Clinton has the most progressive platform to be nominated in many decades, if not all of American history. They were also behind welfare reform in the 90s. You certainly have a selective view of them.

It's very doubtful her platform would be so progressive had she not just fought a brutal primary battle against Bernie Sanders, no doubt the most liberal and socialist-democracy leaning candidate to win popular support in the United States, ever.

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.

Well, I think the way to look at Clinton is that she works hard and she can adjust her worldview to fit her constituency. I'm happy to vote the platform and judge her actions. Her motivations aren't necessary to discern if she executes the platform well.

What a great euphemism for calling her a shameless opportunist (I say this as a Clinton supporter). If you're happy to judge her actions, then do so because her actions have been very, very clear! 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.

She is an opportunist—like all politicians—but I can't speak to her shame. I don't care, just like I don't care if Trump is "really" racist. If they look like a racist, walk like a racist, and quack like a racist....

> 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.

I think we're mostly in agreement: Clinton is the way forward because our other choices are an infantile megalomaniac at worst and a protest vote at best (which risks splitting the liberal vote bringing us back to the worst case scenario).

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.

> Other reforms like the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act are widely reviled.

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.

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act [1]

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...

> I'm not sure how cutting back social services points to a liberal and progressive government at all. If anything it points to a more conservative one. Most progressives simply call themselves that but, like the Clintons, their actions are the exact opposite.

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.

Which social services do you believe we are cutting back in SF/Silicon Valley?

Its a conservative problem actually. We can all (especially Californians) blame Reagan for that one http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-men...

Tack economic in front of the two words and they make sense in the context. economic liberal (aka, lets private business do their thing unchecked) and economic progressive (everything is a exchange).

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.