A "divided American left?" Clinton has nothing to do with the left... and neither does Eli Sanders, which is why he's so eager for progressives to surrender their cause.

If you're really concerned about Trump and the threat of right-wing populism, you should focus less on demonizing Sanders, and worry a bit more about Clinton, whose opposition to TPP seems to have disappeared now that she has the primary sewn up:

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/06…

@1 -- Clinton has nothing to do with the left

aaaand, you are a fucking idiot. She is to the left of her center-left husband, who lead the left wing party in this country for eight years. http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hilla….

Just about every Republican in power, meanwhile, is not center right, but far right. You can thank Ronald Reagan, the far right President, for that.

It really isn't too complicated. If we had a parliament, it would have been fucking obvious. Nader would have held his nice little two or three percent, while Bush and Gore tied. The two left wing candidates (Gore and Nader) would have formed a coalition and made progress on things that really matter (like global warming). But instead, Nader couldn't quite grasp our electoral system, and fucked up everything for everyone (by getting enough idiots to vote for him) and we had eight years of far right rule (by an idiot).

But you know that, right -- you no doubt voted for Gore and cried when they stole Florida, right? Right?

The Neo Fascists... sorry, "New right"... are largely composed of rural religious types and old, white, dying off Baby Boomers glutting the cultural demographics like they do.

And while it's tempting to dismiss them all as idiots, they *DO* go vote at every level of government. Unlike the left/ liberals/ progressives who will elect a single black president and then go congratulate themselves for eight years for bringing enlightenment while the rest of the system burns to the ground like in Kansas and Michigan because they ignored everything that wasn't a big showy victory like the White House.

Progressives: Heal thyself. Your laziness and apathy is why the forces of evil keep winning.

@2 AHAHAHAHAHAH.

*ahem*

Sorry. Bill Clinton was a progressive politician? How progressive was he?

He was so progressive, he dramatically increased jail sentencing, drastically increasing the prison population. He was SO progressive, he not only made it harder for gays in the military, he banned gay marriage. He was SO progressive, he passed NAFTA, one of the biggest handouts to corporations that also gutted our unions' ability to bargain. He was so progressive that he deregulated the banks allowing them to grow and congeal however they pleased. He was so progressive that his wife shot down single payer in response to a flawed for-profit healthcare system that not even the Democrats could unite behind.

Yes, Bill Clinton was a beacon of liberal light in a long hallway of conservative darkness. Hillary is even more progressive than Bill that she voted almost every Free Trade bill that was put in front of her face as a Senator. She was so progressive that she voted to authorize the Iraq War (something true progressive squish brains like Dam Savage totally supported in 2002) in a similar fashion to many of the Leave voters of Brexit (based on false information, and a vote of protest against a government [Iraq in her case, Britain in Brexit] that she never meant to actually happen). She's so progressive that she voted for the PATRIOT Act twice. She's SO progressive that she went down to Wall Street and told them to "Cut. It. Out." (her words) and then was satisfied that her job was done. She's so progressive that she feels terrible about using a SuperPAC left lying around by Obama. She's so progressive she told countries to use Fracking to get them independent of Russian oil. She is so progressive she greased the wheels for arms deals to the Saudis and other anti-women anti-LGBT religious dictatorships because they were better than the alternative. She's so progressive that she hate to hold her nose while saying she opposed the TPP during her presidential campaign just long enough to secure the nomination (and you crazy fucks believed her!).

Yes. Hillary Clinton. A true left wing politician who is the libbiest lib who ever libbed.

@2.......Actually we can thank George Bush (the elder), he was in effect the real president as vice president. Reagan was basically a front man who signed the bills but the decisions were made by others.

Oh good grief people don't you realize Trump is Joe McCarthy, George Wallace and Clark Stanley (the original "Snake Oil Salesman") rolled into one? It must be stopped.

Donald Trump is an entitled sociopath in desperate need of a senior evaluation. But there are enough dumb Americans to believe his schtick, and enough liberal Americans who see the second act of "Cabaret" lurking around every corner, for him to have grabbed the national attention.

As I have said before, I'm not worried about Trump if he happens to win. I think he would pull a Palin and get out, probably within the first year. He doesn't understand the job, and he's never had to actually work, so he would be overwhelmed. What I worry about is who his running mate is, for that would be our new president.

@5/TheMisanthrope: "He dramatically increased jail sentencing, drastically increasing the prison population." Seriously? Since the vast majority of people are incarcerated by U.S. states, Clinton's impact on incarceration rates was minimal. And you complain that Clinton couldn't get a single-payer healthcare system passed? Neither could Barack Obama, and neither would Bernie Sanders. That's said, millions more people have coverage today under a plan fairly similar to that proposed by HRC during the 2008 campaign.

You also forget that Clinton raised taxes on wealthy Americans, which was fundamental in helping balance the budget, and also cost Democrats its majority in Congress. He also got Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steven Beyer confirmed to the Supreme Court, among hundreds of other appointments of liberals in the judiciary and the administration, including genuine environmentalists to head the EPA and the Department of Interior. And significantly, Clinton used the Antiquities Act of 1906 to place over 3 million acres of federal land off-limits to development by declaring them "national monuments."

Eli Sanders is apparently following the Dan Savage 'father knows best' school of journalism. He keeps handing out neoliberal advice where none was solicited, how 'bout we spend a little more time reporting on real events and interviewing people who know what the fuck they are talking about rather than trying to shape public opinion?

Hillary Clinton is the leftmost candidate for president who has a chance greater than zero of winning. And therefore, she is the candidate for whom a person who cares about policy should vote.

If, on the other hand, one doesn't really care about policy and instead sees politics as an arena in which they can demonstrate their virtue, then whatever. Its your vote, do whatever you want with it.

What's the point of worrying about if Hillary Clinton is or is not properly leftist? Presidents will respond to the political forces brought to bear on them in office - what they personally want or don't want is almost beside the point. Bill Clinton signed that crime bill back in the 90s because he calculated that doing so would improve the fortunes of the Democrats in elections. Was he correct in this? Hell if I know.

Should we punish Bill Clinton by spurning Hillary Clinton and inflicting Donald Trump on the nation? How is doing that "Leftist"?

what @12 said.

you want Left candidates, you have to build them up to presidential scale. it starts in state legislatures and city councils.

I dunno Charles, maybe people who want actual populist reform are just tired of stale identity politics and petty upper-class boutique radicalism? That's all the Left has these days whether champagne socialists like yourself want to admit it or not.

@10

The Stranger has said many times that they are an "advocacy journalism" (i.e. opinion) publication, not a hard news organization.

And if the stuff they advocate isn't the stuff you or I would want them to advocate, well, too bad.

There's always the comment box, eh?