US Politics Thread |OT| THE DARKEST TIMELINE

[octopushover]

gritting your teeth to vote for hillary is such a dramatic farce.

i swear, the longer your election cycle goes on the more insane you all are. it's an election, not a reality show.

[Human Snorenado]

If Hillary were a bad candidate, she wouldn't be cruising to the nomination right now.  Real talk.

Turnout is way down from 2008. No one else was running because she scared off everyone by consolidating power/endorsements beforehand, and let's be real- the dem bench wasn't very deep to begin with.

I'm not saying she's McGovern levels of shitty or anything, but there are very real reasons to not be enthused about her candidacy or potential presidency.

[Mandark]

No one else was running because she scared off everyone by consolidating power/endorsements beforehand

Which is, yanno, part of being a candidate.  We had The Experiment out here saying "oh she's a disaster, Biden shoulda run" like Uncle Joe didn't get destroyed when they were both running in '08.

We got people saying she's a risk in the general cause of all those years of GOP FUD, as if they weren't going to do the same shit with any Democratic nominee.  C'mon.

[brawndolicious]

I don't think anyone views Trump as a presidential type, his entire platform is to oppose the liberals and moderate Republicans that make up most of American politics. So he's seen more as an expression of discontent by a plurality of a minority. He's good at pushing buttons which is why he got through those Republican debates with the least dignity lost but you can't spend two hours humiliating one other person on stage during a GE debate.

And of course people say EVERY election is too high stakes to go with a risky candidate. I thought the same thing in 2008 and then I saw the first black president get elected. Hillary gets knocked on for being heartless, not being independently successful, and for having a rocky marriage with infidelity at some point.

Yet libs be panicking that fucking TRUMP supporters are going to use that shit against her?

Trump not being the presidential type is exactly why he's appealing to people.

Most people do want a President to sound like he knows what he's talking about when there's a debate about policies. This doesn't matter so much in primaries where you can just claim you'll be as radical in the direction of the party as possible but when you want to run for the GE, you have independents sitting on the fence wondering who has a better thought out plan. Trump isn't a knowledgeable guy, or eloquent enough to sound like he is a knowledgeable guy.

Don't go panicking like this is Weimar era Germany where most people are okay with the old leadership being lined up against the wall and giving fascism a try. Far right conservatives would like that but not most people considering it's been 8 years of mostly good changes under Obama. It's not that bad.

[Stoney Mason]

gritting your teeth to vote for hillary is such a dramatic farce.

i swear, the longer your election cycle goes on the more insane you all are. it's an election, not a reality show.

Voting for a candidate is like voting for your boss. It's not liking voting for your favorite pop singer. It's one of the reasons that liberals annoy me because republicans seem to get to this and turn out to vote despite how shitty their perceived candidate is. Liberals want to fall in love with their candidate and think he is the perfect lover. Not aimed at any one here. But just a general observation.

[Mandark]

Voting for a candidate is like voting for your boss. It's not liking voting for your favorite pop singer. It's one of the reasons that liberals annoy me because republicans seem to get to this and turn out to vote despite how shitty their perceived candidate is. Liberals want to fall in love with their candidate and think he is the perfect lover. Not aimed at any one here. But just a general observation.

GOP hasn't done that exact shit the last two cycles?

[Phoenix Dark]

To be fair a lot of democrats had their favorite lover in 08 and 12. Now they're trying to like this new white person but you know what they say 

[Mods Help]

If Hillary were a bad candidate, she wouldn't be cruising to the nomination right now.  Real talk.

Nomination != general election.

By your own argument, Trump is a good candidate because he's steam rolling his competition.

Hilary can get the nom, but that doesn't mean she's the best candidate to win the GE.

No one else was running because she scared off everyone by consolidating power/endorsements beforehand

Which is, yanno, part of being a candidate.  We had The Experiment out here saying "oh she's a disaster, Biden shoulda run" like Uncle Joe didn't get destroyed when they were both running in '08.

We got people saying she's a risk in the general cause of all those years of GOP FUD, as if they weren't going to do the same shit with any Democratic nominee.  C'mon.

Fair point, they'd go for any Democratic candidate. But Hilary is a risk for more than that and you know it. But she's best the party's got. Their drawers are definitely empty.

[Mods Help]

gritting your teeth to vote for hillary is such a dramatic farce.

i swear, the longer your election cycle goes on the more insane you all are. it's an election, not a reality show.

Voting for a candidate is like voting for your boss. It's not liking voting for your favorite pop singer. It's one of the reasons that liberals annoy me because republicans seem to get to this and turn out to vote despite how shitty their perceived candidate is. Liberals want to fall in love with their candidate and think he is the perfect lover. Not aimed at any one here. But just a general observation.

Republican's hardly treat their candidates like their boss. They treat them like Gods to save them from The Hussein Menace the past two elections.

You think they treat Reagan like a boss? Republican's treat their candidates like cults of personality as much as liberals do.

[Mandark]

But Hilary is a risk for more than that and you know it.

No she's not and no I don't.

[Mods Help]

So what reasons are there to be fully enthused with the Hilary train? That's not to say every person voting is going to be 100% towards a candidate, but Hilary Clinton has a lot of baggage. Depending on where you are, people fucking hate her. She's definitely not the ideal candidate for the democratic party and given the piss poor lineup for this year nomination, it's pretty clear she's all the party's got.

You brought up Biden, as if Biden's popularity hasn't soared since 2008, but you're for some reason willing to brush this under the rug and say Hilary is the ideal 100% candidate for the party and the only choice - period. Maybe you think this because the Democrat's pockets are for the most part, empty? Would you feel this way if Warren were running?

[Mods Help]

"Yanno, part of being a candidate"

Seriously waiting for Mandark to have any criticism towards Clinton.

[Mandark]

but you're for some reason willing to brush their under the rug and say Hilary is the ideal 100% candidate for the party.

First, I said no such thing.  I'm not the one idolizing a candidate here.

Second, your main criticisms of Hillary are that she's tainted by the politics of the 80's, 90's, and early 00's: being too hawkish, too draconian on crime and the drug war, too friendly with big financial companies.  Fine.  Do you have ANY idea what Biden's record looks like on these points? Plus he already had a scandal knock him out of one presidential race.

[Mods Help]

First, I don't idolize Sanders at all. I am pretty critical of him depending on the issue. If it seems I idolize him it's because I think he's the only candidate that will actually help young adults in our current situation.

Second, I'm not saying Biden would be a better choice than Hilary. I'm rebutting your argument that Biden is a bad choice on the premise of his performance in 08, despite Hilary getting whooped by Obama that same primary. This doesn't make Hilary a better potential candidate than Biden, which is your claim.

[Mods Help]

Also, even among Hilary voters, I don't know anyone actually excited to vote for her besides old people. Pretty much everyone else is completely meh. Maybe this is what we'll have to settle for in a post-Obama presidency because that 08 hype is never happening in this life time probably. Even those of us who admit flat out that we'll vote for Bernie in the primary and Hilary in the general, I don't see any actual excitement to do so. But more of a duty. It's like she's skirting the bare minimum of a Democratic candidate, where in the past, there was actual excitement about the candidate's ideas and shit. If anything, and I know this shows my (lack of) age because it was my first election, it reminds me of Kerry in that no one really cared about his ideas but more the fact he wasn't Bush. And he lost.

For Hilary, usually it's "She's not Trump" or "She's a woman, it's time." No real actual excitement.

Just a general observation.

[brob]

https://twitter.com/gopfashionista/status/704755202692399105

get rekt random ass millennial

[Human Snorenado]

Hillary's fav/unfav are marginally better than Trump's. If elected, I expect her to be a one term President.

You can sit here and play dumb all day, Mandark, but she's been defined on a national stage for over 20 years. There's a lot of entrenched opinions about her, and no they're not based in reality but that shit doesn't matter when you let everyone vote.

You gonna sit here and tell me you're 100% comfortable with someone with her track record on the stupid Iraq War vote and subsequent waffling/refusing to admit it's a mistake, and then involvement in the Libyan debacle as commander in chief?

[benjipwns]

despite Hilary getting whooped by Obama that same primary

She didn't exactly get whooped (won the popular vote, came up just shy in elected delegates), and that was with her campaign not even fucking knowing how delegates were allocated for nearly three months.

[Mandark]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

Let's not pretend that Hillary's performance vs. Obama in '08 was anything like Biden's.  He got 1% in Iowa then dropped out.  The fact that Hillary wrapped up so much support among Congressional Democrats shows that almost nobody was holding their breath to see if Biden announced.

He wouldn't have been able to compete with Hillary in terms of endorsements, volunteers, or fundraising, and he wouldn't have been able to differentiate himself as the more liberal candidate like Sanders did or Warren could've.  Plus he has an actual record of campaigning where he's done much, MUCH worse than Hillary.  There's basically no reason to believe he would've been a stronger, more viable candidate for the nomination.

[benjipwns]

gritting your teeth to vote for hillary is such a dramatic farce.

i swear, the longer your election cycle goes on the more insane you all are. it's an election, not a reality show.

[Phoenix Dark]

Her views on intervention trouble me but at the same time there are things we don't know. We don't know how much of her past views on intervention were bluster to up her foreign policy credentials and "look strong," for instance. Perhaps as president she would be more cautious and realistic.

I'm not worried about Hillary starting a war with Iran, re-invading Iraq, implementing a no-fly-zone in Syria, escalating things with Russia, etc.  Her fp advisers are almost certainly going to be former Obama and Clinton people...not Bush veterans.

Will she do more dumb shit than Obama? Perhaps, probably. But I just don't buy the idea that she'll plunge the US into all types of interventions and disasters.

[Mandark]

If you want to read me criticizing Hillary, the GAF archives are that way, chief.

If you want me to pretend that her negatives make her a riskier GE prospect than Generic Democrat X with no national profile and yet to be subjected to a negative campaign?  Then you're basically asking me to forget that the 2004 election.  Which I don't feel the need to do, cause I didn't vote Nader.

[Phoenix Dark]

Voting for Nader did far more damage than voting for Snyder. Just sayin'.

[Human Snorenado]

My concerns with her have everything to do with how she'll govern and nothing to do with her ability to beat whatever lunatic the GOP ends up nominating (it will be Trump)

Yeah, I realize she's gotta get elected first, and yeah, major name recognition is a serious boost when running a national campaign

I'm just staking out the ability to laugh and say "told ya so" when she does something stupid like give the GOP chained CPI to get a budget passed

[Mods Help]

gritting your teeth to vote for hillary is such a dramatic farce.

i swear, the longer your election cycle goes on the more insane you all are. it's an election, not a reality show.

https://twitter.com/gopfashionista/status/704755202692399105

get rekt random ass millennial

Okay, non-American.

[Mandark]

That's fine and dandy, but my whole discussion on that page was about her as a candidate.

I swear, if you say anything positive about Hillary, even if it ain't normative, people start jumping up demanding you say some random bad thing about her to balance it out.  Calm down.

[Human Snorenado]

ADMIT THAT SHE PUNCHES BABY SEALS, MANDARK! ADMIT IT, YOU SHILL!

[Mods Help]

ADMIT THAT SHE PUNCHES BABY SEALS, MANDARK! ADMIT IT, YOU SHILL!

do it,breh

I'll concede you got good points, mandark. And I halfway agree and then see videos like what Brob posted. Idk.

[Mandark]

Mods, I just looked on Yougov today and found out that Bernie voted for the '94 crime bill.  What gives?

[brob]

Mods, I just looked on Yougov today and found out that Bernie voted for the '94 crime bill.  What gives?

I previously posted this article by Michelle Alexander in this thread, but I didn't drag out any quotes so I think no none ended up reading it. It's mainly about Hillary being shit, but also how the Bern isn't good enough

This is not an endorsement for Bernie Sanders, who after all voted for the 1994 crime bill. I also tend to agree with Ta-Nehisi Coates that the way the Sanders campaign handled the question of reparations is one of many signs that Bernie doesn’t quite get what’s at stake in serious dialogues about racial justice. He was wrong to dismiss reparations as “divisive,” as though centuries of slavery, segregation, discrimination, ghettoization, and stigmatization aren’t worthy of any specific acknowledgement or remedy.

But recognizing that Bernie, like Hillary, has blurred vision when it comes to race is not the same thing as saying their views are equally problematic. Sanders opposed the 1996 welfare-reform law. He also opposed bank deregulation and the Iraq War, both of which Hillary supported, and both of which have proved disastrous. In short, there is such a thing as a lesser evil, and Hillary is not it.

The biggest problem with Bernie, in the end, is that he’s running as a Democrat—as a member of a political party that not only capitulated to right-wing demagoguery but is now owned and controlled by a relatively small number of millionaires and billionaires. Yes, Sanders has raised millions from small donors, but should he become president, he would also become part of what he has otherwise derided as “the establishment.” Even if Bernie’s racial-justice views evolve, I hold little hope that a political revolution will occur within the Democratic Party without a sustained outside movement forcing truly transformational change. I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself.

(I believe the justification for Sanders voting for the crime bill was that it was packaged with some violence against women bill, or something to that effect. Sanders has been very critical of it, tho more so in the 90s than more recently iirc)

[Mods Help]

Pretty bad. The fact he champions the poor while voting for that bill is pretty bad. But even Bill has renounced that bill (lol) and most agree it was a mistake. I'm sure, if asked, Sanders too would agree it was a mistake and his record would pretty much speak on that. But still, it's bad. But it's wise to remember at the time, that bill was heavily supported by many black politicians, shooting themselves in the foot. So I'm not exactly sure what your point is beyond trying to be disingenuous, and in 2016, you definitely see Sanders supporting it or the prison industrial complex. He learned his lesson.

The question is: has Hilary?

[jakefromstatefarm]

for reference, Jake Sullivan, one of the orchestrators of the Iran nuclear deal last year, also happens to be Hillary's most important foreign policy advisor

[Mods Help]

Mods, I just looked on Yougov today and found out that Bernie voted for the '94 crime bill.  What gives?

I previously posted this article by Michelle Alexander in this thread, but I didn't drag out any quotes so I think no none ended up reading it. It's mainly about Hillary being shit, but also how the Bern isn't good enough

This is not an endorsement for Bernie Sanders, who after all voted for the 1994 crime bill. I also tend to agree with Ta-Nehisi Coates that the way the Sanders campaign handled the question of reparations is one of many signs that Bernie doesn’t quite get what’s at stake in serious dialogues about racial justice. He was wrong to dismiss reparations as “divisive,” as though centuries of slavery, segregation, discrimination, ghettoization, and stigmatization aren’t worthy of any specific acknowledgement or remedy.

But recognizing that Bernie, like Hillary, has blurred vision when it comes to race is not the same thing as saying their views are equally problematic. Sanders opposed the 1996 welfare-reform law. He also opposed bank deregulation and the Iraq War, both of which Hillary supported, and both of which have proved disastrous. In short, there is such a thing as a lesser evil, and Hillary is not it.

The biggest problem with Bernie, in the end, is that he’s running as a Democrat—as a member of a political party that not only capitulated to right-wing demagoguery but is now owned and controlled by a relatively small number of millionaires and billionaires. Yes, Sanders has raised millions from small donors, but should he become president, he would also become part of what he has otherwise derided as “the establishment.” Even if Bernie’s racial-justice views evolve, I hold little hope that a political revolution will occur within the Democratic Party without a sustained outside movement forcing truly transformational change. I am inclined to believe that it would be easier to build a new party than to save the Democratic Party from itself.

(I believe the justification for Sanders voting for the crime bill was that it was packaged with some violence against women bill, or something to that effect. Sanders has been very critical of it, tho more so in the 90s than more recently iirc)

Yeah, I read that. I agree with it full stop. My support of Bernie isn't that I think he'll fix things 100%, especially race-wise. He's after all, a democratic socialist. I don't agree with democratic socialists. But he's the closest thing to my ideology. For me, Bernie is the lesser evil and the fastest way to recovery. Not that he's a cure all. One of Bernie's biggest failings is his over emphasis on Wall Street and income inequality, which is very common in many left circles and especially Brocialists who think the disparities between different races is a purely economic one and not a societal one. Bernie fits that to a tee. Need I remind you it was me who defended BLM from protesting his rallies while everyone else whitesplained how it was a bad move because "he's the best shot you have." Still feel the same way.

[Mandark]

brob: I actually did read that article.  I felt the "black people were tricked into voting for Clinton cause he played the sax on Arsenio" was as ignorant and condescending, in its way, as Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright browbeating young women about Hillary.

Mods: That's the thing, though.  If we're going to make allowances for the social and political context of the time (and we should!) then we have to extend that understanding to everyone involved, not just whomever we're currently supporting.

jake: I think the nuclear deal is the most underrated political... thing of the last five years.  That's pretty reassuring news.

[Madrun Badrun]

ADMIT THAT SHE PUNCHES BABY SEALS, MANDARK! ADMIT IT, YOU SHILL!

You don't punch seals, you barbarian, you club them. 

[Mods Help]

for reference, Jake Sullivan, one of the orchestrators of the Iran nuclear deal last year, also happens to be Hillary's most important foreign policy advisor

Thanks for reminding me of that. Pretty big TIL here.

[Dickie Dee]

My last worry about Hillary is that she'll go some third way triangulation. Whether or not she would in some parallel universe doesn't matter - she knows that's completely untenable and a non-starter with the modern nihilist GOP.

[Mandark]

In practice, however, he capitulated entirely to the right-wing backlash against the civil-rights movement and embraced former president Ronald Reagan’s agenda on race, crime, welfare, and taxes—ultimately doing more harm to black communities than Reagan ever did.

This is just wrong, though.

[Phoenix Dark]

I don't support Sanders but my general  view is

1) No one is perfect, especially in government, and senators tend to have some votes we disagree with.

2) I think people are forgetting that crime was a major issue in the 90s, people were scared and politicians tend to buck to panics (see: ebola a couple years ago, ISIS now). I'm not justifying it, but it's a required context for the issue.

Ultimately I agree with Alexander's general point: yes both fucked up, but Clinton has considerably more fuck ups, enough in fact to call her entire career into question.

There's also some sexism in here somewhere IMO. Hillary doesn't get the same passes people are willing to give Joe Biden, for instance. Yes Biden is more "likable" and personable but still, every time I see Sanders fans discussing candidates I run into a lot of "I would have supported Biden if he ran and Sanders wasn't running" talk.

[Mods Help]

I'm starting to think that Hilary probably won't be so bad if she treats it like Obama's third term or something and in 2020 we (somehow) have a more progressive candidate.

So she's like a transitional wrestling champion. The champ you don't want but the champ you need to get to-I'm ending this analogy now.

Her recent stance on TPP is hopeful but I think it was crafted purely to garner more votes from the left. Who knows what President Clinton will do but that doesn't matter because Obama plans on signing it before that even happens.

[Mods Help]

There's also some sexism in here somewhere IMO. Hillary doesn't get the same passes people are willing to give Joe Biden, for instance. Yes Biden is more "likable" and personable but still, every time I see Sanders fans discussing candidates I run into a lot of "I would have supported Biden if he ran and Sanders wasn't running" talk.

Biden isn't running for president. Continuing from our dialogue last page, I do think I'd have as much to complain about (sorry *bows*) if he were running as well. I wouldn't support Biden, but I'd vote for him like I'm voting for Hilary. A lot of Sanders supporters don't even know what they're supporting and are full of shit.

[brob]

brob: I actually did read that article.  I felt the "black people were tricked into voting for Clinton cause he played the sax on Arsenio" was as ignorant and condescending, in its way, as Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright browbeating young women about Hillary.

I posted it again now only because it mentioned Sanders voting on the crime bill, but the main thrust of the article wasn't so interesting to me as the bit I quoted above. The grassroots effort to carry forth an individual leader figure seems misguided when the goal is placing them within the existing machine of US top level politics, u kno?

[Rufus]

On that point, is there hope of the US un-fucking its voting system so that more than two parties become viable again? It seems everyone who's politically matured (don't ask me whatever that means) accepts that the game is played a certain way and that strategic voting is the smart(er) thing to do.

[TakingBackSunday]

On that point, is there hope of the US un-fucking its voting system so that more than two parties become viable again? It seems everyone who's politically matured (don't ask me whatever that means) accepts that the game is played a certain way and that strategic voting is the smart(er) thing to do.

no fucking chance

[Mods Help]

On that point, is there hope of the US un-fucking its voting system so that more than two parties become viable again? It seems everyone who's politically matured (don't ask me whatever that means) accepts that the game is played a certain way and that strategic voting is the smart(er) thing to do.

[Rufus]

Figured as much.

[Dickie Dee]

I've really put little emotion into the Dem primary, to me Sanders was just never happening so it was just a question of inevitability/standing against the impending GOP clownshow. I didn't begrudge anyone who put their faith and energy behind him (except those that just started talking duummmmb)

He may have even shifted the Overton window (great!)

[Mandark]

Rufus, fifteen years ago I woulda been on board, but I really don't think a multiparty system gives you more progressive or less corrupt politics than a two-party system.

Any governing coalition is going to need >50% of the voters* and you're going to wind up having to caucus with groups that only support parts of your own beliefs or agenda.  If we had a multiparty system, the true believer social democrats get what, 10-15%.  At which point you're trying to make alliances with blacks, latinos, moderate white liberals, maybe some unionized working-class white people... and hey, it's the Democratic Party!  Welcome back, fellas!

Our problems come less from the system failing to represent the people than from the system representing the people accurately.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

*Or seats, yadda yadda gerrymandering.  You're still aiming at a really, really big chunk of the electorate, point stands.

[close]

[Mandark]

In the last hundred years, only two third-party presidential candidates have won any states.

Both of them were campaigning on a platform of explicit, government-sanctioned racial segregation.



edit: and if benji comes in here with some "in 1960 some unpledged delegates voted for Harry Byrd" I swear to God...

[Joe Molotov]

Hillary and Bernie are both the worst.

Vote Rocky De La Fuente.

[Phoenix Dark]

The two party system is too ingrained, all the way down to county commissioners on the state level. It would be nigh impossible to change. Maybe if there was some type of perfect independent candidate - the modern equivalent of Dwight Eisenhower popularity wise - maybe someone could begin changing things. But that's fantasy land talk.

One of the few things that rustles my jimmies: people who refuse to vote because the two party system is "corrupt" or both parties are the same. All it takes is a couple minutes of probing them to realize they simply haven't thought any of this out, and they don't care. A multi-party system wouldn't change basic math principles: ie you need a majority of 100 to govern. And getting to 51 would mean various groups aligning with groups that may not even support some of their core principles.

[Rufus]

In the last hundred years, only two third-party presidential candidates have won any states.

Both of them were campaigning on a platform of explicit, government-sanctioned racial segregation.



edit: and if benji comes in here with some "in 1960 some unpledged delegates voted for Harry Byrd" I swear to God...

Well isn't that just wonderful...

[Madrun Badrun]

I'm starting to think that Hilary probably won't be so bad if she treats it like Obama's third term or something and in 2020 we (somehow) have a more progressive candidate.

Why do you think she won't try to do 8 years?

[Phoenix Dark]

I'm starting to think that Hilary probably won't be so bad if she treats it like Obama's third term or something and in 2020 we (somehow) have a more progressive candidate.

Why do you think she won't try to do 8 years?

You can't be president while you're in prison.

[Mods Help]

brob: I actually did read that article.  I felt the "black people were tricked into voting for Clinton cause he played the sax on Arsenio" was as ignorant and condescending, in its way, as Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright browbeating young women about Hillary.

You're mistaken. She's not saying because Bill played sax on Arsenio that black people voted for him. She's deconstructing the "first black president myth", and it's a good place to start.

[Mods Help]

I'm starting to think that Hilary probably won't be so bad if she treats it like Obama's third term or something and in 2020 we (somehow) have a more progressive candidate.

Why do you think she won't try to do 8 years?

I think she will. I'm hoping someone better comes along in 2020 really.

[Mandark]

A multi-party system wouldn't change basic math principles: ie you need a majority of 100 to govern. And getting to 51 would mean various groups aligning with groups that may not even support some of their core principles.

Not just that, but in a two-party system you know upfront who you're caucusing with.

If you were a center-left voter in the UK and supported the Lib Dems a while back, you would've had to watch them align with and prop up a Conservative-led coalition government.  At which point you've already cast your ballot.

[TakingBackSunday]

The two party system is here to stay.  But that doesn't mean it will always be Republicans and Democrats – at least not how the parties exist today.  Both parties will change, the name will stay the same.

[brob]

the two party isn't the biggest issue imo given the way special interests are able to impact legislation. Working some magicks to undo the lobby system would be a much bigger deal. 

[Mandark]

You're mistaken. She's not saying because Bill played sax on Arsenio that black people voted for him. She's deconstructing the "first black president myth", and it's a good place to start.

Nah, she's saying that black support of the Clintons is due entirely to optics, and black people who vote for Hillary are "getting played."  White people had their own version of this argument (see Thomas Frank's "What's The Matter With Kansas?") and it's condescending as hell.

She also says that the Clinton administration basically just continued Reagan's policies, and were much more destructive towards the black community.  That's just wrong.  She takes what ought to be a solid premise and chooses to be really dishonest about it.