Nominating Hillary Would be a Democrat Disaster Simply to Protect the Status Quo*
Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 21:58
skinnydipinacid

I remember MY first time taking the SubwayNot my words.  Those are the words from the Sanders camp.  I would have used the title "trainwreck just waiting for the right time to derail".

In more ways than one Sanders is correct.   Hillary "Sniper Fire" Clinton (in my opinion) is baggage for the Democrat Party.  Her favorablility numbers were not all that impressive going into the 2016 primaries, but lately they've taken a bit of a nosedive, much to the credit of both Trump and Sanders.  

On top of that, she lies, or "conveniently misspeaks" (if one so prefers such a phrase) often, and tends to shift her position based on which way the poltical headwinds are blowing at the time in which her lips start moving.   She's branded herself from left, to moderate/centrist, to (so-called) progressive in a period of time that exceeds only half of my childrens' ages.  

Take coal mining for example.  That one stupid statement about putting them out of business (which she may or may not have even supported... since it's Hillary) has cost her West Virginia in the primary and will likely cost her those same states and then some in the general election vs Trump (Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc).   I'm actually surprised she hasn't come out saying "my history of supporting fossil fuels has been well documented" and tried to lie about always supporting them.  Still time I suppose.

Then there's the whole email/Clinton server thing.  Good grief almighty.  Illegality aside, she actually ran around saying she turned over 90-95%, before claiming "every" email (not of a personal nature ::wink wink::) on her personal server (which was destroyed) before the State Dept had insisted they'd actually received less than 1% of her emails, with Rep. Susan Brooks even pointing out an astonishing drop in Libya-related emails from prevous year 2011, to 2012 (leading up to the Benghazi attacks) and highlighted it as a "lack of interest" (if not a sign of obvious wrongdoing). 

... And don't even get me started on Benghazi.

The last two alone are enough to make your everyday American Joe leery of such an individual, but to ignore such toxicity levels and thrust said person into the deep end of a presidential election?   Well, now that's just reckless.   It's like drag racing to the cliff's edge.  Sanders is spot-on by calling them out on it.

Let's consider just SOME of the things Hillary has flip-flopped on (so far):

She opposed ethanol mandates prior to running for president in 2008 (ironically, they grow corn in Iowa ::wink wink::).

She opposed gay marriage (numerous times) prior to that same primary and supported the Defense of Marriage Act before she was against it (even went as far as rainbow-coloring her "H" logo).

She opposed NAFTA in 2008 as well, shortly after praising it as a boon to the economy.

She opposed raising the debt limit (voting 3 times not to) before "praying that common sense would make a comeback" and pass in 2014.   I suppose she gets folksy bonus points for praying.

She opposed the Keystone XL pipeline (finally, per the link) after the backlash she caused by saying she was inclined to support it.

She opposed raising payroll taxes until she starting "Feeling the Bern".

She opposed TPP before she was against it.

She supported Iran's ability to enrich uranium for civilian purposed, but then rejected the idea in 2014, prior to her help in ushering in Iran to the table in the recent deal (being heavily scrutinized as of late) by saying her team helped "set the table" for John Kerry's horrible negotiations.

I could go on...   Deportations of illegal immigrants, sanctuary cities, driver's licenses for illegals, her opinion of President Bashar al-Assad, the Cuba embargo, numerous free trade agreements, gun control, eductation reform, school choice, charter schools...  what difference at this point does it make?

She makes John Kerry look like an amateur flip-flopper.  She IS a bad candidate, and the Democrat/enablers that helped push her far into the lead over Sanders have to be feeling a little skittish as they watch him still in the race, supposedly defeated, yet still drawing crowds that any candidate would feel proud of.

Whether you love him, hate him, or find yourself somewhere in between, you have to admire Sanders and his tenacity.   He is still relevent in the race, and is in some ways doing harm to the "Crooked" Hillary Clinton, who would like nothing more than to wrap up her game of progressive charades and go back to pretending to be a moderate again.   Trying to out-progressive the bigger progressive is not going well for her and it's starting to look like it will affect her beyond securing the Democratic nod.

I'm staring to wonder:   If her numbers tank any further, should the White House just wrap up this email investigation, unleash all their dirt, and throw her in prison in hopes of a better on-deck candidate (be it Sanders or Biden)?

*For sake of potential scrutiny not a single Fox News/Trumpbart article was linked to in this post

Article originally appeared on Watch for Flying Adjectives (http://www.blrag.com/).
See website for complete article licensing information.