Senator Bernie Sanders and former secretary of state Hillary Clinton escalated their verbal wrangling Wednesday, sharply questioning each other’s liberal credentials in perhaps the most acrimonious day of their fight for the Democratic nomination.
The two conducted their dispute digitally, with posts aimed at their millions of Twitter followers, and then appeared separately in a CNN sponsored town hall meeting Wednesday night. …
Sanders, in his volley of tweets, called attention to her more “moderate” positions on a host of issues important to the party’s liberal base, including her vote to authorize the war in Iraq, ambivalence about the Keystone XL Pipeline, and support for an early draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
“You can be a moderate,” Sanders said in one tweet. “You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive.”
Clinton has since said the Iraq vote war was a mistake, and she no longer supports the pipeline or the TPP agreement.
Clinton’s campaign responded Wednesday afternoon in its own series of tweets defending her record and attacking Sanders.
“This shouldn’t be a debate about who gets to define ‘progressive’ — it should be about who will get real results for American families,” stated the first tweet.
“Now, if you do want to make it about who’s a ‘real progressive,’ ” @BernieSanders, what were you on these days?” read the next tweet, which included a graphic that listed several of Sanders’ votes, including those against tighter gun control.
In my opinion, both candidates are progressive when compared to any of their possible Republican rivals, which is the only final choice we are going to get.
At a more specific level, Clinton is more progressive on gun control and will shatter a glass ceiling by becoming the first female president — huge progress for the nation. She is less progressive on regulation of Wall Street. Her management of foreign policy is subject to debate as to whether she made progress for the country or not, but she definitely has more experience in international affairs.
Sanders is more progressive on regulation of Wall Street — befitting his Vermont constituency compared to Clinton’s in her days as a senator from New York — and in general aligns more closely with the progressive wing of the democratic party on environmental and foreign policy (which doesn’t necessarily mean that Clinton is not progressive in those areas, perhaps just less progressive). He is absolutely less progressive than Clinton on gun control, and arguably not especially progressive at all on that matter (which for me is a key defining issue).
What do you think?
and let’s not forget that Margaret Thatcher was the first female prime minister of the UK. Joni Ernst is the first woman to represent Iowa in the United States Congress and the first female veteran to serve—from any state—in the U.S. Senate. First female is hardly a reason to vote for someone I have serous doubts with.
It’s money that matters most. Clinton’s ties to Wall Street and hedge fund banksters professionally and now, family are disturbing to me.
I’m not going to fault people for changing their positions over the long haul. Both Hillary and I were Republicans in our younger days, but her recent switches on the TPP (for the good) and now Health Care (for the bad) have me wondering what direction her compass actually points.
“both candidates are progressive when compared to any of their possible Republican rivals”
*Ronald Reagan* is progressive when compared to Ted Cruz and Donald Trump. That doesn’t make him a progressive.
I agree that Reagan doesn’t fit the bill, but Clinton is quite a bit to his left.
In the Globe excerpt, the Sanders tweets are described as being written by him. But the Clinton tweets are from “Clinton’s campaign.”
The timing of this is interesting. You would think his Iowa momentum would make him sunny, like Rubio is trying to be. But he (or “Sanders’s campaign”) upped the ante.
Sanders isn’t a Democrat—don’t take my word for it, take his. HRC is a moderate Democrat, trying like hell to be progressive enough to dodge Sanders in the primary without making it impossible to get back to the middle for the general. HRC’s had many opportunities over the years to take a leadership role as a progressive, and didn’t do it. That’s fine; she is who she is. I cannot decide who the hell to support so please refrain from attacking me as a supporter of either one at this point. We must win! Sanders has an electability problem because he’s a socialist. She has an electability problem because her negatives are in the mid-50’s. What to do? As I said many months ago on this site, the Democratic field is depressingly weak.
No one can say that Bernie Sanders is not a progressive with anything close to a straight face (even when accounting for his lousy gun position) under any broad or very narrow definition of the term.
One can easily, as evidenced by many discussions here, elsewhere, and via an obvious implication in the original post, say that Hillary Clinton is not a progressive.
We can fight about the definition of progressive or get into her record more, but the fact remains that there are big questions for a lot of people about her commitment to progressive values that are simply not there for Sanders.
I think Sanders is right, she has been progressive and she has not been progressive. The consistency is not there, and when it hasn’t been there, it’s been on big issues.
…disagree with this line: “You can be a moderate,” Sanders said in one tweet. “You can be a progressive. But you cannot be a moderate and a progressive.” Some of both is a pretty fitting description of yours truly, than you very much!
Also, I’m currently reading David Brock’s latest book Killing The Messenger. He makes the case, among other things, that criticism of HRC on the basis of ambition, lack of compass, lack of ethics, or the like are pretty much falling into the trap of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy. He should know as he was once in the thick of it. It was the VWRC’s mission to drive a wedge among Dems to get some of the more fervent liberals to distrust her and thus weaken her. We must not fall for it!
David Brock is a shit. Seriously, just a terrible person. What he did against the Clintons was despicable, but instead of really changing his ways, he’s doing the exact same kind of bullshit, unethical attacking, but now on their behalf. It’s tough to take anything he says seriously.
That she would ally herself with someone like that says quite a bit.
…are apparently two words not in your vocabulary:( Plus, I would strongly disagree that he is doing the exact same thing in reverse. He actually cares about facts now and does more defensive than offensive work.
I’m big on forgiveness. I don’t see it for him. He’s doing the same stuff for the other side.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-15/david-brock-declines-to-apologize-to-bernie-sanders-over-jeremy-corbyn-comparison
Watch the video.
Gun control is a “nice to have”. I am voting on the economy, and I think that Sanders’ message of reigning in corporations, breaking up banks, re-thinking trade agreements, and increasing taxes on the rich is the correct medicine for our economy.
I am concerned that Hillary Clinton is a corporate candidate who will pursue corporate goals benefiting global corporations over the goals and needs of the citizens of the United States.
…that she is in this for the corporations over people. Her record of words and actions strongly suggests otherwise.
At the town hall last night, Clinton was asked Anderson Cooper why she took $675,000 from Goldman Sachs for three speeches.
She answered “That’s what they offered”. She said that’s what politicians do after they retire. It’s expected, according to her.
Anderson Cooper retorted: politicians may do this, but they don’t run for office again.
Clinton said that she thought she was done running for office – and therefore it was OK to take the money.
Memo to Hillary: Your task to speak up for the little guy does not end when you leave office. It is a lifetime assignment. And you should be leading by example. What example did you set by caching in your chips with Goldman Sachs speeches? What behavior did you model for others to follow your path?
I’ve never been able to muster the outrage over being paid to speak. It’s as if she can’t think for herself and taking their money automatically means becoming their lackey. I am quickly losing patience with this line of attack.
She did not advocate for breaking the big banks eight years ago when they were rescued with taxpayer bailouts – for having investment banks be separated from depository banks – for a financial transaction tax to pay for free state college education.
Then again, she did not advocate for favors for the big banks either. Mostly, she was neutral, and deferential to Chuck Schumer on banking issues in her Senate years.
Maybe it was the silence that the bankers liked to hear. Here are the grand total for big bank speaking fees raked in by Hillary and Bill Clinton from 2013 to 2015:
https://theintercept.com/2016/01/08/hillary-clinton-earned-more-from-12-speeches-to-big-banks-than-most-americans-earn-in-their-lifetime/
“The Associated Press notes that during Hillary Clinton’s time as secretary of state, Bill Clinton earned $17 million in talks to banks, insurance companies, hedge funds, real estate businesses, and other financial firms. “
so, someone pays you vast sums of money for a few hours of work.
That someone has a history of expectations from politicians they pay.
You take the money.
Are you not going to bend? Or think of bending? Is it not reasonable that other people may think you’ve bent?
Now, remember it’s not just Goldman Sachs. It’s a whole host of Wall St firms and health insurance companies, etc. etc. etc. She’s been paid millions upon millions in speaking fees, for the equivalent of a few hours of time. Not coming from wealth, it’s how the Clintons have made their fortune.
If she hasn’t bent from this money, and from the money that Bill’s made doing the same things, then she should at least accept that people have good reasons to doubt her.
When you want to avoid conflicts of interest, you don’t just avoid conflicts of interest — you avoid the very appearance of it. Hillary has both in spades.
Isn’t every dollar raised by a politician an appearance of conflict of interest? And, for the big donors, or for the bundlers, or when the dough really flows from the employees of a (relatively) closely held company… isn’t that even more extreme?
Or, let me ask you this rye: would you be willing to violate the public trust to do a favor for me simply because I overpaid you to do something easy for you with what were peanuts to me five years ago?
Yeah, it’s concerning. It raises an eye because the dollars are so large, and because it was income instead of a campaign contribution. But politicians have made money in the private sector just before running for public office before, when everyone damn well knew that person was going to run for office.
In modern times, with so much wealth accumulation, the size of the payment doesn’t concern me one bit. It’s just a matter of degree.
With all the boards he sat on including Coke, and some small anti-Coke outfit in New York really trolled him on it. Some progressives still think he would be a good alternative for Clinton even though he is working for Bain. Let’s be consistent. Her current answer sucks and it’s an entirely reasonable question to ask, but it’s hardly the disqualification people are making it out to be.
Indeed, it is hardly disqualification – and that is a sad commentary on integrity in our public life and on the influence money continues to hold on our politics.
.
after all, we in the netroots fought damn hard to make it popular, creating a new progressive movement that has absolutely nothing to do with the DLC/Third Way nonsense.
Meanwhile, the DLC’ers and Third Way types worked hard to try to kill the word liberal — almost as hard as Republicans.
Now that we have this popular word, and they killed the alternative, they want to subvert it. I get it. I really do.
But they made their DLC/Third Way bed, and so they can sleep in it.
If the word progressive is to have any meaning at all, a proud (on some days) moderate, such as Hillary Clinton, can’t have it.
Bernie Sanders is a progressive. Elizabeth Warren is a progressive. Paul Wellstone was a progressive. Sherrod Brown is a progressive. Jamie Eldridge and Sonia Change Diaz are progressives.
Hillary Clinton is a moderate, or a centrist, or a Third Way Democrat, or a “pragmatist,” and so many other descriptions. But she’s going to have to make an awful lot changes to her politics, and make some pretty hefty refunds to Wall St, if the word progressive is to be an accurate description.
…to the comments I have made previously on this matter. As with many Dem primaries one candidate may be the most progressive in the race, but not the only one. Besides, you have a problem with “pragmatism”? Personally I like pragmatism. Mario Cuomo may be my favorite elected official and he called himself a progressive pragmatist.
If your goal is to do the very best for people despite a rotten corrupt system, you will have one definition of pragmatism.
If your goal is fundamental change of the system you will have a very different one.
Clinton’s pragmatism, arguably, minimizes the chances of the greatest failure. But if you define the problem as needing fundamental change, Clinton’s pragmatism also has zero chance of success. And Sanders’ pragmatism is, well, the pragmatic choice.
It probably boils down to whether you think things are basically tolerable or not.
Nobody is saying you can’t be a pragmatist and a progressive. Just calling yourself something however does not make it so.
Hillary won’t be able to get any liberal bills through Congress better than Bernie. We’ve seen 8 years of a Republican Party of No to know that’s a fact.
So, what’s she going to pass?
Trade deals, more drilling, deregulation, wars we don’t need, and so on and so forth.
I’m not going to say that nothing good would get done in a Congress with President Hillary, but the only good things that would get done under a President Hillary would also get done under a President Bernie… but there’d be no trade deals, drill deals, deregulation, and wars we don’t need.
I still think there’s more to the presidency than legislation, but there is still the experience and preparedness thing that will show in big and small ways. My biggest takeaway from last night’s debate is the Hillary sees the big picture of the office in terms of both politics and policy. I agree and sympathize with almost everything Bernie says, but his focus is too narrow for the presidency, IMO. You also are making assumptions about Clinton’s agenda I’m not sure I buy.
In fact, Presidents at the end of the day don’t often play a significant role in legislation, particularly in divided Congresses or when their parties are in the minority. They have some capacity to drive the agenda, but less so during Obama’s presidency than at any point in history because of just how recalcitrant the Republican Party has become. Senate Majority Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan have no interest in supporting any part of President Obama’s progressive agenda.
But the President is imbued with immense powers, both constitutionally and through powers the Congress has imbued in the office through past legislation. Most of what happens in DC happens in federal departments and agencies, or regulatory bodies, and the President’s capacity to impact what happens there is, well, I’m running out of synonyms here. Huge. A lot.
So… who’s going to be the better President in all of those areas? We know that Hillary is likely to appoint Wall St and industry executives and large campaign donors to key positions, because that’s what Presidents have done, particularly with the rise of neoliberasm. Let us not forget that we only ever had the debate about net neutrality because President Obama appointed a number of cable industry executives to the board of the FCC. Bill Clinton did all the same things, and Hillary hasn’t made any kind of signals that she would reject these kinds of appointments.
I think it’s fair to say that Bernie won’t be appointing anyone from Goldman Sachs to head the Treasury or any of its key departments. I don’t think we have to worry about hedge fund managers finding themselves appointed to any of the Federal Reserve’s boards under a Sanders administration. And we won’t find cable industry execs appointed to the FCC, or Big Pharma or Monsanto execs to the FDA.
How a President can use their executive powers and capacity to make appointments is exactly why we need a President Sanders, and exactly why we can do better than Hillary.
All of these issues matter. All of these issues have been used to help corporations and hurt people, going on for decades now. Democrats and Republicans have made these kinds of appointments. Both parties.
Sanders won’t, because Sanders fundamentally rejects the neoliberalism that has infested the party leadership of both parties in DC. We have a chance to change that this election. I hope people will take it.
And don’t forget the more Neocon approach to foreign affairs. There are massive executive powers related to war and peace and government surveillance and secrecy. The evidence so far convinces me Clinton would be terrible in these areas.
Still doesn’t kill the all-important experience argument for me and I still think you are making too many assumptions about Clinton. I agree these issues are important and even if in a blind test I come down more sympathetic to Sanders I just can’t pass up the opportunity to put someone in there of HRC’s caliber.
is the experience that you’re looking for? Because that’s what all these appointments do, and collectively they have more power in many ways than Congress.
If you think I’m assuming too much about who she’d appoint, what about Clinton’s experience makes you think she’ll make drastically different kinds of appointments than Obama or her husband did?
I appreciate you defending the word progressive. You’re right — netroots made it in conjunction with folks like Howard Dean, and should be proud of moving Democratic politics back to the left.
I think HRC has lots of progressive positions. On some of them, she’s got a history and some work done. On others, she’s nodding and voting.
I think HRC has lots of moderate positions. On some of them, she’s got a history and some work done. On others, she’s nodding and voting.
I think HRC has one or two conservative positions — for example, I think she’s quite hawkish. She may have evolved due to her term in State, but her US Senate and 2008 candidacy for POTUS left me frustrated with her on issues of war and peace.
I don’t think a position on Wall Street defines one’s progressiveness. It’s an indicator, but so are stances on labor rights, environmental issues, civil rights (inc. women’s rights), and the ability of government to foster environments where all individuals have a solid chance to be successful, even if they drew a 2-7 off-suit.
HRC isn’t a progressive. She’s not a moderate either. In aggregate, she’s somewhere in between.
Hawkish on defense within a multilateral framework, cautiously incremental on questions of equal rights for all, somewhat prudish on questions of personal morality but open to liberalizing public policies, and using the arms of big business and big labor to advance the interests of the American middle class.
Sounds awfully close to Hubert Humphrey or JFK to me, and those guys were considered just fine in their heyday. Humphrey faced many of the same questions that Hillary has for supporting an unpopular war. She has wrestled with gay rights the way many of these traditionally minded men wrestled with abortion and drugs during the same time period. I am not endorsing this mindset, but one can hardly say it’s not a part of the progressive tradition.
I don’t think it applies to Hillary, but I think that describes me, although I was never infected with the idiotic anti communist fever that poisoned those times. Thankfully I grew up in the hill towns of in Western Mass chock full of organized and unorganized colonies of artists, musicians and writers around the 5 colleges. Even the most no nonsense farmers were/are pretty tolerant of eccentric behavior and dress, sexual proclivities and politics of local people so didn’t even raise their eyebrows when Lev. Saltonstall brought Ed Brooke, in pointy shiny shoes to tour the cow barns at the local fair. My father loaned him some boots.
The very best product of the “progressive movement” as far as I am concerned is transparency in government decision making. My husband has been reading aloud to me from The Devil’s Chessboard by David Talbot who reveals the dark history of the Dulles brothers, the CIA and the rise of our secret government. Anyway…..this has all been fascinating.
.
…If David Talbot is writing about it… how can it be “secret”???
I sometimes think that “secret” just means, “somebody else approved this”…
In the context of desiring to maintain a hegemony of “the voice of the people” without ever giving ground to the notion that “the people” are panicky, easily led, and that their “voice” is often cacophanous and contradictory ( when not actually incoherent…) the notion of “secret” becomes a form of passive aggressive politesse: It’s more comforting to consider a rogue state acting against “our” interests than it is to think the notion of “our” , itself, is altogether illusory
were not neoliberals. So far far far removed from it. They were keynesians, and our country prospered under them. They invested heavily in our infrastructure, they had vastly higher taxes on the rich, they supported universal health care (even if they didn’t quite get there) and, under them, college was free or affordable.
Hillary’s to the left of mid-century liberals on most social issues, but she hasn’t exactly been a leader on many of those fronts, either. She only supported marriage equality well after the rest of the party did, and the hard work had already been paved.
as a lawyer representing the big, bad railroad companies. You know, the one’s that built the Trans-Continental Railroad. Which made it possible through the Homestead Act for thousands of immigrant settlers to build the West with 160 acres and a mule.
So was Abraham Lincoln bought and paid for by his corporate special interest masters ?
Was his integrity compromised ? Did he put THEIR interests ahead of our country’s national interest ? I think not.
I believe Hillary Clinton is a true patriot with a deep and abiding love for America.
I do NOT believe she would ever sell out her country to enrich herself.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
there is a legitimate difference concerning how change works and can be effected. Oversimplified, our theories are revolution and evolution.
Sanders actually calls for “Revolution.” That’s appealing, the idea of rapid change for the better. Clinton isn’t shouting “Evolution,” but she is saying that change is made incrementally. That’s a particularly unsexy idea. In my experience, there are few revolutions. Evolution moves at different speeds.
I was a moderate 25 years ago. I’m not a DLC guy at all. As I said on previous thread, I think we prefer a candidate and then seek our reasons to justify our preferences. I agree with Hilary’s theory of change. I have faith in her political ability. I care what she will do in office, not what label is attached to her.
And as Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin is accused of saying,”There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.” I think Hilary understands the wisdom of this ironically silly phrase.
N/t
Half the world is female.
The overwhelming majority of the world is non-Christian.
Bernie Sanders would be the first non-Christian elected as president. That matters, too.
Look. I don’t agree with a lot of the distinctions that get drawn these days (or a lot of the parallels: Sanders and Trump are not mirror images of each other either). The people who say Sanders is not a pragmatist seriously lack vision.
Also, I have none of the animus some here throw around against Clinton, who has admirable grit and whom I expect to be the next president of the United States. Planning to vote for him next month however.
But the distinction between progressive and moderate is valid and important and one we have fought for. Bernie is, Hillary isn’t, and if we do our jobs then Hillary will govern a little more like Bernie.
I’m not going to say to Bob, You take that back! but it’s a ridiculous thing to say. Honestly.
I understand the difference between the terms as conventionally defined. If economics is the litmus Sanders deserves the title more than Clinton. If gun safety is the litmus, Clinton deserves the title and Sanders does not. I stand by my contention that both are progressive, and Democrats. Labels over-generalize. Personally, based in part on the thoughtful comments here, I’m shifting from planning to vote for Sanders to planning to vote for Clinton following Mark’s philosophical construct, and because I think, based on Sanders’ performance in the debate tonight, that she has a better chance of winning a national campaign against a Republican.
N/t
by accusing Hillary of not being a true progressive.
I’m so angry listening to this BS. But Hillary fought back last night. Enough with the innuendo guilt by association smear campaign, Bernie. Talk straight. If you have evidence that Hillary’s integrity has been compromised for accepting a speaking fee — say it.
Using your twisted logic, President Obama is not a progressive because he accepted Wall Street donations and Joe Biden is not a progressive because he supports TPP.
This is the problem with holier-than-thou liberal purists today. To them, the perfect is always the enemy of the good.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
credit card industry. So, no, Joe Biden is not a progressive.
Progressive doesn’t equal good, though. And people who aren’t progressives doesn’t equal bad. It’s not an insult or a compliment, in and of itself.
Joe Biden is a neoliberal. Also, a good guy. A strong ally on many issues, particularly social issues. He deserves credit for them.
But he’s not a progressive. The progressive movement means something specific. It has an ideology, and Joe Biden doesn’t conform to that ideology. Neither does Hillary Clinton. Sorry.
The President can make some stronger claims to being a progressive, especially of late. He’s found his swing in his second term, and he’s proven he can listen given the rise of the Elizabeth Warrens of the world.
Hillary (and Joe) and many in the leadership of the party haven’t been able to make that claim. They’ve taken this election as a clarion call to attack and decry key principles of the modern progressive movement. That was their choice.
They take money from Wall St and attack progressive leaders like Elizabeth Warren, for having the audacity of thinking that criminal executives should be treated like criminals who aren’t millionaires or billionaires.
Again, their choice.
I would love and hope for them to join the progressive movement. I think if Bernie wins, and the establishment is defeated, many will choose to adapt. I hope for that, in fact. But as of now, nope, sorry. If they choose to defend Goldman Sachs of the world over the people who’s lives have been destroyed by the Goldman Sachs of the world, they aren’t a part of the modern progressive movement. Far from it.
what gives you the right to say Joe Biden isn’t a progressive because he represented Delaware’s credit card industry just as Hillary Clinton represented New York City, the nation’s financial capital, in the US Senate.
And what about the late Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota ? Was he not a progressive because he once voted for DOMA ?
What chutzpah you guys have !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
.
…with a DE Senator taking banks into consideration or a NY Senator considering Wall Street. Heck, didn’t even Elizabeth Warren have a moment that some saw as less than progressive because she advocated on behalf of MA-based medical device industry? Hate to break it to you, but businessmen and capitalists ARE constituents too and demonizing them every step of the way to the point that you advocate that they should not be represented at all is needlessly divisive. I’m not the least bit surprised you’re supporting Sanders – you’ve always been more of a storm the barricades revolutionary than I’m comfortable with:)
When those decisions hurt the lives of their constituents, often disastriously so, then yes. There is a problem.
These bills gave no exemptions for medical-related bankruptcies. It gave no protections for single moms who’s husbands filed for bankruptcy. It was a disastrous bill, that greatly exacerbated the pain of the Great Recession.
So, hell fucking yes there’s something wrong with it.
There are Senators from other states without those constituencies to work on the legislation and ameliorate negative effects, but I cannot fault Senators with large financial sector constituencies for looking out for said constituencies, whether or not money is involved, but if you really are going to go down the Biden is not progressive rabbit hole then in my mind your credibility and foot-stomping calls for purity are EXACTLY on par with the Tea Party in the other direction.
If a DE Senator takes a penny of their money to do it.
Take money out of the equation and if Biden or Clinton or anyone decides that adopting some pro-bank legislation is in the public interest, that’s fair game. (I may not agree, but it’s a point of view untainted by money.)
Honestly, we have gone so far down the money-in-politcs rabbit hole that we don’t know what’s what any more.
She opposed the progressive medical device tax since her state was full of biotech constituencies that opposed it, she supported a regressive repeal of the tax that weakens the ACA. Bernie supports Cadillac plans because labor has been his biggest large money donor.
It also weakens the progressivity of ACA. Warren despite hitting Scott Brown on taking money from GE which outsourced jobs from CT has no qualms about our tax dollars subsidizing their move from CT to MA, despite he fact that they are still offshoring blue collar jobs in Western MA even if they are bringing white collar ones to the seaport at $181,000 a job. If you want to have strict scrutiny for progressive be my guest, but hold your heroes to the same scrutiny you hold their opponents to.