|Col.. Bernie Sanders (left) and Hillary Clinton (right) square off in New Hampshire|
The problem lies in how you define "progress." If you define "progress" as continuing to back neoliberal imperialism via the military industrial complex, then Hillary the Hawk is about as "progressive" as you can get, what with her constant saber rattling re: Syria, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, North Korea, etc. If you define "progress" as allowing the current Chicago school economics to continue to gouge & exploit average Americans & people worldwide, then Clinton, who believes that invoking the toothless, feckless Dodd-Frank Act--it's almost as powerful as the EPA, which did such a wonderful job of protecting the people of Flint, Michigan--will put an end to financial inequality & Wall Street corruption, then you're not just drinking the Kool Aid, but you've also been hitting the lead-poisoned water in Flint & I mean hard.
Some claim voting for Clinton is progressive because she's attempting to become the first woman president in the U.S. I have no problem with voting for women--for what it's worth, I voted for Jill Stein in 2012--but I don't buy this notion that any woman, regardless of her politics, would be progress. Margaret Thatcher broke the glass ceiling in the U.K. in the 80s, but I'd hardly call her administration progressive. I'd call it fucked up. Besides, if gender is all that matters, then might I mention that Carly Fiorina is running on the Republican ticket, but I wouldn't vote for her either. Furthermore, if the primary (ha!) concern is with breaking social barriers, I could make a case that voting for Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would be progressive--by virtue of such, for lack of better word, logic--since either would be the first Latino president, but I hope to hell that you don't cast such a vote, not because they're Latinos, but because they're far too conservative . . . as is Clinton.