• Pete Hahnloser@beehaw.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Shooting the messenger is not strategically sound. The message is on point and coming from someone with a bit of experience.

      Regardless of how one feels about her (I’m not a fan, either), we need these sorts of pieces to point out the utter incompetence of the junta. You’d really rather she shuts up so we can fill the space with fully right-wing “thinkpieces”?

      The problem with “not this” is not considering the alternatives. Something’s going to run. I’d rather see a column critical of what’s going on than supporting it. It’s not binary, but given the political climate, that’s the other option.

      • Rivalarrival
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        3 days ago

        Shooting the messenger is not strategically sound.

        She’s not the messenger. She is the speaker. Here, she is attempting to exert her own brand of political influence.

        Her political influence is largely responsible for the sorry state of the Democratic party today.

        Whatever message needs to be sent, someone else can send it.

        • Pete Hahnloser@beehaw.orgOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 days ago

          If you think Hillary Clinton is “largely responsible” for the state of the Democratic Party, you’ve not been paying attention. It’s not as though they were populist just up until 2016.

          • Rivalarrival
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            3 days ago

            She has been a major player in the party since the 90s. She is, indeed, largely responsible for the current state of the party.

            • Pete Hahnloser@beehaw.orgOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Yes, she obviously was a major player. But she didn’t engineer the rightward lurch as you claim. Again, I don’t much care for her, but the GOP talking points for decades as though she was somehow the one pulling the strings was effective.

              • Rivalarrival
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 days ago

                Again, I don’t much care for her,

                Who do you care for? Let’s spend a little more time on people who actually matter.

                  • t3rmit3@beehaw.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 day ago

                    There is no such thing.

                    The person is the one who pursues, builds, and implements policy. A bad person will not be a good ally, no matter their professed policy beliefs, because it is only integrity that binds a politician to work for their constituents once elected.

                    Without a good person, you have no way to trust that good policy will follow.

                  • Rivalarrival
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    3 days ago

                    Yeah?

                    Check out the rest of the comments in this thread. Getting a lot of insightful and innovative policy discourse from your post?

                    If you care about policy, you’ll avoid any mention of that person in the future. As soon as her name is mentioned, the policy conversation ends.