Clinton never gave up on her own party (see MT Sen: 2014), and last time I checked, Clinton isn't an NRA darling like Schweitzer. He doesn't represent the true values of the establishment, true leftist base of the Democratic Party and would really be better off as an independent given how, like Sanders, he's attempting to move farther left to the Democrats ideologically on some social and economic issues. Although that drastically failed as someone whose proven to be more about the needs his own, flawed state before that of the country while Hillary cares more about us at a national level (as Senator) than just caving into the demands of her husband's red state for example. Schweitzer could learn something from that. By running for President, you need to think of everyone in the party nationwide, not just pleasing your own state (especially one that prefers Cruz over him).
This is a really strange combination of words.
Hillary cares more about us at a national level (as Senator) than just caving into the demands of her husband's red state for example.
I'm not sure I understand this. You know Hillary Clinton was a Senator for New York, not Arkansas, right?
But Schweitzer
has not, yet, nationalized himself in politics. He has been Governor of Montana, and focused on Montana in that capacity. If he seems like he's been more sluggish in nationalizing himself than you would prefer for a prospective Presidential candidate, that's fine, but I don't think it's fair impugn him for it in the way that you are.
Poll
