Opinion of the pro-Clinton left

[bedstuy]

Deluded hashtag Democrats cheerily joining a disturbing coalition of gay men, beer-swilling crackers and dowdy soccer moms. At least the latter two groups know that Clinton is temperamentally and philosophically a Republican.

I assume you're being partially facetious. 

But, for one thing, I resent the implication that gay men don't even need a derisive epithet attached to their identity.  Do you have a problem with gay men?  Do you think gay men are going to support Hillary Clinton because they're like superficial club-kids who are going to watch the Presidential debates while drinking wine coolers and screaming "you go girl!!!" every time Hillary opens her mouth?  Is it like too feminine and "faggy" to support a female candidate and not a "serious" Paul Tsongas/John Huntsman type?

Personally, I don't know why you think Hillary Clinton is a Republican.  Hillary Clinton has essentially the same policy views as Barack Obama.  She's qualified to be President.  She seems like a hard-working, smart, caring person.  And, she has the political base to win and cut deals in office.  So, if you want the basic Democratic Party Agenda enacted, she seems like a good candidate.  That's what I care about personally, I don't want destructive, dumb Republican policies to ruin the United States.  So, forgive me if your mental image of Hillary Clinton is associated with too many ugly Americans and fags or whatever.  If you win the Presidency in 2016, you're going to need like 70 million votes.

[bedstuy]

Deluded hashtag Democrats cheerily joining a disturbing coalition of gay men, beer-swilling crackers and dowdy soccer moms. At least the latter two groups know that Clinton is temperamentally and philosophically a Republican.

I assume you're being partially facetious. 

But, for one thing, I resent the implication that gay men don't even need a derisive epithet attached to their identity.  Do you have a problem with gay men?  Do you think gay men are going to support Hillary Clinton because they're like superficial club-kids who are going to watch the Presidential debates while drinking wine coolers and screaming "you go girl!!!" every time Hillary opens her mouth?  Is it like too feminine and "faggy" to support a female candidate and not a "serious" Paul Tsongas/John Huntsman type?

Personally, I don't know why you think Hillary Clinton is a Republican.  Hillary Clinton has essentially the same policy views as Barack Obama.  She's qualified to be President.  She seems like a hard-working, smart, caring person.  And, she has the political base to win and cut deals in office.  So, if you want the basic Democratic Party Agenda enacted, she seems like a good candidate.  That's what I care about personally, I don't want destructive, dumb Republican policies to ruin the United States.  So, forgive me if your mental image of Hillary Clinton is associated with too many ugly Americans and fags or whatever.  If you win the Presidency in 2016, you're going to need like 70 million votes.

You read a little too much into that. My only point was to highlight the strange nature of the PUMA/#ReadyForHillary coalition, who are the only people who seem to be enthusiastic about the prospect of President Hillary Clinton as opposed to a grudging acceptance of the (supposed) inevitability thereof.

"PUMA" has nothing to do with people who support Hillary Clinton in 2016.

I think there are a lot of people who support Hillary Clinton in 2016, but supported Barack Obama in  the 2008 primaries.  I actually really disliked Hillary Clinton after the 2008 primary race.  I thought she ran a presumptuous, classless campaign in 2008 and I don't regret supporting Obama.  I don't think I'm alone in that regard. 

And, sure, if Clinton 2016 runs on the same themes as Clinton 2008 April-June campaign, that would be monumentally stupid on her part.  This is sort of the folly of lining up behind a candidate or criticizing them before the campaign has even started.  Hillary Clinton has to earn people's votes.

[bedstuy]

FF, as they understand how left-wing goals are actually accomplished in this country.

By voting for a party whose mainstream has not been remotely leftist in 40 years?

The Democratic party has done a heck of a lot more for the causes of economic and social equality and justice in the past 40 years than Kshama Sawant and co. could ever hope to achieve.

Such as gutting welfare, removing the few restrictions on the parasitic financial industry, signing destructive trade agreements, killing both Americans and foreign civilians in imperialist interventions from Libya to Serbia to Iraq to Sudan, smashing union health care plans, fostering the growth of media conglomerates, forcing people into a parasitic private insurance system, and backing neoliberal education privatization schemes? Or is that all just a long con for the magical left-liberal utopia that Hillary will bring after the 2016 elections?

You clearly aren't educated on the facts and you populate your addled brain with these cherry-picked versions of political events with words like "neoliberal" and "imperialist" sprinkled in.  It's pathetic.  You don't even know what you're talking about.

[bedstuy]

Who said that statement applied to every single thing he listed?

Which ones did it apply to?

Just a general reality check:

Such as gutting welfare,

The Welfare Reform was bad policy, I agree.  But, it didn't gut welfare and it was the culmination of a political movement that had demonized welfare for a long time.  You have to blame the entire left for losing that political battle.

removing the few restrictions on the parasitic financial industry,

There were no restrictions on the Financial industry at all Post-Clinton?  No.  And, the Clinton era deregulation didn't actually cause or contribute significantly to the financial crisis according to most experts so, there you go.

signing destructive trade agreements,

NAFTA was good for every country in North America and has been an overall success.  I don't know how you could claim it was destructive. 

killing both Americans and foreign civilians in imperialist interventions from Libya to Serbia to Iraq to Sudan,

Imperialist?  Really?

smashing union health care plans,

No.  Obamacare has a tax on so-called Cadillac Health plans which hurt most average Americans by raising healthcare costs.  And, the vast majority of people who have Cadillac plans are non-union.  These are high cost plans which would be out of the price range of middle class people.  High cost plans raise costs because they create incentives to over-utilize the healthcare system.  To characterize the excise tax on premium/expensive health insurance plans as "smashing union health care plans" is just ridiculous.

fostering the growth of media conglomerates,

?

forcing people into a parasitic private insurance system,

The ACA was a compromise.  But, it provides affordable health insurance to every American citizen.  I understand the desire for something like Medicare for all, but it wasn't politically feasible.  The ACA barely, barely passed, remember?  It was an incredible undertaking.  And, outside of Marxist teenager fantasyland, people need insurance.  People get sick and they need to go to a doctor.  Maybe you've never experienced being under-insured or uninsured, but it was terrible.  The status quo was horrible and Obamacare was a compromise.  And, let's get real, you're a Marxist, not a libertarian, so why are you upset about the individual mandate?

backing neoliberal education privatization schemes?

Give me an example of this.