Well, I can’t disagree that she has or had an obligation to win over the Sanders wing of the party - I repeated this quite often in various threads on this BBS during and immediately after the primaries - and I think the fact that we’re still having these discussions makes it clear she hasn’t done this as well as she might have (and that maybe she has been too enthusiastic about support from slime like Kissinger, though to the extent that that is troubling the continued hostility to her from the GOP leadership provides a nice counterbalance). However, I also believe she has an impressive track record on some genuinely progressive issues, and while in any given voter’s mind her work in one area might not compensate for concerns in another, I would hope that any decision is based on balancing her various actions rather than by simply throwing out one set of them.
It is really hard to find politicians who (a) agree with you on most issues, and (b) don’t have other serious flaws. Nowadays the issues that drive some of us - not only being socially and economically progressive, but also anti-war (not really a core progressive value until the 60s) and small-L libertarian - are nearly impossible to find in one candidate, and even when you think you have then the pressures on the presidency can force later critical reversals (cf Obama on Gitmo). Vogue has apparently decided that for them the most important issues for them are women’s rights issues, and I think it is hard to argue Clinton’s record there, though I agree that for some there are other more pressing issues.
