• AmidFuror@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      20 hours ago

      Sure, it’s possible you didn’t like either woman who gained the Democratic nomination for President both times it happened, but you’ll give the third a fair shake. Anything is possible.

      • RaskolnikovsAxe@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        19 hours ago

        As an outsider with high vested interest in American politics, without a doubt both Kamala and Hillary were better than the Republican alternative in 2016 and 2020, but I would hope they were not the best the Democrats have to offer (which could very well be a woman), and they were rather forced onto the electorate which has the air of unearned inevitability, to say the least.

        The country still should have voted for them.

        Obama was a better choice than Hillary for the Dem nomination though.

          • RaskolnikovsAxe@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            15 hours ago

            Uhhh no.

            Again outsider perspective: I think Hillary is perhaps the most representative of American pragmatism, and probably a ball buster in her interactions. Kamala seems a bit gentle, I guess, for lack of a better word.

            As is typical of American politics and in particular Democrats, it’s difficult to pin down beliefs or predict what they will actually do in office, and it always looked like status quo based on corporate donors. But status quo is still better than fascism.

            In the end I don’t think Obama performed much better than Hillary would have. He had a lot of promise but for whatever reason - constraints, his real personality, whatever - he let a lot of people down as well.