Monday, February 1, 2016

Clinton and Sanders

Nice summary of the difference:
the largest difference between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Sanders is not over policy. There is scant daylight between them on most issues and certainly almost all of the causes near and dear to Democrats’ and progressives’ hearts. The largest difference, and therefore what the Democratic Party is truly grappling with, is not about two different visions of the party. The choice is between two theories of change. It’s the difference between working the system and smashing it.

Mr. Sanders is promising to get a lot done: tuition-free college, breaking up the largest banks, health care for all, a $15 minimum wage, even guaranteed vacation time. None of these ideas have much salience among Republican lawmakers, and he doesn’t appear to be the kind of messenger who might inspire them to give in.

But these aren’t just empty postures for Mr. Sanders. He promises that as president he would bring them about through what he’s calling “political revolution.” The idea is that his campaign will be so inspirational to voters, particularly young people and others who might not otherwise vote, that they will not just sweep him into office. They’ll vote out intransigent Republicans and usher in a wave of legislators who will help enact his agenda. “The only way we can get things done is by having millions of people coming together,” he explained at the first Democratic debate in October. . . .

If Mr. Sanders embodies idealism, then Mrs. Clinton is pragmatism incarnate. Mrs. Clinton’s message of how to get things done takes the lessons of President Obama’s eight years in office — that Republicans will mostly unite against anything, even policies that they once supported — and, rather than change the system, she promises to work it. At the same early debate where Mr. Sanders explained his revolution, Mrs. Clinton was asked if she was a progressive. “I’m a progressive,” she responded. “But I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.”
Since I think Sanders' revolution is a fantasy — anyone like to place a bet that Congress will have a majority of democratic socialists within the next decade? anybody? — that leaves me with Hillary.


Shadow said...

So, she's a progressive who likes to get things done. So what has Hillary gotten done? I'm not talking about what jobs she's had but what she's accomplished while holding these jobs. I looked at the accomplishments listed at, and they seem rather sparse. "Fought for" is not an accomplishment.

Comparisons to Kerry are striking.

Just wondering.

John said...

I would never argue that Hillary has a great record of accomplishment. I just think her grind-it-out approach stands a much better chance of achieving anything than the hope for a revolution approach. If any Democrat wins and Republicans continue to hold the House, likely very little will get done at all.

Shadow said...

Fair enough, John.

But Hillary keeps saying she is the candidate who can get things done. Well, I'd like to see a resume that backed that up. I think she is two-thirds party-media creation.

And I question her judgement. This whole email server debacle stuns me. I don't know where it's going, but at a minimum, for me, it shows incredibly poor judgement -- and it's a violation of the public trust and the antithesis of "Good Government." What responsible person would do such a thing? Really? It's stunning! What arrogance!

Her biggest asset is who she is running against (both parties).


pootrsox said...

You're both right, I think!

Though to be fair, her work as SecState was powerful in restoring a positive view of the US in many places around the world. And her record as an advocate for women and children dates back to her 20's if not before.