I’m voting for Clinton tomorrow for the following primary (see what I did there?) reasons:
- She is smart, articulate, and fast on her feet in debate. Especially in an age of electronic media — who would have thought it? — these ancient elements of effective leadership are critical. Every time I have heard her speak in public in recent years — from the current campaign debates to her speeches as Secretary of State — I have come away impressed. She understands the issues, she understands the opposition, and she explain goals I generally support in simple, compelling language.
- Women are generally oppressed in our society in both relative and absolute terms. Of course they are better off than in the not so distant past when they couldn’t vote, whole professions like medicine and the law were forbidden them, and coverture laws stripped their right to contract in their own name after marriage, among many other injustices, but pervasive discrimination from pay inequality to glass ceilings to outright harassment is routine and impoverishes us all. Clinton is a feminist, and support for her sends a powerful message of inclusion and activism in support of women.
- She is experienced. From her service as a Senator from New York to her work as Secretary of State, to her years at President Bill Clinton’s side, she has observed our political system at close quarters. Some of President Obama’s lamentable ineffectiveness on subjects from closing Guantanamo to getting legislation through Congress can be set at the feet of his inexperience: Illinois State Senate to the White House in four years. Clinton knows what we are up against in practice, as well as theory.
I prefer Sanders’ more Elizabeth Warren-esque combativeness toward Wall Street, and I also, as a New Englander, appreciate his Vermont residency. But his position on gun safety is murderous, however politically expedient, and, as Charley explained below, his Democratic Socialism will morph from charming eccentricity to Stalinistic Hitlerianism (yes, I know how idiotic that is) when massaged by the delicate fingers of our national corporate media. I don’t think he is any more appealing to a national audience than, again with a nod to my wise colleage, McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis were before him.
Politics is about the possible. I’ll leave divinity to the snowy woods of Vermont on a clear winter morning, and leave Senator Sanders there too, with the greatest respect, tomorrow. In the real world, I’m voting for Hillary.
you did our Lady proud with one of the best arguments I’ve read or heard to date !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
…but for supporting *Bernie* (1) smart, 2) feminist, 3) experienced)!! Plus a whole lot of other reasons that I don’t have time to write up at the moment. đŸ™‚ I’m a 40 year-old woman who would love to see a female President in my lifetime, but NOT Hillary! If only Liz had run, sigh.
Stipulating that both are smart, electing Clinton will do more for women than yet another male President, and she has been a Senator plus SoS. But I also had another key reason: Sanders doesn’t have as strong a national base of support as Clinton, nor is he likely to garner one between now and November.
So, because the media won’t stop repeating lies about Sanders, you’ll vote against him?
Awesome.
And the media is an important part of that. It is important to balance idealism with realism to effect change. As Obama frequently says, we have to distinguish between the world as we want it to be, and as it is. Anyway, it’s not just the media but Sanders’ own choices that have won him the title “Democratic Socialist.” And I don’t think America is ready to vote for a Nazi for President đŸ˜‰ See?
He was a man of excellent probity who led a grassroots campaign against one of the most morally abhorrent undertakings of the U.S. government. He had been a war hero. He was a straight-talker with a comforting, unmistakably American mid-West twang. And against an unpleasant person of shifting morality, I knew he would win. I just knew it.
But George McGovern lost badly.
Human rights.
Gun control.
Foreign policy.
The list just goes on.
Hillary is far and above the best choice.
My mother in law’s boyfriend is a retired conservative from MA. So conservative he showed up at the big thanksgiving dinner just a few months ago and said “any other conservatives here?” [crickets … awkward silence].
Yet last month he went to a Bernie rally. Doesn’t like trump or Clinton. Fascinating.
Personally, I like Bernie’s convictions, he’s been right on almost every issue over the decades and much of the US has suddenly caught up to him. I really like his toughness on banks. I really don’t like Clinton’s hawkishness. And as my example above reminds us, many conservatives really (really) don’t like Clinton. I’d be fine with her as president, my only fear is that she’d lean centrist or conservative trying to triangulate some mythical centrist/conservative Clinton friendly voting faction. Primary among those concerns is an expensive and intractable overseas military involvement, reinforced by today’s NYT article about Libya. Triangulation is 1990’s behavior, in this modern overexposed age authenticity speaks loudly. And for those worried about sanders electability (and age), a Warren vp nomination would bolster the ticket greatly and seems a logical platform connection.
In hindsight, Warren would have cleaned up in this primary.
I’m wondering how much of Sen. Sanders’ appeal has solely to do with his character. (Near the founding of our republic, voting based on character was even the emphasis.)
It likely wouldn’t take Republican oppo researchers too long to figure out how to pry loose the Bernie-liking conservatives and get them voting GOP.