Also that Hillary's voting record in the senate thing annoys the piss out of me because it doesnt tell the whole story. The senate was extremely conservative during her tenure and only loosened up jsut before she ran for president in 2008. She's a "3rd wayer" for sure.

 

[Aaronology]

They are. They do. Hillary doesn't believe in anything however. You can point out facts and she'll deny them. Only Trump makes her look sane. Look to the polls! The American people hate her and find her untrustworthy. They just hate her opponent more but I guess we'll see on that.

This is complete bullshit.

She has several decades of consistent support for progressive positions. She is one of the most honest and fact based politicians on the national stage. Clinton has also spent the majority of her elected political career enjoying very high favorability; Americans love her when she is actually in office. And she also has no problem admitting fault and readjusting her positions based on new information.

 

[Aaronology]

If Hillary would stop shitting on herself I wouldn't add to the pile.

That's some enlightening LBJ commentary. Sure you didn't get that from somewhere else and just plug in LBJ?

That posters assessment of those historical figures as explained is pretty spot on IMO. Sure there is more to them but for their "great" acts...he/she hit the nail on the head.

Leaders are trailblazers. Not opportunists(in the negative sense) taking calamities and spinning it into something else(much of how politics is done...so in essence there are no leaders in politics) all the while they probably ignored what lead to the calamity in the first place. Nor are effective leaders waiting for public polling to guide their life. Either there is or isn't a truth of where the group needs to be going. If you don't have or can't make a strong case for your positions you're not a leader. If it's taking you too long to speak while many others are and have been, you're not a leader. Which brings me to the third key(I could come up with a million but let's stick to 3). A leader has to be trusted. Telling lies over and over and it's on tape for all of eternity is not good. You're not a leader. One, you're lying to yourself, also to me and everyone else and to the future of mankind. Have some dignity and real sanctity for human life.

Erasure, please name the politicians you believe have the qualities you're adamant on portraying Hillary Clinton as lacking.

 

[hoos30]

Horse race article. Gotta sell newspapers somehow.

 

[Veritigo_X]

I can't believe people are still posting that dumb 13 minutes video.

 

[Torokil]

This is complete bullshit.

She has several decades of consistent support for progressive positions. She is one of the most honest and fact based politicians on the national stage. Clinton has also spent the majority of her elected political career enjoying very high favorability; Americans love her when she is actually in office. And she also has no problem admitting fault and readjusting her positions based on new information.

Favorability ratings for non elected public figures mean absolutely nothing but name recognition. Even Colin Powell and Condi Rice had high favorability ratings.

Her favorability is not going to improve much during her Presidency.

 

[Lothars]

Her favorability is not going to improve much during her Presidency.

Disagree entirely I think they will be much better.

 

[RoninChaos]

I don't agree with all of Hillary's policies or some of her past actions, but I've never quite understood how she was so strongly labeled a liar. Was there some big 'scandal' outside of Benghazi people accuse her of lying about? Is it all about the emails?

How has the right wing media managed such a strong smear campaign when Trump lies nearly everyday and yet will likely get 50 million votes? I know partisanship is strong but still...

No, and this woman has been investigated about 400 times and there's never anything there. People saying they don't trust her is just being bolstered by the media to create a horse race. The GOP is rabid when it comes to the Clintons. If anything was actually there then she would have been in jail years ago.

 

[Jonm1010]

Disagree entirely I think they will be much better.

Yeah it reminds me of a bet someone made me back in 2008. He was anti Obama and of course full of stupid. The worst kind too, arrogant stupid.

He promised that Obama would be so bad for business that the Dow would never get past 10,000 again during Obama's tenure...come to think of it I never collected on that.

Anyways, it's silly to make guarantees like that. The economy keeps improving or she is in office when a bunch of Isis leaders get killed or they collapse altogether and she is going to be hard pressed NOT to have heavily improved favorability.

 

[Macam]

Horse race article. Gotta sell newspapers somehow.

And of course it can't be from...actual reporting.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Favorability ratings for non elected public figures mean absolutely nothing but name recognition. Even Colin Powell and Condi Rice had high favorability ratings.

Her favorability is not going to improve much during her Presidency.

Maybe there's an element of truth to that, but I don't think the same logic applies to Hillary Clinton. It's unusual for an elected politician to serve as Secretary of State (the last elected official who became SoS, if I remember correctly, was in the Carter administration). Clinton was not only an elected official, she was an incredibly divisive public figure who had just lost a heated presidential primary. She did not come from national security or the state department like most Secretaries of State. Most Secretaries of State, precisely because they weren't elected officials, can claim to be above the political fray, working for the interests of the nation. Clinton doesn't receive that same benefit of doubt.

Flip Flopping is responsible for most of the important advancements our country has made. LBJ didn't sign the Civil Rights Act because he thought Blacks were equal to Whites and needed protection under the law, he did it because it was clearly a losing battle, and would pave the way for Democrats to claim minority support for the next 60+ years. In the same vein, Lincoln didn't free the slaves because he thought it was morally the right thing to do, he did it because it would end slavery and force the Southern states to embrace the Union.

Historically, tons of politicians have signed legislation that they didn't agree with, because it was the right thing to do, or the will of the voters. Truly great Presidents leave their ideals behind and remember that they are elected officials whose sole job is (technically) to represent voters. Changing stances shouldn't be seen as an immediate sign of weakness.

That's not entirely true. Lincoln believed that slavery was morally wrong and should be abolished. It's true that Lincoln was not strictly an abolitionist; in fact he was at first a gradual emancipationist; he thought it was necessary to work within the confines of the political system and he was acutely sensitive to public opinion. He rarely pressed for radical changes simply for the sake of taking a moral stand, while at the same time he tried very hard to move people toward his position. For this reason, most likely, many abolitionists and Radical Republicans feared that Lincoln wasn't on their side. In fact, Lincoln eventually came to adopt many of the positions the abolitionists had originally staked out, in part because they were constantly pushing the president and agitating for change.

 

[Alienfan]

EDIT WOOPS wrong thread