Continuing our watch on Hillary’s run, a visit to Ballotpedia is essential:
Interestingly, she’s listed as opposing higher taxes on the wealthy, free trade, a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens, and is against maintaining sovereignty from the U.N; she’s neutral on expanding the military. This makes her, in my eyes, a little less liberal than I had expected. Of course, she is a Clinton, and no doubt her husband is advising her in how to be in sync with the voters, which is an admirable strategy, I suppose, but it makes my skin crawl – but then, I voted for old Bill twice, with my skin in full crawl. But by this I mean I do not know if the positions listed by Ballotpedia are honest representations of her opinions, or just the opinions she’s put out for the electorate to digest.
Of course, she’s the only declared candidate for the Democratic nomination. Jonathan Chait has published a longish article explaining why he believes she’ll both win the nomination and the election, based on the growing Democratic party (although recent polls of voters casts some doubt on that), the liberal youth, her personal popularity, Obama’s recovering economy, and finally:
The argument for Clinton in 2016 is that she is the candidate of the only major American political party not run by lunatics.
Sadly, I have to disagree. I shan’t call my fellow citizens lunatics, I’ll just note that they seem to have a lot of fallacious assumptions about reality, government activities, and, oh, a lot of other things, which I shan’t go into here.
