So what? I accept all that stuff too. Obama’s done great with what he’s had to work with. We only lost the public option by one turncoat vote. But people wanted it and still do and there’s not a damn thing wrong with electing someone who will work to expand what we’ve already got. You act like we should all just take our balls and go home now, as if there’s no room for progress. You’re wrong. Things can always be improved.
And you still haven’t said how you think the despised Hillary Clinton would get a single, solitary thing done.She can pander to the middle all she wants, Congress will never, ever, ever in a billion trillion years work with her.
And with that, I’m done with you. You’ve condescended to me for the last time.
In fairness it must be noted that Senator HRC also sponsored a metric shit-ton of bills, 417 which is more than Sanders did, of which only three became law and none of major significance.
As stated, a more centrist President can negotiate and get votes from across the aisle, even from people who dislike him/her. Bill Clinton was a great example at doing just that.
And, no, I am pretty sure that I have not condescended to you for the last time!*
*Well more accurately: “posted such that you perceive it as such”, but hey. Close enough. It is comfort to me that you and ElvisL1vesboth find my posts irritating!
As someone who likes Sanders more than Clinton, I do believe Clinton would be able to work with Republicans much better than Sanders would. We’ve always been able to do business with the Clintons, and that goes for Hillary in the Senate as well as Bill in the White House, no matter how much acrimony there was between the two sides.
I’m with them in a lot of ways. There’s a lot of overlap on some basic issues between Sanders and the Tea Party on issues like corporate welfare, immigration, and government reform. But those aren’t the biggest issues facing the country. On the really big stuff, the work is going to be done between mainstream Republicans and a Democratic President(assuming the Republicans don’t just control everything after the election). Which means Clinton or Biden is a better choice if that’s what you’re looking for.
Sanders would make a great President if you just want to fiddle around with some of the annoying small stuff like government contracting rules, corporate subsidies, pork barrel spending, immigration quotas, etc. But on the big stuff the gap would be too wide between Sanders and the Republicans.
His record compared to everyone in Congress was shown. Now compare his record to the most conservative member of the Senate, Inhofe. Compare it to other congressmen who supposedly are principled such as Ron Paul.
If you do that, you’ll see he does manage to get things done.
You can nitpick but that ignores that the Congresses that Sanders has been a part of have been legendary for getting nothing done. They literally make the Do Nothing Congress seem like productive worker bees in comparison.
Getting anything done in such a landscape is amazing. Couple that with being the farthest left and one of the most principled member of Congress and he did a lot.
If that’s not enough for you, blame the dysfunctional institution. He’s 1% of the Senate and was once one out of hundreds in the house.
A longtime public servant has to be judged on his record. Speeches and policy pronouncements are not a record by themselves, although their effects are to the extent the person is responsible for them. The record really is the best predictor of one’s future performance. That’s what these questions are about. It is as fair as anything can be.
Having once been a good mayor of a small city centered on a large university does count for something, certainly. But the most recent decades show the record of a backbencher, though, don’t they?
I have no idea. I, for one, would never hold up her career as a Senator as proof of her accomplishments in Washington.
ISTM that Obama accomplished more in his brief stint in the Senate (ethics reform, nuclear non-proliferation legislation, improved CAFE standards) than Sanders has in decades.
Although it came before her election, I would have to put Hillarycare in the top slot, since it laid the groundwork for Obamacare - which will ultimately be seen as significant a triumph for the country as Social Security and Medicare.
She does have quite a bit more of a record than her Senate service, “to be fair”.
But you wouldn’t have then applied it to the facts.
Hmmm. I wonder why you never hear her talk about Hillarycare. But you may be onto something, and maybe her campaign will be bringing that up a lot during the general election. We’ll see.
That’s the experience we’re not supposed to talk about, since First Lady isn’t a governmental position. It was for her, and I give her credit for it, but we’re not supposed to talk about it because no one elected Hillary governor or President.
Oh, my bad. I misread your post as saying she had more IN her Senate record.
Still, we had a whole thread on what she did as SecState, and I didn’t see a whole of substance in there. Richard Parker did link to her wikipedia page, but the general tone is more along the lines of: She was competent, but not particularly notable, and there were no key breakthroughs or successful initiatives that can be tied to her.
But, if were her campaign manager and had to come up with the top 3 things she did wile heading up State, what would those things be? And I’m thinking of things that would resonate in the election and sway voters to vote for her. And, as you noted in that other thread, it’s been a looming time since we elected a former SecState as president.
