To the Clintonistas...
I'm certain there are more than a few supporters of Hillary Clinton lurking here at Caucus99. I've no idea if some of you have tried to join this site and been declined, or whether you haven't deigned to engage at C99 yet. If it were up to me, I'd allow such memberships without hesitation and give you a chance to state your case without rancor. Surely you have a case to make... but I've yet to encounter anything beyond Brockian spin and boilerplate lists of Sec. Clinton's "accomplishments." The only argument that makes any sense to me at all is the oft-repeated one of "electability." We'll return to that in a moment.
In particular, I'd appreciate answers to a couple of questions. You consider descriptions of Clinton as a "warmonger" to be nasty, baseless slams. With that in mind, please point out instances where Hillary Clinton has actively opposed the use of American military force, other than her long-ago opposition to our Vietnam adventure. I can't help but wonder what the idealistic Hillary who passionately worked to stop that awful war would think about today's all-grown-up version who vacations with Henry Kissinger and describes Dr. K as a "mentor and friend."
Another quick question, closer to home. What are we to think of Clinton's lucrative speeches before Goldman Sachs and other power brokers of Wall St. and the mega-banks? What could she possibly have said, no matter how brilliant, articulate and insightful, to justify such enormous payments? What did her hard-nosed sponsors think they were getting for their money? Is it really plausible to suggest that they didn't think they were paying for access and a sympathetic ear, from a woman who hoped to be President? Yes, like everyone, Hillary Clinton is fully-entitled to be paid for her labor, but if a Republican gave these same speeches, to these same audiences, for the same remuneration, would you accept their wide-eyed demurral that there was no quid pro quo involved at all?
Maybe none of this matters, if Hillary Clinton truly does offer America the best chance of preventing the nightmare of President Trump or President Cruz. Does it though? That's not what the polls say. Yes, I know, polling this far out from an election has only limited predictive value. It has the enormous advantage though of actually existing. Perhaps the data showing Clinton barely beating Trump and managing to lose to Cruz is unreliable... but from where I sit, the counter-argument is weaker still, nothing much more than a hunch. I'd prefer not to bet our future on a hunch.
Despite the canards often thrown our way, apparently in the hope that something, anything, will stick, progressive supporters of Bernie Sanders aren't secretly hoping for a victory by Trump. We live in the real world though, where we understand all-too-well that America really may wake up one November morning to the reality of President-elect Trump. A final question to the Clintonistas: Do you understand at all just how deeply divisive and unpopular your candidate truly is? Perhaps she could squeak out a victory against Donald Trump... but maybe not. Has the reality that Clinton might very well lose penetrated your cotton-candy lalalala all-is-rosy filters at all?
Two riders are approaching, and the hour is indeed getting late.