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.
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.
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.
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.
Go be irrelevant somewhere else, Hillary.
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.
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.
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.
She has been a major player in the party since the 90s. She is, indeed, largely responsible for the current state of the party.
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.
Who do you care for? Let’s spend a little more time on people who actually matter.
I care about policy, not the person.
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.
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.
Nobody likes her so she can’t possibly be an effective messenger. It’s as simple as that.