On Hillary

Hillary is a a liar hiding a hawkish, plutocratic agenda behind women’s issues and gun control. She may even be worse than Obama on foreign policy issues.

I remember you saying that you supported Sanders but would give up when he had no chance. Amazingly, that still hasn’t happened. It appears all of those Monsanto/Goldman Sachs/Lockheed/fossil fuel dollars paid off last night.

People pay attention to you as an intellectual. We trust you. Why aren’t you criticizing her more?


First of all, complaining that a politician is a liar is like complaining about water being wet. They’re all liars. Grow up.

Secondly, I don’t grant your premise that Hillary is hiding a hawkish, plutocratic agenda. Hillary knows how to strategically apply U.S. force projection, but that’s not the same thing as being hawkish. In my humble opinion, she’s the only candidate who could beat Putin in a staring contest, but at the same time, she’s not gonna run around as if her hair’s on fire over ISIS like all those fear-mongering Republican numnards. Hillary is not war-loving. She’s strong. She’s diplomatically not to be fucked with, and nobody ever gives her enough credit for it.

Everyone is constantly complaining that Democrats are a bunch of pussies when it comes to foreign policy. Ironically, it’s gonna take the first President with a pussy to prove that Democrats actually have some balls.

Admittedly, I hate her position on Israel and Palestine, and her vote on the Iraq War will haunt her for the rest of her life, but at the same time, I’m sick and fucking tired of far-left wingers slamming Hillary for having to back up Obama’s foreign policy agenda as Secretary of State.

Also, you’re confusing her economic centrism for a plutocratic agenda. Hillary is not a plutocrat, though it’s an easy mistake to make, because any candidate standing next to Bernie Sanders will come off looking like a plutocrat. No, Hillary is merely a pragmatist when it comes to American capitalism. I’m okay with that. At the end of the day, she’s still a bleeding heart where it counts, and she would be far more effective at actually implementing a liberal domestic policy agenda than Bernie. To quote the philosopher Tina Fey, “bitches get stuff done.”

Oh, and for the record, women’s rights and gun control are not issues you hide behind. That’s incredibly insulting. Maybe you’re a man and you don’t give a shit, but the assault on women’s reproductive rights in this country is no fucking joke. The next President will likely be appointing more than one Supreme Court Justice, and that may or may not tip the balance of the court to one that could overturn Roe v Wade. That’s terrifying. We cannot allow that to happen. Ever. I trust that Hillary would appoint fantastic justices. (And yeah, I know it’s silly, but just the thought of Hillary appointing Obama to the Supreme Court makes me giddy.)

Obviously, Hillary is not perfect, but she is more qualified to be a U.S. President than any other candidate in this election cycle. I love Bernie Sanders and his ideas. Really. I love everything he stands for, but I’m also a huge fan of Hillary Clinton. It requires absolutely no cognitive dissonance to like them both. The idealist in me gets to vote for Bernie in the primary, and odds are, the realist in me will get to vote for Hillary in the general. I’m very happy with both of those votes.

Y’all can quit asking me to hate on Hillary. You know I’ll call her out on her shit when she deserves it, but I’d also be proud to have her as my President.


47 thoughts on “On Hillary

  1. The amount of times I have run into people who claim Clinton to be a terrible woman based purely off simple and trivial mistakes. When looking at the presidential candidates, potential voters should not be looking at the candidates as what kind of person they used to be, but what kind of president they can be. In my open-letter “Dear potential voters,” I list all the reasons I think people should vote, and perhaps that is Clinton they will be voting for. Who knows. I feel as though our blog posts can somewhat go hand-in-hand. Here it is in case you are curious:

  2. Joey_33 says:

    “Ironically, it’s gonna take the first President with a pussy to prove that Democrats actually have some balls.”

    I’ll be over here in the corner slow-clapping

    • Dots says:


      I ask because if your respect was based upon the assumption that she agreed with you politically, maybe you need to rethink how you grant respect to others.

      Especially if you “can’t help” losing it.

    • The Coquette says:

      If I’m gonna lose your respect, the least you could do is back up your disdain with more than just nose-holding. Whaddayagot? Hit me. If you feel that strongly about Hillary, there’s gotta be something of substance to justify the hate.

      • Anna says:

        Naw Coquette, people don’t have to write a PhD to express displeasure at your work. Either this is a public forum or it isn’t, make your decision on that clear.
        Challenge opinions however you want. But you cannot have that double standard where you publish esoteric answers on one hand and expect your audience to explain every bit of every criticism they might have on the other (plus dealing with the haters in the comment section).

        • The Coquette says:

          Um, no. This is my house, and I hold everyone to a standard. It’s not a double standard, and it sure as hell ain’t that high of a standard. I’m cool with criticism. In fact, I like it, but “this is worst coke talk post I’ve ever read” with no further explanation is fuckin’ lazy.

          If you’re gonna show up here and leave a turd, the least you can do is tell us why you felt the need to squat. We’re talking dialectical minimums here. No PhD required. Justify your opinion with something more than a frowny faced emoticon, and I won’t have to tap you on the shoulder.

          • Anna says:

            You do understand that people are lazy and entitled to an opinion, right ? And even apart from being lazy, sometimes us commenters don’t have time to explain an opinion you won’t give an answer to anyways (cf starmates).
            Anyways, your comment seems to indicate you don’t want this to be a public forum, in which case may I suggest you start curating your comment section more carefully ?

    • Dots says:

      Cult of personality? Really? That’s the zinger you had all wrapped up and waiting?

      You just admitted your respect was based on the interpretation of some evasive answers to a group of newscasters on national television, and how it applies to a hugely complex political system. I’m pretty sure you’re calling the kettle black.

  3. person who asked the question says:

    Fair point on the women’s rights/gun control stuff but still…

    1. “strategically apply U.S. force projection”? Please take a look at Libya right now. It’s overrun with jihadists because of the power vacuum and the weak government that followed the NATO intervention. ISIS controls a city.

    2. Has Clinton ever meaningfully indicated that she differs from the Obama administration on foreign policy?

    3. The Supreme Court appointment of somebody who supports illegal bulk data collection, the right to detain any American for any length of time without trial (written in the NDAA every year) and killed Anwar al-Awlaki without trial would make you “giddy”?

    • The Coquette says:

      1. Those are all consequences of the Bush Presidency. Admittedly, Obama’s backing of al-Maliki in the last Iraqi election was a major fuck-up, but how is any of that on Hillary’s head?

      2. That’s a question of political strategy. She won’t start distancing herself from Obama until she has the nomination.

      3. Yep. (Your hyperbole has no effect on me. Plus, I’m capable of making a distinction between the man and the Office of the Presidency.)

      • person who asked the question says:

        1. Hillary recommended it to the Obama administration and was instrumental in the American involvement. More on that:

        2. Do you actually think that she’ll severe ties with AIPAC, Brookings Institution, etc.? A lot of her funding has been predicated upon her loyalty to groups like that. Candidates usually are pretty loyal to their donors.

        3. Maybe “illegal bulk data collection” is hyperbolic, so I’ll just call it bulk metadata collection which I think is fair. I think we both still know that it’s unconstitutional. Nor can anyone deny that indefinite retention is a part of the most recent National Defense Authorization Acts.

        Really, how is that distinction meaningful? Obama controls the office of the presidency and is ultimately responsible for it. If he didn’t want any of those things to exist, he could take action against them.

    • J Lynn says:

      Re #1, Libya:
      By complaining about the weak government of post-revolutionary Libya (which of course is not good), are you saying the US should not have intervened at all, or that we should have/should be now more involved with financial and even military support?

      There’s no perfect solution for any Mideast conflict for any American president. Go all-in with neo-con hubris, and end up with Iraq. Or stay isolationist and ignore democratic movements asking for help? Go half-in with UN or NATO and end up with half-measures? And that’s just considering what may be “best,” not even considering how a president’s hands are tied with Congress and what the American public’s political mood is. Another constraint has been the historic, contradictory position of being both a Saudi ally and an Israel protector; while it may be possible to gradually disentangle American obligation, suddenly dropping them would create chaos. And that’s just the most obvious intra-region rivalries, hostilities, etc.

      Obama has tried to thread the needle by being as pragmatic as possible within constraints, but obviously that still leaves lots to criticize. I’m saying it’s virtually impossible for any American president — even a platonic ideal once-in-a-lifetime brilliant one — to be a “success” (i.e., bringing peace and prosperity and good US relations) in the Mideast, even if he/she were free to act without institutional, historical and political constraint. Even the ideal president will likely spend the next eight years witnessing conflict and civilian death in that region — the best outcome is to a) not make it any worse than it would be otherwise b) work to improve things gradually, as I believe the current Iran deal will do (and what Oslo tried to do in the 90s).

      Even if Hillary/Obama didn’t make the exact right calls on Libya, they (and especially Hillary) were at least acting from a very informed point of view (as much as possible in a quickly changing situation) were relatively non-ideological, as compared to other American politicians. They simultaneously tried to support the anti-Kadafi rebels while also knowing that the public wanted nothing less than other Iraq quagmire. The outcome was messy, and didn’t keep ISIS out or create a successful nation-state post-revolution. Still, I’d rather have Hillary considering the impossible options than the bomb-em Crusader/Neocon Republicans who inflame the situation, or conversely a president who is naive and isolationist.

      • person who asked the question says:

        What I meant was that it should not have intervened at all. The mission obviously has failed in the long-term. And I don’t think more U.S. support would solve that – just look at how reliant Afghanistan’s security forces are on American support.

        What you are saying about the relative restraint used by the Obama administration compared to the neocons is certainly true. But I don’t really understand why isolationism is bad.

        Hard to say if an alliance with Israel and Saudi Arabia contradicts itself, though. It’s been reported in the press a lot that their security agencies communicate (secretly, of course).

        What democratic movements are asking for help right now? You could say that the Kurds are, and then you’d have to admit that the U.S. is undermining them by supporting Turkey. As Coquette would probably point out, this isn’t about democracy; it’s about hegemony. (Hell, the Clintons are friends with the Mubarak family.)

      • Gaybeard says:

        You’re probably right in that the Presidency and the American system are too institutionally entrenched to change their approach to the world. No matter who wields the reins of power I think the US is beginning to lurch slowly towards complete political deadlock, institutional inflexibility, and eventual collapse. The transition will probably be painful and world shaking, but I doubt that the the existence of the US as a state in its current form and with its historical and political continuity will be able to survive for too much longer. I think you guys have some rough times ahead no matter who’s at the switch.

  4. Anna says:

    I don’t know much about US politics but if you want to call Coquette an intellectual you can’t blame her for expressing her preferential opinions on the two most visible Democratic candidates, the one of heart and the one of reason, in a two-party system.

  5. JC says:

    Well, that is the best summary of Hillary’s strengths that I’ve seen yet. Love the line about pussy and balls! I am still on team Bernie for now, but I will support Clinton if/when the time comes for it and encourage others to do the same.

  6. Rainbowpony says:


    Hillary Clinton was liberal. Hillary Clinton is liberal.

    Hills is a ruthless negotiator who gets shit done. Compromising is part of politics. I like both Bernie and Hillary, but I’m voting for Hillary all the way through because I think she can do more with our congress than Bernie ever could.

    In the meantime, stop thinking the president has so much power, and do something to rile up congress, where shitheads sit for decades and fuck up the country with bad laws and budgets.

  7. Nerdlinger says:

    OP, stop paying attention to Twitter pundits. It’s an endless parade of whining about BernieBros being misogynists and him being a racist due to ignoring the Netroots Truthers on one end and accusations she’s using her vagoo to get elected and complaints she hobnobs with the same rich oppressive twats that appear at every big event on the other. The solution is to realize that most of that media circus is fueled not by spin doctors but by clickbait outlets that fight all sorts of useless interpersonal vendettas amongst themselves.

    • Person who asked the question says:

      Totally. I’m being manipulated by “BernieBros” and people accusing her of using her vagina to get elected. (Criticizing her for cavorting with rich people is fair game though, considering what those banks did to America in 2007-2008 and other reasons.)

      There are legitimate criticisms. Just a few:

      1. Clinton won’t commit to a $15 wage. Do you realize how great that would be for working class people? It should be higher, but that would really help the American proletariat, whose economic interests are pretty much totally ignored by Washington.

      2. Clinton has said she wants to take the US-Israel relationship “to the next level”. Because it’s totally not enough that America gives it the insane amount that it does in arms and giving it a pass at the UN Security Council and blocking war crimes investigation. Israel will probably start at least one war during the next four years and it would be nice if whoever is president doesn’t abet its atrocities for once. (Although Bernie’s stance on Israel is not much better than hers, it’s not an extreme.)

      3. Huge arms deals followed the Saudi donations to the Clinton foundation during Clinton’s tenure as secretary. And the fact that Clinton is friendly to a regime that treats women that horribly is itself kind of appalling.

      • Nerdlinger says:

        You cannot avoid rich people if you are a rich person yourself. All the pics with problematic figures and “look, she said something generically positive about this one” in what is another Tuesday of public PR blandness does not a problem make. But when the donations paired with legislation come in, there’s where point at a substantial problem.

        Trust me, I don’t like Clinton (her previous ties with prison lobbyists before she stopped accepting donations and voting record in the War On Drugs makes me fear any progressive values she’ll try to implement will suffer from a carceral spin), but the tainted-by-association-through-selfies reminds me too much of this:

  8. Mae says:

    To Person Who Asked the Question — let it go, dude. It is clear that you aren’t going to change your viewpoint, pretty much like everyone else reading this thread (Yeah, I am pro Bernie/Hillary, too). Good for you for at least saying your piece. Now back away from the keyboard. Next topic!

    • Strangely Rational says:

      It always confuses me when people are having a debate and someone comes along with some parental attitude telling them to knock it off because nobody’s mind will be changed.

      First, you don’t know that. Aside from participants, there are also lurkers whose opinions you can’t see changing.

      Second, who made you the Discussion Police? If you’re not interested in a discussion, fine. The answer is to quit reading it, not to chastise other people for continuing just because you’ve lost interest.

      This is Coquette’s blog, and if she wants a debate/discussion to stop, I’m sure she’ll say so. Pretty arrogant of you to think that it’s your job.

      BTW, I’m not saying I agree with Person’s opinions. I just have a problem with people who don’t think anyone else should have a conversation they don’t want to read. I see it in a lot of debates I participate in, and it’s very tiresome.

  9. Gaybeard says:

    You say far left winger like it’s a bad thing. I understand your frustration with the far left and their refusal to approach US politics pragmatically in order to try to ensure that the lesser of multiple evils lands ends up holding power.

    At the same time though, I think that their moral outrage, misdirected and petulant though it sometimes is, has an important function in reminding us how far we are from the ideal. I don’t think you can reasonably dismiss people who look at someone like Clinton, a woman who champions women’s rights but was allegedly willing to smear the reputation of a 12 year old girl in cross examination to win a case in defence of a suspected child rapist, who stuck with her husband after being betrayed in order to keep her presidential dreams alive, and who has allegedly been working to silence women accusing Bill Clinton of rape, and can’t bring themselves to cheer her on just because she’s good at her job. I understand the choice to view her pragmatically and even to balance the above against what you think is best for the country, but I don’t think that you should strike out against people who have legitimate and educated reasons for not viewing Clinton in the same light as you, and who would not view her ascendancy with any kind of pride.

    Also, I’ve been pretty troubled by your willingness to give President Drone Wars a free pass for almost every criticism against him. I mean, I know you want to ride his dick and everything, but him being an exceptionally intelligent, ethical and considerate person doesn’t negate the fact that he has not only continued the Bush Presidency’s use of UAV’s to kill suspected terrorists, but has almost single handedly made targeted killing (assassination) into American Policy. He has personally signed more death warrants for foreign nationals than any other President in US history. Do you think that American domestic policy is really worth the lives of thousands of people killed in an undeclared war? Yes, a President stands in a position of supreme moral ambiguity, but it took a capable, brilliant, visionary Democratic President with a specialization in Constitutional Law to launch the most effective, international law-breaking, and asymmetric state-sponsored terror campaign against foreign civilians (and potential militants) by a developed, democratic country. The fact that the military and perhaps even the technology itself made this outcome an inevitability still does not absolve him of responsibility for building the polite bureaucratic framework behind which this horrible crime is hiding. You always talk about the banality of evil Coquette; I think you should at least acknowledge the irony of one of the most progressive and individually decent Presidents in American history also having the blood of innocent children on his hands because of a bureaucratic framework that makes it almost impossible for him to do otherwise.

    • Diggin says:

      Gaybread, I was about to commence an essay piece in response to Coke’s challenge to my response about her post, and specifically
      the flippancy towards the “far left” and the failure to denounce the atrocious foreign policy of the Dems which will continue, unbridled under Hills. Fortunately you have summarised, more eloquently than I could have, my sentiments in your post.

  10. coskel says:

    In the meantime, stop thinking the president has so much power, and do something to rile up congress, where shitheads sit for decades and fuck up the country with bad laws and budgets.

    I regrettably have to sit through pols making poor policy decisions 14x a month as part of my job, and the truth in this statement is is mind-boggling.

    For years I have told people that if you want to effect real change, its not the Presidential election that does it. Its that local election where some idiot gets elected to the state house/senate because everyone was too apathetic to go vote in the local election. Stop electing stupid people to these positions of power. PLEASE.

  11. Kait says:

    I would like Clinton to come out stronger for paid parental leave, but Coke is ultimately right; she’s objectively the most qualified, no question. And I don’t think she would take as much shit as Obama, who I think labored under the belief he could work with his opponents as they claimed he wasn’t even American out of racism. Hilary don’t play that.

    Consider this: Hilary can’t and won’t run to the left of Sanders because there’s no room there. She’s campaigning pragmatically. The left really tends to self-immolate and has been paying for it politically for a long time. There’s a reason Hilary’s getting the big money; because it’s important that a Dem wins. So, so important for the reasons Coke talks about.

    I also think Clinton is smart enough to put Bern is charge of something important in her administration, if not be her running mate. That might work out even better, since Bernie could actually make changes as something like Interior Secretary or Chairman of the Fed than he could getting obstructed by another do-nothing Congress.

  12. Rachel says:

    If Hillary is president the richest people will keep getting richer and the middle class will get smaller. Or it just won’t change at all. Obama said in his campaign that he would crack down on Wall Street and the big banks, but he hasn’t done any of that. He could even end citizens united with an executive order. His treasury department has serious ties to wall steers and the big banks. If you think Hillary would be better than Obama on this you’re in denial.

  13. Rachel says:

    Are you Hillary supporters billionaires or do you not believe that Wall Street has been essentially robbing the middle class and poor since Reagan? Every president since has been part of reducing regulation on Wall Street through their billionaire run treasury departments.

    • J Lynn says:

      It’s a little worse than that. Average wages have stagnated relative to the overall GDP since the early 1970s.

      I think it was in the early 2000s that income inequality again matched 1920s levels, undoing the mid-century (’45 to ’72 appx) middle-class phenomenon.

  14. Jen says:

    LOVE this! Thanks for it!
    And we absolutely have to come together as Democrats, no matter WHO our candidate is in November – the thought of a Republican in office should be enough to terrify us all.

    • J Lynn says:

      Having lived through the 2000 “election” and been politically active during the Cheney/Neocon years, I concur 100%. The political climate went almost beyond McCarthyism, and the Republicans were lockstep behind the Bush admin and Fox News, not in absurd disarray like this year. Unless you also lived it, after eight obviously imperfect but comparatively chill years of Obama, it’s hard to explain or understand how utterly powerless it seemed the Dems/left were to stop it.

      I’m just young enough to not quite remember the early 80s, but the early 2000s gave me some notion of how emotionally crushing the first years of Thatcher/Reagan must have been for lefties or even any sensible people.

  15. Rachel says:

    It seems really obvious to me that if Bernie doesn’t win the nomination that his supporters will vote for Clinton. There are so many articles and blog posts etc that have this defeatist tone and I think it’s creating a really shitty “why even try” sort of narrative. So thank you at least for voting in the primaries for the candidate who’s ideas you prefer!

  16. Light37 says:

    Honestly, at this point I would vote for my dog Daisy if she was the Democratic pick. If Bernie gets it, great. If it’s Hillary, cool. IDC. Trump/Cruz/Rubio scare the hell out of me.

  17. Shallah Baso says:

    “Also, you’re confusing her economic centrism for a plutocratic agenda. Hillary is not a plutocrat, though it’s an easy mistake to make, because any candidate standing next to Bernie Sanders will come off looking like a plutocrat. No, Hillary is merely a pragmatist when it comes to American capitalism. I’m okay with that. At the end of the day, she’s still a bleeding heart where it counts, and she would be far more effective at actually implementing a liberal domestic policy agenda than Bernie.”

    Does sitting on the board of Walmart during that company’s assault on labor unions and workers’ conditions domestically and in South/Southeast Asia count as “pragmatism”? I think you’re making a disingenuous conflation of a tendency to work pragmatically for reforms in the best interest of working people (despite limitations) and one of seeking the most effective road of exploitation. I mean she and Bill’s first date was crossing a picket line of striking workers at Yale University.

    • Paul says:

      Hillary sat on the Walmart board. Ok. So what? Does that mean by extension she automatically approved of or supported Walmart’s Anti-union stance? No. Is it possible she sat on the board to attempt to improve conditions for union members in Arkansas? Yes.

      You’re making an assumption based on ignorance.

      • Shallah Baso says:

        And I think you’re being disingenuous. I’ve found no evidence that she did any such thing, and found several stories that say the opposite: If you’re going to assert something like that, do you have any evidence, either that she intended to do such, or (perhaps more crucially) that she actually accomplished anything?

        “Does that mean by extension she automatically approved of or supported Walmart’s Anti-union stance?”

        It means that, barring any evidence to the contrary (of which there seems not to be any), she had the opportunity to speak against what her colleagues were doing and instead repugnantly sat by while Walmart engaged in ruthless union-busting and retaliation to workers.

        Further, this isn’t simply a question of “what she did while she was there.” If you’re on the board of the company, you’re a boss, and you fulfill the wishes of the shareholders or lose your job. Your job description is to increase the bottom-line, or in other words, increase the rate of exploitation from workers domestically and overseas. Lower wages, longer hours, cheaper (less safe) working conditions, etc. The very job is dedicated to crushing workers’ upsurges; if she wanted to improve workers’ lives, she could become a labor organizer, or provide some sort of direct aid to workers tied to a mobilizing strategy for their collective action. Instead, she chose literally the most anti-union position imaginable, and you expect me to just buy “she did it for the good of the workers!”?

        Are you even looking at her history? Why should I believe that she suddenly became a “friend to the workers” upon ascension to the Walmart board, when her first date with Bill Clinton was literally crossing a picket line?

        • Shallah Baso says:

          Also, in that same ABC article Bill Clinton himself chimed in:

          “His wife did not try to change the company’s minds about unions, the former Arkansas governor said. “We lived in a state that had a very weak labor movement, where I always had the endorsement of the labor movement because I did what I could do to make it stronger. She knew there was no way she could change that, not with it headquartered in Arkansas, and she agreed to serve,” President Clinton said….

          “[Hillary Clinton spokesperson Wolfson] did not directly respond when asked why she did not quit the board over the company’s anti-union efforts. “Wal-Mart was Arkansas’s largest employer when Sam Walton asked Sen. Clinton to join the board,” he said. “As the first woman to join Wal-Mart’s board, she worked hard to make it a better corporate citizen.”

          So there you have vague statements about improving corporate social responsibility (i.e. Public Relations), but a definitive ‘no’ when it comes to changing the company’s policy toward unions. She could have taken any other position, e.g. working as a labor lawyer in defense of rural workers, but she decided to take the corporate route. Sure you’re not making assumptions out of ignorance?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *