Looks to me like Hillary Clinton's campaign is shaping up to

[MineralMan]

70. So you say. You want to know who was a real populist

candidate? Jimmy Carter. JFK, too, was a true populist candidate, as were Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Now, you're calling all of them "con men." You can use that characterization of them, if you wish, but you're quite incorrect if you do. Your general cynicism about politics colors your entire viewpoint and your posts here on DU. Cynicism is easy, and you're certainly within your rights to be cynical.

Cynicism, however, does no good whatsoever when it comes to elections and choosing who will be in office. It merely means that you do not really participate in good faith. Especially for the presidency, every candidate who can win will be someone who will compromise on some issues. No political purist will ever be elected as President in our lifetimes. We're too diverse and too divided for that to happen. So, you pick and choose from the candidates seeking the office during the primaries and then you choose during the general elections.

So far, no candidate or sitting President has ever matched my goals or hopes. None. I don't expect that any person who must be elected in a national election will ever do that. It's impossible. Every presidential election, we are faced with a binary decision. You either vote for one of the major party candidates or your vote is wasted. You're free to waste your vote, but I'm not sure it's wise to do that.

No nation can use cynicism as a way to choose its leaders. Instead, we must select from our choices and hope for reasons for optimism. Is that ideal? Certainly not, but it is a fact of life in a nation of 1/3 of a billion people. That's life.