“Intelligent progressives” are also capable of doing their own research, following up on facts and statistics, and proudly supporting Hillary Clinton. Basically what you’re saying is Clinton seems like a fraud, and people think she’s dishonest, and there are so many scandals some of them must be true. You fail to provide proof, other than polls indicating people feel a certain way (which is often completely unrelated to facts on the issue).
Every time you make a point, you seem to emphasize how an honest/nonpartisan/intelligent/conscientious person accepts or knows this. Your entire argument loses all credibility the moment you dismiss dissent as uneducated or corrupt. Just because people disagree with you, or don’t see things your way, does not make them dishonest, biased, or unintelligent. You’re trying to be non-partisan and you’re failing at it, having gone in with the obvious intention of discrediting Clinton.
“The unbiased history shows that she does lie and obfuscate more frequently than other politicians, and she has changed her policy positions more often than most.” This claim is oft repeated, and yet unsupported. Where is the proof of this? Where is this ‘unbiased history’? As far as I know (as a historian) there’s no such thing as an unbiased history. Feel free to point one out to me.
I’m not going to try to convince you to support Clinton, so I won’t bother arguing points (obviously you’ve made up your mind about her) but give those who do support her a little credit. We’re not stupid sheep, we’re not bought off, and we’re not conservatives in disguise.
As an intelligent progressive, I’ve read your article, read the supporting documents, and have not been shown anything new or factual that would cause me to not support Clinton. I don’t expect everyone to support her, anymore than you should expect all progressives to support Sanders (which would be absurd, of course, because progressives aren’t a single, homogeneous group). Speaking of, have you checked out the facts surrounding Sanders’ history? Voting record, rhetoric, etc? He’s not as squeaky clean as you seem to think. At the end of the day, he’s another politician trying to get elected. Oddly enough, I still like him, and would have supported him as candidate had he won. (He didn’t. And unless you can show proof of election fraud, don’t bring me conspiracy theories. It’s the same old story every election where someone cries fraud and yet nothing has been proved. Even in states with open primaries, Sanders lost the majority of them. Bias on behalf of the DNC is no indication of rigging, and it’s just a little bit understandable for the party to support someone who has spent the majority of her political career championing their causes, while Sanders has spent his whole life as an Independent, then became a Democrat in order to run for president with any viability. Sanders knew the rules going in, and he agreed to them, Superdelegates and all.)
And see what I’m doing here? I’m disagreeing without assuming you’re an idiot. I know you’re biased, because everyone is, but in case you’re open to learning new things or seeing another perspective: Here is an excellent analysis of Clinton. Here is another. And just for good measure, here is a look at Clinton’s approval ratings before she decided to run for office. Because there are many sides to this, and your perspective is not the only “valid” (or “intelligent”) one.