OK, Kanzler. Lets toss politifact out of the picture entirely (although I don't know why you would, though I guess relying entirely one website isn't necessarily a good thing but politifact is generally a pretty reputable site, but lets just say it's full of crazy biased people that don't know what they're talking about), can you name me another fact-checking site that analyzes these politicians claims and reports on them in an objective manner so a comparison can be made? A website that actually includes full context so a misunderstanding can't be made? I'm having a hard time finding such a site, which is why I included politifact itself. Whether or not you take their word for it is entirely up to you; they're generally the most well-known fact-checking website. Not saying they're unbiased (I find it hard to believe that some news sources can't be, at least slightly. Maybe it's just my cynicicsm here), but that's why I said you rely on them as a general guide to determine a candidate's reliability and honesty.
If the best fact-checking website is Politifact, and if there's significant doubt that Politifact inform us about how honest or dishonest a politician is (due to the analyzing claims and quotes individually and out of context), then maybe we shouldn't put much stock in fact-checking sites. I don't think any fact-checking website can be objective although they can certainly try to be balanced. You can't rely on anybody to give you the full context, so that's why we're discussing it here and bringing our own understanding of the context to the table.
Fair point, but let me flip that example on you as it pertains to this nomination: why would you make presumptive judgments about Clinton's agenda if you don't know yourself whether or not she's really lying? Sure, she may give off the impression that she goes along wherever the wind takes her, but is that in itself absolute proof that she's a liar and dishonest? Do we know for sure that she's going to turn a 180 as soon as she enters the Oval Office?
That's what trust is all about, isn't it? Whether you believe someone will do something when there is no certainty. We can't know what Clinton will do in office anymore than we know what Sanders or Trump or Cruz would do. But Clinton does have a trust deficit in some Democrats, Independents, and obviously most Republicans. There's no absolute proof that she'll do 180's or be inactive on important issues just as there's no absolute proof that she'll fight hard on those issues either.
For myself (I can't speak for any other Clinton supporter), I do trust that she'll end up doing what she campaigned for all along, but I wouldn't be disappointed if she delivered only on a number of them. But that's the thing though, Kanzer. I can go through any political fact-checking website (not even politifact, really) and go back and forth on this with you with twisted claims, out of context stuff that these sites managed to pick out, but again, you're missing the bigger picture of what I'm saying, and I said this before: Clinton is more honest than people give her credit for. I link to these website as a general pointer, of course to be taken with a grain of salt, but not disregarded in all of its entirety.
I get the picture of what you're saying, but I don't know if I'm the best audience for your message. A lot of Clinton's scandals is Republican noise. I don't believe her vote for Iraq is a sign of her dishonesty. I'm not vocal about how late in the day she was for same sex marriage, although it is a bit late to me. I'm not clamouring for Clinton to get indicted for her e-mail scandal, although I do recognize how it's terrible optics for the American public. Heck, I'm not familiar with half the scandals that Republicans say she should own up to. I don't think, however, that her Wall Street speeches are forgiveable when she boasts so strongly about standing up to Wall Street and how Wall Street fears her so much that she's the only candidate they're running ads against (not true by the way). I agree with you that Clinton is more honest than people give her credit for, but I think I give her a lot more credit than the people who really want to see her burn.
Kanzler, If you want to talk about core message for Clinton, it's simple. It's continuing Obama's policies, and exit polls after exit polls demonstrates that voters care about that. Heck, take a look at this
Pennsylvania exit poll, for your viewing. as well as
Maryland's. You're free to criticize Obama all you'd like, sure, but the fact remains that Clinton has made it a clear part of her campaign's message to be essentially Obama's third term, and that's what people
want, which is a large part of why Clinton is winning. Heck, take Conneticut, a state in which Sanders is barely leading, and look at the
exit polls for yourself so far. The fact of the matter is, Clinton's policies are more or less in tune with something Obama would do, and cloaking yourself in Obama's legacy sounds a lot better to most people than promising super radical """socialist""" change by someone who's """not a true democrat""" (I'm putting these in quotes because they're the biggest criticism for sanders).
The 'not a true Democrat' argument is a point of view promoted by Clinton, I believe. And whether that claim is true or false depends on how far back you're willing to go. I'll give you that Sanders is not a true Democrat if you consider what the Democratic Party is post 1992. But Sanders' vision of social, political, and economic justice goes back to the New Deal and through the Civil Rights Era up to the late 70's, congruent with a Democratic Party with its ears closer to the pulse of the working and middle class.
What are Obama's main accomplishments? He passed the ACA, but Clinton doesn't want to go further. He stimulated the economy and arguable prevented the recession from deepening, but we're not in recession anymore. He stopped the Iraq War and wound down Afghanistan, but they're done now. He got bin Ladin, maybe Clinton will get al-Baghdadi. He passed some environmental legislation, but the oil and gas companies still have their tax loopholes. He passed financial reform, but the too-big-to-fail banks are just as big if not bigger than they were in 2008.
Obama's two terms were about mitigating crises. Now that the crises are gone, Clinton doesn't really have to do much to be Obama's third term. She doesn't have an America to save, she inherits an America that is ready to grow. Obama is a popular president but times have changed and committing to be Obama's third term is setting the bar too low. I must say that I am disappointed that so many people are satisfied for the next President to rest on Obama's laurels.
See Kanzler, you're also missing a super huge picture here:
Obama has pretty much set a super high standard for what the next president SHOULD be like.
When you consider his sky-high approval ratings for the
exact same demographic groups that's giving Hillary such huge boosts around these primaries, you really shouldn't be surprised. What this data tells me, and the results of the primaries so far, is that a lot more Americans ultimately want the next President to continue Obama's policies and essentially be Obama's third term, and they're afraid that Bernie, someone who's actually an Independent and "not a real democrat" would not continue along that course and/or gets absolutely nothing done, or do something entirely opposite of what Obama would do. It's an ingenious strategy by Clinton, and it's been working so far throughout this campaign.
Obama's popular, he didn't deliver much because of intense crises, but now these crises are over. I certainly hope it is not Clinton's intention to continue a low-delivery presidency without the challenges Obama faced. It might be a good political strategy, and it might get her elected, but it's not going to deliver the changes to American democracy and economy. Personally, statesmanship is more important to me than winning.
I can understand the skepticism behind Hillary's positions, but a lot of voters think "Is this something Obama would do?" In an age where people are fearful that the U.S is going to be shattered in ruins by the next president, and the fact that, throughout these 8 years, most people felt Obama been the defacto standard of what a president should be like and should do, it's going to be hard to break from that train of thought, which is why I don't think the U.S, at least in currently, is not quite ready yet for a socalist candidate. They want someone who can continue change at he way Obama would handle it, because it makes people comfortable and have that piece of mind.
The independents and young people who can't or don't vote in primaries, as well as a not-insignificant number of poor white conservatives (and Klippy who might be neither poor nor white :P) sure are ready for a "socialist" like Bernie Sanders.
Does this all make sense? Feel free to disagree with any of these points, but these are all based on observations made throughout the primary so far. It's not that it's not hard to identify where Hillary is, it's really simple to identify where she is, and that gives her the flexibility to assume positions that are either similar to Obama's, or something that he would do, anyway, which gives her reign to criticize Bernie over of a number of his positions.
It makes sense but I disagree with your conclusion. It's not hard to identify where Clinton "wants" to be when she talks about Obama's third term and 'breaking barriers'. It's hard to tell where Clinton
is because she flip flops and panders. I don't think anybody wants a President who is "flexible" per se - what they want is someone who is principled and can compromise. Nobody doubts that Clinton can compromise, but a lot of people think that her principles are compromised.
This also leads to your post previously given how, if Obama's name is invoked, all discussion essentially ceases to be relevant. While yes, it is possible to criticize Obama and his policies, it's not a smart thing to do. Every president can be criticized, that's fine. Obama's not perfect, but like Trump convincing his voters and playing into the fears of his voters that "the system is rigged", Hillary is telling her voters that "it's ok, I will continue everything the way that Obama wanted it to be, because we're making progress and Bernie is going to mess up all the progress we've made so far", which is actually working, compared to Bernie's "we're going to upheave the political system entirely because it's full of crap", because while a lot of people do feel that our politics is full of garbage, a lot MORE people trust that someone like our current president would handle things just fine enough.
All I have to say is that I cannot in good conscience describe the American system as
working when the rich get richer while the poor get poorer and when the ridiculous influence of money in politics turn the problems of ordinary people into "abstractions to be managed rather than battles to be fought".
RE: the video. It's a youtube video, it makes Clinton look really bad and it just wouldn't be professional to show that on mainstream news to make a political statement. The mainstream news conveys their bias through subtle ways. Even Fox would find that video a bit too crude. To make a larger point about mainstream news, don't expect them to criticize the mainstream candidate.
If Clinton gets into the White House, I will give my soul to Christ (i'm atheist) if she's able to follow through on all the progressive stances she's making now. jk i wouldn't outright do that but i will consider it
@Klippy: O'Malley "Actually you're not" LOL
