Tall Midget wrote:
The point is that Sanders' record is indistinguishable from Clinton's despite the contention in this thread that Clinton is a "leader" who knows how to get things done.
The truth is that she accomplished little in the Senate.
As Secretary of State, she embraced a neoconservative militarist position that has had disastrous consequences internationally.
As first lady, she pursued a neoliberal economic agenda ("free" trade, austerity, privatization) that has had disastrous consequences domestically.
So when she has gotten things done--outside of elected office, mind you--the things that she has gotten done are generally pretty awful.
As a Senator, yes she accomplished little with sponsored or cosponsored legislation on the official record. Neither of them did. However, rightly or not, she is viewed to be more of a behind the scenes (soul-less) dealmaker and policy wonk. I love Bernie's ideas, but there is nothing to suggest that he would have the foggiest idea on how to drive them through. Listening to his interviews for years, it was clear he never had to once consider any in detail. As a result, he can always claim the higher moral/ethical ground, but it's also left him as the proverbial dog who finally caught the car, and now doesn't know what to do with it. The Daily News interview sadly kinda added credence to my earlier perception.
It's a perception that he carefully crafted and has to eat, for good and now bad. Just as she has to eat being a facilitator who wants nothing more than to keep the wheels rolling.
Her perception/reality is why I've never voted for a Clinton in a primary. She & Bill need to continually be pushed.
I still laugh at her supporters still trying to disassociate her from Bill's record, especially the corporatist parts. Especially when they want to include those years in her "experience"
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2347e/2347ebc0b7577f6bf259c9d833e0475bb719a9c1" alt="Laughing :lol:"
. She was a pragmatist who can justify (correctly, in her mind) NAFTA, extending Greenspan, ending Glass-Steagall, welfare reform and unopposed bombing raids. I think the criticisms of her for Bill's criminal "reforms" unfair, because iirc, they weren't all too unpopular at the time in the communities that are now supposed to be "outraged" by them now. In the neighborhood I've lived in most of my life, gunshots weren't (then) anything special and Jesse's remarks about who to be more fearful of while standing in line at an ATM weren't out of line. It'd be hypocritical of me to forget that I tended to generally agree with most of that thought at the time.
I'd like to believe that she's finally at the point in her life that she wants to leave a progressive legacy, but I'm not taking bets. What I will bet on though is that 3-4 Supreme Justice replacements (aside from Scalia) will be named shortly, and the notion of Kasich, Cruz, Trump or Paul Ryan types making their nominations is absolutely horrifying. Couple that with the my belief that I just don't think Bernie has a hope in hell in a general election, and imo his nomination would absolutely guarantee Citizens United+ on steroids.
If only for the Supremes alone, in the general I just don't see another reasonable choice except Hillary. And I'm growing more disappointed with some (like Nina Turner & others) their purity tests and increasingly questionable arguments.