She was first lady of Arkansas - and if anyone thinks Hillary didn’t act as an advisor in that role, they are kidding themselves. She picked up enough about state government from that experience to get half credit.
I’m much more anti-Sanders than pro-Clinton.
-
Back in the 60s, I knew a whole lot of people who believed many of the things that Sanders believes. Those beliefs turned me off then, as they do now.
-
Wall Street is not the root of all evil. “Eat the rich” is a very bad political slogan.
-
You can’t raise the poor by diminishing the rich. If anything, the poor will wind up poorer.
-
You can’t convince me to vote for you, when you sound like a broken record: “Wall Street . . . the top 1% . . . free college tuition . . . blah blah blah.”
-
He’s running off to the Vatican, only days before a crucial primary. Would those be his priorities as President?
-
When was the last time Sanders actually worked for a living?
I love Sanders’ message, philosophy and politics, but am supporting Clinton. She’ll get things done. I may not like everything she’ll get done, but she won’t set the progressive movement back decades like Bernie would. If Bernie-- an ideological socialist who wouldn’t compromise his beliefs in order to save his own puppy from a painful death-- won, he’d be stonewalled by Congress worse than Obama and he’d be a one-termer with Republicans successfully running against progressivism/socialism in 2020. I’d rather Hillary won, and socialist candidates run locally and at the state level to build something from the ground up.
False.
I should hope so, since what he’s going to Rome for is a social-justice conference.
Pretty much every day for the past 40 or 50 years.
And, she has a real purdy mouth.
It would be nice if this thread stayed mostly or entirely positive.
Basically, your points 2, 3, and 4, but I’ll expand on that.
I think most Clinton supporters, even obnoxious ones like myself, appreciate what Bernie Sanders has brought to the campaign of 2016. I think he has correctly identified a lot of the problems with our political system and that are eroding the quality of life for the average American. And I would actually agree with the criticism that democrats, including the Clintons, have sometimes been somewhat complicit in voting for policies that have turned out to have some unintended consequences.
But the real world is a complicated one. I don’t think it’s fair or even valid to rummage through someone’s long history of political involvement and (more to the point) attack voting records while forgetting or intentionally ignoring the circumstances in which those votes were made.
Take the crime bill of 1994, for instance. At the time, there was still a serious problem with violence in inner city communities. The crime bill imposed longer prison sentences, which included mandatory sentences for certain offenses such as drug-related crimes. We can all agree that one of the side effects of that bill was that too many people have been incarcerated for crimes which really don’t warrant years of confinement. But the flip side of that is that violent crime dropped to near record lows. I don’t think that the crime bill is responsible for the drop in violent crime entirely, but then again, it’s certainly not the sole reason for mass incarceration that Sanders rails on about - most of the prison population resides in state or local prisons.
I also disagree with the characterization that Clinton’s vote for the authorization of using military force in 2002 was an endorsement of George W Bush’s invasion of Iraq. She didn’t have the same kind of access to national security that the Bush team did. That vote was also against the backdrop of the horrific attacks of 9/11. She didn’t want the democrats to be in the position of not supporting military efforts to prosecute the war on terror, and at that time, it was a pretty mainstream position. Again, knowing what we know now, sure, it’s a vote that’s easier to criticize. But I don’t criticize her vote as much as I criticize the overt manipulation of intelligence and basically an effort to sell a war to the American public. Clinton never sold that war; Bush did.
But turning back to Bernie Sanders. While I think that he has ‘nailed it’ with regard to some of the problems affecting our system, I frankly don’t think he has any real understanding of how to solve the problem. He’s a professional activist. I think he knows how to draw attention to concerns or issues – he’s doggone good at that. But in the end, problems require solutions. And the best solutions require knowledge of how to navigate political waters. Clinton knows what the republicans will throw at her. She also knows how to get around it. I think Bernie over-estimates his ability to use a bully pulpit to achieve political success. I don’t think Bernie has ever truly demonstrated the capability of building broad-based coalitions, which our constitution essentially requires in order to get things accomplished.
Bernie would probably the right guy if we were having another Constitutional Convention. But we’re not. We need someone who can work with what we now have and, to the extent possible, incorporate some of Bernie’s energy into effecting change. I think Bernie has a place. Just not as president.
Wall Street is not the root of all evil, but the capitalist elite in this society have forgotten that there is such a thing as a social contract. People have bought into capitalism because they have done so with the implicit understanding that the wealth and that opportunities trickle down to the common person.
But what we’ve been seeing over the past 40 years is that this is no longer happening. Most of the wealth and income gains are staying at the top, which is unsustainable. That will beget an economic crisis first, which then becomes a political crisis.
What about the message is the turn off? Do you feel like people are pushing too hard for too much reform, and it will destabilize the system and cause more harm than good, or is there another reason? Do you feel like they are engaging in too much emotion driven half truths rather than nuanced debate?
Not so much the “first woman” part - she’s been part of the political landscape for long enough that it doesn’t define her, which btw is as it should be. But all the other reasons listed above, too.
As for incrementalism, it isn’t that I believe in making progress more slowly than it theoretically could be, but that I believe in making progress, period. It’s better to get some of what we need done, get it established as normal and right, and then get the next part done etc., than to indulge in self-righteous denunciations that accomplish nothing except to harden opposition. We will be better off after Clinton’s tenure, and wouldn’t be after Sanders’.
Staying to the op, which is a request to understand our personal preferences for HRC …
Part of my preference is that I personally very much see the widening gap in wealth and income, the increased concentration of wealth and power into the hands of very few, as a major problem, yet I appreciate greater someone who recognizes that the problem and solution is not found exclusively in demonizing some evil moustache twirling Snydely Whiplash capitalists.
There need to be good rules well enforced to be sure. And there is a good debate to be had over what those rules should be.
To my eye though the problem is much more than the greed of the capitalist elite abrogating an assumed social contract (they ever remembered there was that social contract?): it includes an unavoidably global economy/interconnected world and a technological revolution which is past the the automation of manual labor and past the information age and into increasingly intelligent machines. To me (and I only of course speak for myself) the rhetoric of revolution and demonization of the few is not likely to best guide our society through these waters.
Seeing Wesley’s latest, yes that is a large part of it for me. I fear simplistic solutions driven by ideology with conclusions first and facts/analysis later. And I am turned off by defining anyone who disagrees with the exact agenda as enemy or at best neoliberal toadie.
I trust well intended boring policy wonks to come up with better solutions than those with rhetorical pitchforks and torches.
A lot of it has been said.
I think Clinton is smart, thoughtful, and knowledgeable, and I firmly believe that a strong grasp of the issues is imperative for a political candidate.
Perhaps even more notably, my “world view” is generally in line with Clinton’s. Where specific policies are concerned, it’s hard for me to think of a political position where I am significantly at odds with her. But it’s got just as much to do with her way of looking at issues and problems. By which I mean:
-
I think the world is a very, very complex place, with tangled and twisted problems that don’t lend themselves to easy answers.
-
I think the world is a very nuanced place, with lots and lots of shades of gray; I think we do best, personally and politically, when we keep that in mind.
-
I think that the best way to deal with a problem is to enlist the help and support of as many people as humanly possible, including people you don’t necessarily agree with; I think that inclusiveness and looking for common ground is in general a wise strategy.
-
I think that while having a goal and a vision is necessary, it’s also important to be realistic about what can and cannot be accomplished given the circumstances and realities of a particular situation.
-
I think that the ability to learn from new information, to learn from mistakes, is central to leadership (and for that matter central to just about anything); flexibility in thinking is key.
To some degree or other, I see all these things in Clinton. I saw them more in Obama eight years ago, and voted for Obama in the primary (and voted, and worked for, him in the general election). But I would have been happy with Clinton back then, and I’m happy with her now.
Hillary bugged me in 2008, and I was reluctant to get on her bandwagon this time. However, in listening to her, she has refined her tone and message and I actually find her an appealing candidate. Not perfect, but we’re not likely to see another Obama in our lifetime.
I don’t endorse the OP reason #1; I don’t think about her in the context of the 90s or Bill Clinton. I perfectly happy if she’d be the first woman President, but that doesn’t factor into my vote.
Yep. Historically humans haven’t done well when they take action using either of those two things.
I’m excited about this election because I get to describe myself as an antidisestablishmentarist. I’ve always known I was one, but this election cycle gives me an illustration - in both parties.
OP identifies several reasons Hillary would make the better President. The more relevant question, therefore, is: *Why is Bernie getting such strong support?
*
Bernie gets support because his progressive fiscal policies appeal to youth. At last, a new generation of Americans seems to be rejecting hyper-capitalism in favor of humanistic values. This is great news, whether Bernie wins or not.
But to imagine Bernie could make major changes as President is naive. His fiscal programs almost all require Congressional approval. Even in the *extremely *unlikely event that the Democrats get a majority of the House of Reps and 60 Senators, these will be Democrats, not Socialists. If the progressive enthusiasm in 2016 carries over to the 2018 and 2020 elections, then we might hope for change.
And unable to pursue his real agenda, a President Sanders might be inept at coping with foreign policy crises. Let’s root for Hillary to win the nomination and the election.
Let’s all celebrate together the rise of progressive values, inspired by Bernie, AND the election of our first woman President. If we can’t come together and do that, we may be celebrating the election of President Ted Cruz.
QFT.
I agree. And if I felt that was Sanders’ message I would oppose him. But I feel he’s not trying to eat the rich, he’s just trying to reduce the power they have. And I think he’s right that concentrated wealth has a disproportionate power in American politics and it’s harming the country. But unlike Sanders, I see that as a problem, not the problem.
I honestly appreciate both of their differences and I think Either would make a Great President. No matter who wins the nomination, I will be happy.
Neither one makes me want to “Take My Ball and Go Home”.
I’ll add another reason: She’s *invulnerable *in the general election campaign, in a way no other candidate is or can be. It is critical for our future, above all other considerations, that a Democrat win in November, and she is the surest bet to make that happen.
The Children’s Party has been throwing shit at her for literally decades, trying to get her negatives up, but they’ve only succeeded in preventing anything else they come up with from being credible. Whatever their candidate or PAC’s come up with can only rebound on them, the way everything else has. Sanders has a lot of openings available to an opponent, by contrast, and has shown a skin almost as thin as Trump’s when probed on them. He can be destroyed and Clinton cannot be.
I’ll quibble a bit. This country has always had a tug of war between the haves and the have nots. Early in our history, the have nots were slave labor - but the rich couldn’t have been rich without them. Also the immigrant class and indentured servants. We had our share of tenements and crushing poverty - and we had them while the Vanderbilts built Biltmore. Our social contract involved getting rich off sending children into coal mines, having women sew for pennies, and - to quote my daughter - “The Company is so sorry your husband fell into the meat grinder - here, have some sausage.” During the Civil War, rich people paid poor people to take their place in the draft on the Union side.
The early 20th century brought a lot of change - WWI, the 20s - which was a time of economic prosperity, the depression - which strengthened unions and made Socialism respectable for really the only time its been respectable in American History. A lot of people - especially women and minorities, were left out of these changes. Post WWII gave us another boom, and this time we were lined up to give women and minorities a piece of the pie (but not Native Americans - they are generally still poor as dirt) - and its this golden age we tend to think of when we think about the social contract - the 1950s through the 1960s and the War on Poverty.
The past 40 years have seen us turn back a lot of these gains, but most of the gains themselves were really only 40 years old or less when we started turning them back.
Our founding fathers were a bunch of rich white male Haves - except Franklin and Hamilton - and Hamilton wanted to be a Have - not to make everyone Haves.
I’m not saying this is good, but this isn’t just the last 40 years for us. Yeah, I know that articles say its worse now than its every been - but how good do you think the data is for 1846 or 1914?
(my hobby is Economic History).
As a Sanders supporter, the big appeal to me is that Sanders moves the overton window to the left, and he is signaling to the democratic party that they cannot take their base for granted like they have in the past. For years the GOP has actually listened to their base, for fear their base will either sit out or primary them from the right. The GOP is terrified of their base, The democratic party has never had to worry about that. As a result the democrats could give speeches talking about progressive values, and then when in office choosing corporate centrism instead because they were comfortable in the knowledge that progressive democratic voters were too disorganized, lazy or placated to actually stand up for their beliefs.
Sanders will not win the primary. Even if he does and he wins the election he can’t get anything done as president because of a hostile congress. But to be fair, neither will Hillary. The GOP congress isn’t going to support either president Sanders or Clinton.
But his big appeal is his affect on the national narrative and the sense of fear he is inflicting on the democratic party which is used to being able to ignore progressive voices or to placate them with empty promises, knowing full well they could just choose corporate interests after being elected without facing repercussions.
I used to make posts several years ago talking about how the progressives needed something like a tea party movement, a movement of activists who let the party establishment know they weren’t going to be ignored anymore. The Sanders campaign is the beginning of that movement (and it is far more effective and organized than occupy wall street).