The difference there is their fears about Hillary were based on rumor, conspiracy theory and spite. Where as Donald Trump had done, and bragged about, nearly everything Hillary was accused of. And thus far has done everything that conservatives predicted Hillary, Obama, and nearly any Democratic or left wing candidate would do in office. Hell one of their central public points of opposition was that Clinton would not be able to govern, as her presidency would be defined by non stop scandal and investigations. Which, look at the American news.
People are making these justifications in case of Biden because we have an actual fascist in office. Because the man running our country is putting children in camps, freely violating the law, directly attacking base civil rights. And openly threatening to do more. He is distainful of the free press, free speach, and other corner stones of a free society. He advocates for the prosecution of opponents and critics on the grounds that they are opponents and critics. And these things are not sour grapes. Or pearl clutching predictions for the future. They are confirmed, real events. Acknowledged, excused, and often celebrated by his supporters and political faction.
The calls to support whoever his eventual challenger ends up being are not rote partisanship. But based on the fact that Donald Trump must be removed from office. That even a more routine sort of bad president is a better choice and a safer outcome.
So the anti-choice lobbyist says the word peace and weâre supposed to cheer? Gabbardâs early career is defined by associations and positions that arenât just right of center. But were outright conservative. And while her quite recent rebranding as a progressive came via an apology tour she still maintains associations and funding from the same groups she was formerly an active participant in. And she was one of the very first Democrats to cosy up to Trump, even campaigning based on the association.
What exactly is non-status quo about a conservative Democrat whoâs policies are as vague as the apologies she offers for past more specific ones. Whatâs non-status quo about a politician whoâs positions are so obviously based on cynical triangulation? Whatâs non-status quo about cryptically supporting the incumbent she now seeks to challenge?
She certainly wants you to think that. But while her apologies present her history as a simple âi belived x but i changedâ situation. The reality is she worked actively and vociferously to curtail reproductive and LGBT rights. She did damage. She hasnât and wont acknowledge that. And only publickly âchanged her mindâ on these subjects when they became a liability for her campaigns for public office. Worse sheâs shown no interest in working as hard to advance those rights as she once did to remove them.
Her actual voting record as a progressive is both recent and weak. And there isnât a ton of daylight between her more recent actions actually governing and the centrist block of the DNC.
She doesnât have a hope of being elected because her campaign has apparently been in disarray since before it launched.