39° Good Afternoon
39° Good Afternoon

Letter: Clinton isn't liberal enough

Hilary Rodham Clinton

Hilary Rodham Clinton Credit: Getty/Lisa Lake

Evan Thies' Opinon piece presumes that Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' only chance to win, citing polls and percentages ["Dems the clear threat to Clinton bid," July 27]. But he glosses over her record.

For example, he writes, Clinton "has been substantive and productive. Her liberal economic agenda bears that out." This would be the right place to cite an example or two, but he offers nothing to back it up.

The Clinton legacy, which she supported as first lady, was good for those who own capital but bad for the economy. There is a difference. It made the rich richer and the poor poorer.

Thies made no mention of the hawkish and illiberal foreign policy mess that she left as secretary of state. A once-stable and relatively prosperous Libya has been laid to waste by our disastrous invasion and abandonment. Libya has become a breeding ground for terrorism.

She supported the Iraq invasion, too. Is there a war that she hasn't supported?

The Democrats' worst enemy is themselves, I agree. They have chosen the wrong leader. Are there better leaders for us to support? The writer mentions Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. If this were an SAT question, I would choose Clinton as the candidate who does not belong.

Like the writer, I hope the candidates and their acolytes avoid personal attacks and illuminate the real issues, so that the better candidates will rise to the top.

Steve Sloane, Glen Cove

Editor's note: The writer was an unsuccessful candidate for the Nassau County Legislature in 2013, running on the Green Party ticket.


We're revamping our Comments section. Learn more and share your input.