Progressives should vote for Clinton because she will in no way be viewed as a progressive/liberal, therefore she cannot suck the oxygen out of the progressives’ air in the way Obama did (for eight precious years), while betraying those he pretended to represent. Thusly, by voting for Hillary “We Came, We Saw, He Died” Clinton in 2016, an obvious anti-progressive war monger, progressives can freely grow like shadowed mushrooms on the rotting log of neoliberal wealth-pumping via wars and debt-disciplined austerity for the peripheral poors, including vast regions of the United States.
That’s what I read.
Fourteen years plus after the Event Horizon I (Bush v. Gore), and nearly six years after Event Horizon II (Lehman), never mind the multiple event horizon markers along the way, Armando is still imagining “long-term strategies” for progressives. Awesome. In its blank stupidity, imho, given the fact that if the economy doesn’t get you (global debt now 40% above 2008 levels), climate will (CO2 levels at 143% of Pleistocene, and rapidly climbing into positive feedback territory).
Obviously, you could look back in time to re-define Event Horizon I, such as, US peak oil in 1971, or “human agriculture” 12,000 yonks past. But turning Hillary into a pro-progressive argument is something only a bone-headed lawyer or academic could do at this late date.
Am I surprised by this level of argument? Huh. I s’pose not really after everything I’ve seen. However, my disdain for people routinely ignoring reality is solid as a rock. It’s like they should make a new place on the periodic table for pure, solid, elemental disdain. It would be amongst the metals, I think. I’d have to ask Translator Doc to be sure.