Hillary Clinton and her family are extremely wealthy, white, mostly cis-hetero, and connected.

[RadiationTherapy]

If she is not a revolutionary personality, why would she participate in trying to resist Trump or the corporate-dominant nature of America, 2016? If she is no longer running for office, what motivation would she have to lead a revolution against wealth inequality, racism, and other social justice issues?

People keep asking "where is Hillary?" in regards to politics and social justice, but I am not sure I see her stepping out and leading a revolution. It is my opinion that only a very revolutionary personality would step out of such a comfortable set of demographics in order to try and tear down some of their own institutional privilege. Is Hillary such a person? Am I totally missing something significant here?

(yes, I voted for Hillary and dems, etc.)

[JHan]

1. Well since you're already making assumptions that she's going to sit on her ass and do nothing..

I guess a discussion is pointless.

[RadiationTherapy]

3. I said "I am not sure"

So, there's that.

[TheBlackAdder]

2. At first, I thought this leaned as a RW talking point. On reflection, there is legitimacy to this.

[RadiationTherapy]

4. Thank you for your assessment. I was careful to write this post so as not to be an attack.

It got hosed anyways, but now is back after I appealed the lock.

[JI7]

11. only if you dismiss her 65+ years of life

[TheBlackAdder]

13. Well, the OP is suggesting her leadership post General Election. Her prior art is well acknowledged.

[JI7]

14. no. The op is suggesting she doesn't care based on being white wealthy etc

[erpowers]

5. Multiple Reason She Cannot Lead The Revolution

If she tried to be more vocal after the election she would get attacked by both sides. Some on the left would say she is trying to stay on stage even though she needs to leave. Some on the right would say she is exhibiting sour grapes and needs to shut up and move on with her life. Although her supporters seem to want her to lead the revolution there are just as many, if not more, who want her to allow someone else to lead the revolution.

Hillary Clinton's wealth, sexual orientation, race, and class status are not reasons why she cannot lead the revolution. She tried to fight against wealth inequality, racism, and social injustice. It seems she spent most of her life fighting against those things. However, she has been on the stage for about 30 years. Some would like for someone else to be allowed to take the stage and attempt to bring about change.

[LAS14]

6. You've got it right. nt

[RadiationTherapy]

7. I think this is a well thought out assessment and I agree with most of it.

I wish I had added something about the desire for other (younger perhaps?) leaders for a new-"old democratic party." However, it seems to me, those who are best positioned to lead and clamor for radical change are those who are most protected in terms of wealth and privilege. Furthermore, it seems she may be finished running for office and so, in that context, I do wish the Clintons were more (radically) politically active.

[uponit7771]

16. +1

[JI7]

8. there are non wealthy white people who support trump

The reason hillary can't be as active is the same reason Obama has to be careful in his criticism of trump.

But you got to attack her again so I'm sure that makes you feel better.

The CLintons will continue to do good things through the clinton foundation and other ways.

[JI7]

9. educated well off white women are more likely to support everyone compared to lower income white men

[JI7]

10. there is no revolution. and people who keep looking to others to lead one certainly are not going to

Be part of one even if there was.

[pnwmom]

12. I don't think she is the one to lead the revolution, BUT

I noticed how you skipped over the fact that she is a woman. Women are not a significant part of the power elite in America, even if they are wealthy, white, and straight.

Only 20% of the Senate is female, only a tiny fraction of leaders of the Fortune 500, and we have never, ever had a female President or even Vice President.

Hillary running for President WAS a revolutionary act. But she gave it her best effort, a monumental effort, and it's time for others to take the reins.

[RadiationTherapy]

17. Yes. Sorry I wasn't clear. I left out her sex because that is a minority IRT the institutional power

structures in America 2016.

I agree her candidacy was a revolutionary act and that she ought to encourage, perhaps even mentor, a new generation of democratic leadership.

Thank you for understanding this is not an attack.

[etherealtruth]

15. I disagree strongly with your assement but agree she is not the one to lead ...

Her involvement would make it about her vs the issues. I don't think any of us need to focus on more HRC attacks (and that is all it would be) instead of policy and idea discussion.