As for what the Clintons did in the 90s, not everyone has a rosy picture of their work. They weren't beacons for progressivism except maybe in education, and many of their reforms including the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act are still very controversial on the left. Other reforms like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act are widely reviled. The Clintons have always been centrists, that's how they got where they are today, and calling them progressive because they have to appease an anti-establishment wing in their party is extremely disingenuous.
> You are not voting for the platform, you are voting for the Clinton dynasty and the predominant wing of the Democratic party at the expensive of true progressive reforms that would bring us more in line with European social democracies.
There's no other option. I voted and campaigned for Bernie, but he didn't make the nomination. I could vote for a third party, with the same issues (Jill Stein is an anti-vaxxer, the libertarian party is too idealistic to see reality). But there's a time for campaigning for personal issues and a time for campaigning for votes, and I've moved from the former to the latter. I still call my representatives, but I don't think pushing my ideal platform is going to help with the presidential election.
So, maximizing my vote means evaluating and voting for the platform I prefer because the alternative is to become apathetic. Nobody wins then. Clinton has a long history of campaigning hard for things, and I don't think her platform is a bad fit for that type of work ethic.
All I'm saying is let's not be disingenuous. Not all politics are opportunists, her primary opponent is a case in point, but the Democratic party electorate chose and so we are stuck with her.
Also, to be clear, the DNC official platform is the most progressive on record in large part because of Bernie's "revolution". Whether or not Clinton backs the platform on a point by point basis is entirely unclear. If Trump doesn't help the Democrats carry at least one chamber of Congress, then we'll have a centrist warhawk in another appeasement loop with an obstructionist legislature. I don't see a way through this where we actually get anything done for the next four years, whether it's Trump or Clinton, unless the Democrats take control of everything and Clinton is forced to truly court the left of left constituency.
Sorry to comment again (I can't edit anymore)—but it wasn't an absurd law to begin with. Much of the black community was in support of such laws, and the only controversy around Hillary specifically of which I am aware was the "superpredator" comment. Bill's another story yelling at BLM supporters for being ungrateful, which was stupid but understandable given the crime rates of the early nineties that millenials never saw.
That said, you're absolutely correct, they're centrists to the core. She's a warhawk who worked to censor violent video games and Eminem. I'll be watching her like a hawk.
Are we talking about the welfare reform that put 5 year absolute limits on public assistance? Does that sound progressive to you?
It also has many ongoing consequences. Poor, working class mothers have to choose between accepting assistance or living with their child's father. If neither made enough to live on the father was forced to leave the household. I don't see anything progressive in destroying poor families.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Wo...
That depends on which services are being cut, and why.
If policies do not achieve liberal goals, even if those policies were initiated by liberals at some point in the past, it makes sense for today's liberal politicians to modify or eliminate those policies.
For example, if a welfare program is keeping people in poverty indefinitely, it doesn't work. A liberal or progressive would want a program that lifts people out of poverty. That was Bill Clinton's argument for welfare reform.
Basically take terms we are used to see used in a social context, and reframe them to a economic context without informing the reader/listener.