“The Hillary I know is not the one presented to me by the opposition. The Hillary I see is not a neoliberal, war criminal, Wall Street panderer, racist apologist, assault condoning, cynically ambitious lying sociopath who will destroy the very fabric of our Nation.”
Therein lies the problem; the Hillary you “see” doesn’t exist. Some of the hyperbole in it aside (and the “assault condoning” thing excised entirely), that’s not at all an unfair characterization of Clinton.
Other than your terrible judgment on Clinton herself, you seem like a reasonable person. Far too many of her fans who write in places like this — nearly all of them lately, in fact — are essentially unhinged crackpots. I was sort of disappointed when I was reading away and saw the thoughtless parroting of this standard Clintonite boilerplate:
“She won the popular vote by a greater margin than any white presidential candidate”
…which is, of course, entirely false — ludicrously false — but is one of those lines the crackpot faction of the Hillary Fan Club keep repeating.
At the same time, you unfairly slight Bernie Sanders when you say the only legislation he’s passed “was for increased veterans rights and altering the designation of two post offices.” Sanders is an independent; he doesn’t have a party apparatus behind him, where he can call on 30 other senators (or, in the House, congressmen) with a word and has a whip who can get him more. Despite these limitations, he has a pretty impressive legislative record; he’s actually gotten lots of stuff passed, mostly by crafting amendments to other legislation.
Bernie Gets It Done: Sanders' Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will Surprise You
What kind of experience does Bernie Sanders have? Let's take a look. "I'm a progressive, but I'm a progressive who…
What Bernie Sanders Got Done in Washington: A Legislative Inventory
Bernie Sanders is a progressive who likes to get things done and his record of legislative accomplishments in the House…
You rationalize being unimpressed with his record by saying you have the luxury of not compromising your ideals. When Clinton was in the Senate, she sponsored a grand total of three bills that became law, one renaming a highway, one renaming a post-office and one designating a building in Troy, New York as an historic site. That’s all. Her senate service was marked by ugly episodes like her disgraceful flip-flop on the big bankruptcy “reform” bill (done in the service of her Wall Street paymasters) and her efforts to ban the burning of the American flag (she wanted to send those who protested the state to prison for a year).
It could be argued (and has been argued) that when considering a president, what they’ve actually passed isn’t as important as the things for which they’ve stood. Whether a potential president can get everything he wants, people want someone who will fight for what they believe in. And that’s another of the stakes in the heart of Clintonism; she’s spent her entire career in public life deciding the things for which she’ll stand by sticking a finger in the wind to see which way its blowing or by servicing the donors who have purchased her. You cite Clinton’s sudden campaign-trail opposition to the TPP without acknowledging the fact that this was a purely cynical flip-flop (the only thing at which Clinton has ever been consistent). Clinton had been one of its biggest cheerleaders and the only thing as certain as death and taxes is that if she’d been elected, she would have done everything in her power to pass it. Back in 2015, Domenico Montanaro wrote a good piece on Clinton’s “evolution” regarding these incredibly destructive multilateral “free trade” agreements (basically, Grant Superpower To Multinationals Acts):
A Timeline Of Hillary Clinton's Evolution On Trade
Like many Democrats, including the current president, Hillary Clinton has had difficulty maintaining a consistent…
In brief, she’s always against them when there’s an election in front of her then turns around and supports them once in power. And that, in fact, offers an effective nutshell version of the entire political career of Hillary Clinton, an unprincipled, opportunistic flip-flopper and inveterate liar whose instincts are rightist and who wanted the presidency for no other reason than just to have it (see “Shattered”). The stated platform of such a creature is meaningless.
Sanders, on the other hand, has been fighting for progressive legislation for most of his life. He’s either sincere or it’s the longest-running, most convincing put-on in politics. You repeat some other Clintonite slanders of the man. The idea that Sanders, literally the most pro-choice pol in national politics, doesn’t strongly enough believe in reproductive rights or is only out for white people is stricly loon-farm stuff and you link to several Medium Clintonites who are some of the worst crackpots here. They use such assertions as a weaponized faux-“identity politics” that amounts to little more than crude, brainless race-baiting and sexist-baiting — as intellectually bankrupt as it is profoundly offensive. They’re lost in the same sort of self-generated political fantasies as the rightists who have their “thoughts” programmed by Fox News.
You challenge the notion that Clinton was a weak candidate and blame Sanders primarily for her loss. Putting aside the ugly sense of entitlement in the latter, the fact still remains that Clinton’s weakness was right there in the numbers all along. Her poll numbers had been dropping for years prior to her entering the race; by the time she officially entered, more people already said they disliked her than liked her and that was before Sanders was even a factor (I’ve written about this at some length here).
I have no use for the sort of armchair psychoanalysis people too often feel comfortable offering total strangers. I will, however, allow that from what you’ve described, you took the election way too personally. Sobbing every day? For months? Maybe it’s just because being a rather radical fellow, I sit outside all of this political theater, but that seems to me an utterly hysterical reaction to an election that pitted against one another the two most disliked major-party candidates in the history of polling. Sure, the outcome is terrible and we’ll all suffer with it for a few years but that would have been the case whoever won (and if Clinton had carried the day, Democrats wouldn’t have been able to elected a dog-catcher by the time it was over). Don’t get so wrought up. You’ll probably live to see the first woman president. Maybe even the next time around — who knows? Hopefully, it will be someone who, unlike Hillary Clinton, deserves it.