For critics who have long argued that our criminal justice system puts too many people behind bars for too long, Clinton's words of outrage were welcome. But they were also hard to take seriously given her history on this issue. While condemning overincarceration, she glided over her own role in promoting it and exaggerated her efforts to correct it. She referred only obliquely to the war on drugs, which has played an important role in sending nonviolent offenders to prison. And three decades after the prison population began the dramatic climb that she now considers shameful, Clinton offered almost no specific ideas for reversing it, which makes her look like a dilettante compared to politicians in both major parties who have given the issue serious thought.
As first lady in the 1990s, Clinton was a cheerleader for the "tough on crime" policies that produced the "era of mass incarceration" she now condemns. "We need more police," she
said in a 1994 speech. "We need more and tougher prison sentences for repeat offenders. The 'three strikes and you're out' for violent offenders has to be part of the plan. We need more prisons to keep violent offenders for as long as it takes to keep them off the streets." The Clinton administration gave us all that and more,
bragging about building more prisons, locking up more people (including
nonviolent offenders) for longer stretches, opposing parole, expanding the death penalty, putting more cops on the street, and implementing a "comprehensive anti-drug strategy."
...
Clinton's position on her husband's crime policies—that they were appropriate back then but maybe went a little overboard—rankles activists who were resisting the war on drugs when Bill Clinton was escalating it. Here is how Ethan Nadelmann, executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance,
put it in a
Huffington Post essay last week: "Even as I rejoice at this outbreak of bipartisanship on a cause to which I've devoted my life, I must admit it also brings up feelings of anger and disappointment at the failure of Hillary Clinton, and other candidates, and so many other ostensible leaders to acknowledge that they were willing and even eager proponents of the very policies that produced America's records-breaking rates of incarceration. The laws and policies we embraced back in the 1980s and 1990s, they're all saying in one way or another, were the right thing at the time—but now we just need to roll them back now that times have changed. But the drug war policies of that era were never justifiable, and the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that they did far greater harm than good. No policy that results in the highest rate of incarceration in the world, and the highest in the history of democratic nations, is justifiable. And no policy that generated such devastating consequences for African American citizens and communities can or should ever be excused as a necessary response to the drug and crime problems a generation ago."
Compounding skepticism about Hillary Clinton's enlistment in the cause of criminal justice reform is her general lack of interest in the issue during her eight years in the U.S. Senate. She does not seem to have
introduced any bills in this area, although she did continue to
support more cops on the street and longer prison sentences (for sex offenders and violent criminals motivated by bigotry). In her Columbia speech, she referred to "measures that I and so many others have championed to reform arbitrary mandatory minimum sentences." But the only example she cited was her cosponsorship of 2007
legislation aimed at reducing crack cocaine sentences.
...
Clinton is late to this party, and endorsing reforms backed by Republicans such as Paul, Cruz, and Lee would highlight that fact. Paul's office
responded to her speech by noting that "Hillary Clinton [is] trying to undo some of the harm inflicted by the Clinton administration" and "is now emulating proposals introduced by Senator Rand Paul over the last several years." The press release cited five criminal justice bills Paul already has introduced this session, addressing
mandatory minimum sentences,
asset forfeiture,
restoration of felons' voting rights,
expungement of criminal records, and
police body cameras. "We welcome her to the fight," it said.
that nikka a plant. Hillary just so happens to get confronted by the only mumble mouthed BLM activist in America?
Isn't it interesting that he respectfully approached Hillary while perfectly setting her up to give a response that allows her to play to both white liberals (who hate to be considered personally culpable for their racism), independents (who are getting sick of the BLM movement antics). Isn't it interesting how she disparages moral conviction when she has the most to lose if a candidate's moral record is on the table? Isn't it interesting how Hillary is being universally praised for how she passed the black issues test with flying colours when in reality she has a terrible track record with black issues? How she has the audacity to talk about changing systems when she was one of the main supporters of the largest systemic problem is beyond me.
those were Bill's decisions, not mine" because she knows a lot of her legacy and credibility was built on her work as FLOTUS. 
. One of the main wedges between Obama and Hillary in the 2008 Dem Primary was that Hillary supported the Iraq war and Barack didn't. This is worse than that. When they start running that video come election time, what is she gonna say? "
I changed"? 
" Bernie Sanders marched on Washington in '63 and participated in sit ins. Hillary has no real civil rights credibility and championed one of the biggest institutional problems w/r/t civil rights. Bernie Sanders was calling for gay rights since the 70s. Hillary is on tape saying marriage is between a man and a woman only 10 years ago while. The disparity couldn't be clearer. She's been on the scene for a long time but her real opinions only came out in the past few years? 
