General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Throws Shade at Bernie: 'Fundamentally Wrong' About Democratic Party [View all]Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Yay TPP TPP! I really missed convos on the TPP! My absolute favorite.
Don't worry, HRC is not that liked, so don't worry about her lil book!
(sarcasm)
karynnj
113. Bernie Sanders ran on issues as much as any candidate ever has - including Hillary Clinton
As to impugning her character, he avoided completely the email question - actually refusing to use it. He DID speak of the paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and her connections to Wall Street. She countered by pointing out that she was the Senator for NY and Wall Street is there. Part of HRC's problem here was that she was not willing to explain or defend a position at the heart of that issue - TPP. Instead, she flipped 180 degrees and put herself against TPP, which in reality was her biggest accomplishment as Secretary of State.
In the debate she tried to create a new strawman. Bernie Sanders never accused her of quid pro quo - ie changing a position because of a contribution. The fact is HRC was well liked by Wall Street for her positions. The fact is that there was a difference between her positions on the economy and the leftmost social democrat she was against. Part of the problem was that HRC moved considerably towards Sanders' positions - especially on income inequality and Wall Street. The surprising thing in 2015 to me was that she shifted her own positions rather than to argue that Sanders was too extreme. (Leading me to think that internal polling had shown that that "outsider" position was very strong.)
A primary is always more prone to being personal rather than on big differences on issues. This is because there is significant homogeneity in each party. In fact, there was MORE difference on issues in 2016 than there was in 2008. Think back to the debates in 2008 and cite an issue where there were BIG differences. (Consider all were for expanding universal health care insurance and the biggest argument was on whether there should be a mandate or a high buy in for someone who did not originally opt to get insurance. ) The difference is usually who has what characteristics and what experience. Every Senator attacks every governor for having no foreign policy experience and every Governor attacks every legislator as not having any executive experience.
So, were there personal attacks in 2008? Bob Kerrey, advocate for HR speaking of madrases, Clinton's ad that said she and McCain were ready on day one to take that 3 am call. Elizabeth Edwards dishonestly speaking of how she and HRC had different values as she was staying home taking care of her two young kids -- ignoring that she, like Clinton, had worked when her first two were young.
Let's look at HRC's claim there. Let's say Bernie would not have run. Would there - independent of Bernie - have been claims that HRC was historically pro business/pro Wall Street? Would the fact that she given private paid speeches to Goldman Sachs and other places not been an issue. Trump was saying the same thing against Wall Street in the primaries -- and going far beyond Bernie making promises that he knew could not be kept.
As to unifying the progressives. There are many many definitions of "progressive". Where it is very easy to list what an economic liberal or a social values liberal believes in, there are not clear cut definitions of what a progressive is. Years ago, mystified by the rankings of Senators' progressiveness, I looked at the difference in votes that made one higher than the other. (I was curious why Sherrod Brown, to me the epitome of a progressive Senator) was so much lower than Feingold. The reason was that many votes that counted were more a measure of libertarianism. (Thus, you get points for voting against outlawing guns in luggage on public transportation. Also, a few votes on environmental issues were - in my opinion - backward.)I liked both Feingold and Brown, but I far preferred the Brown votes where they differed. In reality, it did not mean that the list was wrong, it meant that by that definition - I was not all that progressive and that progressive is NOT a synonym for liberal, which I clearly am.
Long digression, but the point is that the "progressives" and "populists" who voted for Trump are likely people who NEVER had a positive opinion of HRC ... or Obama .. and certainly not of the whole Kennedy/Kerry wing. Many progressives were more libertarian than liberal. Both of these terms cross standard party lines. In 2016, the one thing that both left and right progressive agreed on was considering trade policies to be evil. In the primaries, for people for whom this was a key issue, this was a Bernie issue. I think Bernie Sanders was the best ambassador HRC had to convince some skeptical "progressives" to vote for Clinton.
On this issue, Clinton needs to consider the harm she did to herself by holding those unnecessary paid speeches (yes it was her right to do and to charge the going rate, but she should have anticipated the political cost.) She also needs to look at what flipping her opinion on TPP - rather than using the standard nuance that tweaks might have to be made. One of the few harmful things to come from Podesta's email was the text of one of the speeches - speaking positively about TPP. Now, the speech was in 2013/2014 when she openly was saying the same thing. However, Trump spoke of her saying one thing in private and another in public. Fighting that would have emphasized that she changed her position (which really really should some day be defended as a prudent thing to do!)