I am a big believer in voting for the most progressive/least regressive viable candidate in every election. In 1996, I didn’t like Bill Clinton very much and during President Obama’s first four years in the White House, he pushed for the grand betrayal, amped up illegal murderous drone strikes, was spying on us, negotiated middle-class destroying trade deals, and declined to bail out underwater homeowners preferring to give TARP funds to the banksters. Still I voted for both men every time I could.
In retrospect, perhaps I should have sat out ’96. Would Bob Dole have been worse than the guy who signed NAFTA, “reformed” welfare, ended meaningful media regulation, and killed Glass-Steagall and deregulated the commodities markets with the stroke of a pen? Still when I start thinking this way, the names Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer come immediately to mind as do the dozens of US Circuit and District Court judges Bill appointed. Likewise, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Antonin Scalia, the stimulus, and the Affordable Care Act vindicate my Obama votes if nothing else does.
Voting for Hillary may well be more problematic than voting for Bill and Barack was. She’s more of a hawk for one thing and I am starting to question her smarts. Private email server? Speeches to GS?? No-fly zone!!! At some point you have to decide whether the least bad viable candidate is worthy of your vote. If the answer is no, then you have to ask whether the alternative is that much worse.
I do think any of the Republicans would be that much worse – especially when I consider the Supreme Court and Trump’s fascist campaign style. So I do plan grudgingly, resentfully, and without enthusiasm to vote for another Clinton term assuming Bernie doesn’t pull a rabbit out of a hat.