Thanks for responding. I appreciate it.
I don’t think your portrayal is incomplete because it’s “it is almost impossible to be encyclopaedic on the subject of the Clintons.” I think you are willfully ignoring any positive impact of her political career while emphatically emphasizing the negative. You are correct that those negatives, despite the exaggerated presentation of some of your source material, are real and should be discussed.
However, you cannot assess her while ignoring other prominent aspects of her career:
- She pushed forcefully for universal healthcare reform in the 90’s, pre-dating even MA’s adoption of Mitt Romney’s more centrist version of a similar policy.
- When that failed due to opposition from the political right, she helped champion the SCHIP.
- During her career in the senate, she earned a 94% lifetime rating from the AFL-CIO, a 98% rating from the AFSCME, and consistently voted in the interest of labor unions.
- Speaking of the Senate, 70 of the bills she either sponsored or co-sponsored became law. You can read what they all are here. Some of it is pro-business, some of it is boring stuff like naming things, but most of it is healthcare focused and a lot of it legitimately helped tons of people.
- You can find a detailed (allbeit long), relatively unbiased take on her entire tenure as Secretary of State on Wikipedia. It builds a pretty strong case that she deserves significant credit for re-establishing US diplomatic credibility with much of the western world. It also emphasizes the aspects of her work that built the so-called “Hillary Doctrine”, which emphasized that girls and women’s rights should be considered matters of national security.
The above bullet points alone are not an adequate picture of Hillary Clinton, because they don’t emphasize the negative enough. There is legitimate criticism in her handling of Libya, and you can certainly argue that her support for TARP and close ties to Wall St will not yield proper and necessary banking reform. I would caution any Democrat to avoid doing the opposite of what I feel you are doing, and only emphasizing a falsely positive charactercher.
That said, it’s the ying to your yang. None of those bullet points are lies. You shouldn’t ignore them.
For the record, I am a left-leaning independent. I liked Obama and would be more or less happy with continued incremental leftward movement. That’s what draws me to Hillary, moreso than any sense of party duty or obligation. I dislike her support for the Iraq War, and some of her more ridiculous social stances (that insane crusade against violent video games, for instance). I also think she’s a terrible politician (in the campaign sense) and a good lawyer.
Overall, though, I think she’d be a decent President.