In the April 6 issue of City, Mary Anna Towler reluctantly
endorsed Hillary Clinton for New York’s April 19 Democratic presidential primary.
The decision was difficult, she said, and if she made her choice solely on
positions, the endorsement would go to Bernie Sanders. She cited Clinton’s strengths,
record, and current proposals.
Towler’s
biggest concern is electability in the general election. She believes that Clinton
is the candidate with the best chance to defeat the Republican nominee. And
that Clinton would, if elected, have the best chance at achieving her goals.
I, along
with several City writers, disagree with her endorsement. Vermont Senator
Bernie Sanders is the presidential candidate that the Democratic Party and the
country needs in order to move forward.
Sanders is a
man of integrity, and progressives don’t have to do mental gymnastics in order
to support him. His “strong, commendable positions, not only on health care and
public-college affordability, but also on climate change, the Middle East,
defense spending, national security, infrastructure investment, and much more,”
as Towler wrote last week, are consistent, and not calibrated to win an
election.
Clinton has
the record of a moderate Democrat, at best. Liberals struggle to reconcile her
hawkish tendencies, her support for Wall Street and its support of her, and her
support for both the federal death penalty and past support for privatized
prisons.
Clinton is
arguably moving left due to pressure from Sanders, but some of those positions
are still watered down: raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour isn’t the same
as boosting it to $15, nor is preserving the Affordable Care Act the same as
transitioning to a single-payer health care system. Clinton’s platform still
skews the system in favor of the “haves” at the risk of the “have nots.”
The country
can’t afford another four years of timid progress. A Sanders candidacy is a
real opportunity for the Democratic Party to prove that it will take willful,
powerful action to make politics honest, fight income inequality, reform the
criminal justice system, and build the middle class.
During the
general election, the Republican Party would undoubtedly attack Sanders as a
“tax-loving extremist, a socialist, a communist in disguise,” Towler writes. But
they’ll probably do something similar — or worse — to Clinton. The GOP was
merciless toward President Barack Obama when he ran in 2008 and 2012, and
Clinton’s platform is even more liberal, albeit slightly.
While Republicans
will mostly likely try to paint Sanders as a communist, Clinton faces potential
attacks based on real or imagined scandals, including Benghazi and the FBI’s
investigation of her State Department e-mails. While most of it is bullshit,
there’s undeniably a lot of fodder for dirty attack ads. Republicans have been
investigating and attacking the Clintons for decades, after all.
Fear is a
powerful motivator and the prospect of any of the current Republican candidates
becoming president is frightening: Cruz — whose claim to fame is leading the
effort that shut down the government in 2013 — would be the most conservative
candidate in generations; Kasich is only moderate compared to his fellow
candidates; and Trump is … Trump. All three are anti-abortion climate change
deniers who have tax plans that give the biggest cuts to the wealthy. (The Trump
and Cruz tax plans would also result in about $9.5 trillion and $8.6 trillion in
lost revenue for the US government, respectively.)
When did the
Democratic Party lose its idealism? To vote based on fear is to simply throw a
vote away when faced with the possibility of a true progressive candidate who
has already won over so many people seeking a genuine person to lead the
country. Progressivism is based in the belief that we can always do better.
Bernie Sanders is us doing better.
Antoinette Ena Johnson, Jeremy Moule, and Rebecca
Rafferty contributed to this column.
This article appears in Apr 13-19, 2016.
I’m glad you all made a point to write this. These are all important counterpoints to the fear-based tacit support of Secretary Clinton. However, I’m very upset to see that you missed the most compelling point!
This point is the following: there is no empirical evidence to suggest Clinton is better suited to win the general election. Although polls have limitations, they are the best empirical evidence we have. Overwhelmingly, the data show that Senator Sanders does better in each possible general election match up.
It’s fashionable to dismiss polls as inaccurate or even useless, but in aggregate a series of polls showing the same result suggests a significant degree of certainty. Dismissing the data in favor of dubious speculation should be relegated to the climate deniers and their cohort. It should not be practiced by Democrats, and certainly not by progressives.
I suggest a Clinton – Sanders ticket. Hillary has the experience to get things done and Bernie has the message and the urgency that we need.
They would be the “odd-couple”, but maybe that is what we need. They would have to work together to compromise, for results, moving forward.
“United we stand. Divided we fall.” (Aesop)
================================
http://www.SavingSchools.org
After Mary Anne Towler’s editorial that endorsed Hillary Clinton (with regrets) for Democrat POTUS candidate, 80% of Rochester CITY Newspaper readers posted comments in favor of Bernie Sanders. This week her readers’ consensus in favor of Bernie Sanders remains at more than 80%…
I think both candidates have weaknesses that are troubling, and while I will be voting Hillary, I will happily vote Bernie if he somehow pulls this thing out.
I learned long ago that no politician will ever be perfect, and I have no problem supporting either.
Be careful what you wish for. Has anyone thought this thing through? One sure thing that you will get if one of the candidates on the left wins. More income disparity, more power to the powerful and fewer jobs and income for the underclass, and fewer middle class. I thought you guys were against that kind of stuff.
During the last 7 years, average income is down about $3600, the percentage of people actually working is at a 42 year low, and food stamp participants are up about 26%. Do we really want to keep going down this path?
Both Hillary’s and Bill’s voices are almost completely gone. Bernie’s voice, on the other hand, seems fine.
Bernie and Hillary both have experience. The difference is that Hillary was essentially a co-president for 8 years and she got to fly around the world some more as Secretary of State; consolation for not getting elected president in 2008. Any normal person would know enough to retire after that. But, oh yeah, I forgot about the millions from the big banks…or is it more about power craziness? Bernie, on the other hand, isn’t out for himself…at all…in any way.
FYI – Wikipedia has an “Electoral History of Bernie Sanders” which you might find interesting. It shows that Sanders lost many elections, since 1972. You might see him as a loser, or you might see him as an experienced political fighter, who never gives up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_hi…
Again, I feel that Sanders should team up with Hillary. All the candidates have major flaws. But by coming together, they may be able to strengthen each other, for a “more perfect union.”
Following your head and your heart is a bold stand? Isn’t that simply being true to yourself by supporting the candidate who most aligns with your ideals and values?
Is it bold for those who are considering a vote for Bernie because they are breaking with the party establishment? Is it bold because the inevitable frontrunner status bestowed upon Hillary Clinton, whose sense of entitlement seems greater than both her qualifications to be President and the long list of negatives that should give progressive Democrats pause before casting a vote for her?
In the lead up to 2008, the media told us that Hillary was the frontrunner. Along came Barack Obama. For 2016, the frontrunner candidates for our voting pleasure were to be Hillary and Jeb. Along came Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders. The outsiders have the excitement and the momentum. By this time in the 2016 campaign, a vote for Bernie is not really bold at all.
Can a vote for Bernie in the primary be considered bold if voters still have a the opportunity for a general election do-over where they can repent and fall in line with the party faithful and simply cast a vote for Hillary if she is the nominee? If voters see a true distinction between Bernie and Hillary, I am not sure how they could support Bernie now and then cast a vote for Hillary in November.
I am a Green Party member who left the Democratic Party because of run of the mill candidates like Hillary Clinton. I support Bernie Sanders and if he is on the ballot come November, he will have my vote. If Hillary ends up being the Democratic nominee, I will stay true to myself and will vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein. For me, voting for Stein is not a bold stand. It is just in keeping with who I am and my vision for America.
For those who have never looked outside the two-party box, casting a vote for third party candidate Jill Stein in November could be the truly bold move you have been waiting to make.
Here are links to a few videos of Sanders and Clinton on the issues:
Wall Street Speech Transcripts:
Sanders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pq8qInIhfCk
Sanders says he will release any transcripts he can find, and has never given a speech to Wall Street.
Clinton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9Fxoh9-9HY
Clinton avoids the issue, saying she won’t release the transcripts of three speeches she gave to the Wall Street bank Goldman Sachs. (For which she was paid $675,000.) Goldman Sachs has also contributed large amounts to her campaign.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12mJ-U76nfg
Elizabeth Warren relays a story about how Clinton voted for a bankruptcy bill that would have made it difficult for women raising children to collect alimony and child support. Clinton previously opposed the bill, but switched positions likely because of influence from the banking industry.
African-American Issues:
Sanders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVtOQ85BKRU
The video shows Sanders being arrested in 1963 in Chicago protesting segregation.
Clinton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-U-Bfdor6zk
Clinton refers to gang members, often poor african-american youths, as “superpredators” that have to be ‘brought to heel’. A freudian slip?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qb2tqNZ9dGk
She also worked on the campaign for Barry Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act, something she is “proud” of.
Iraq war:
Sanders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdFw1btbkLM
Sanders voted against the war, citing several possible negative consequences (which came to pass) and proposed further diplomacy.
Clinton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lecMstzWzY
Clinton voted for the war. The video shows that in explaining her vote she parroted Bush’s lies about WMD and terrorism, which were totally baseless, and were used to justify the invasion.
Trade Agreements:
Sanders and Clinton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKmypHus7S0
The video shows that Sanders has been consistently opposed to free trade agreements with low wage countries in order to protect American workers. Whereas Clinton strongly supported the agreements, then flipped her opinion for political convenience during her presidential runs.
Immigration:
Sanders and Clinton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFgCQ0VG-8s
Sanders explains that he voted against the immigration bill in 2007, as recommended by LULAC (the largest and oldest Hispanic organization in the US) and other groups, because it contained guest work programs that were “akin to slavery”.
Clinton supported the deportation of Central American children who were fleeing violence in their home countries.
Fighting for the Poor:
Sanders:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HyKeBK1iWg
Sanders rips in to a Republican budget director over proposed tax breaks for the rich and cuts to social programs.
Clinton:
I couldn’t find anything.
Feel free to copy and post elsewhere.