She said she has “a little chuckle to myself” when she thinks about the current debates over health care. “I don’t know,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Where was he when I was trying to get health care in ’93 and ’94?”
She said she has “a little chuckle to myself” when she thinks about the current debates over health care. “I don’t know,” Mrs. Clinton said. “Where was he when I was trying to get health care in ’93 and ’94?”
I think the Sandboys have officially driven me from the Sanders camp to the Hillary camp.
There was this thing floating around reddit. You know how Hillary said "Where was Sanders when I was fighting for healthcare in '93 and '94?" And then they show that picture with Hillary at a podium with Sanders right behind her?
That says something that I think Sandboys have missed -
Yes, Bernie was there. In the background. Following Hillary's lead.
You want to be a leader, you need to actually be in the foreground.
The more I've been thinking on that point, the more I realize that Bernie really hasn't lead or been a champion. He's yelled from on high and watched nothing happen. He's spent 30 or so years just showing up and shouting.
So many images are "look, here's a time when Bernie showed up."
You need to do more than show up if you want to be POTUS.
That's pretty shaky logic. I mean, Sanders was a freshman in the House in 1993. Of course the First Lady is going to be more emphasized than him. He's done a lot more than showing up and shouting in his 30 year tenure, but he hasn't been in high profile executive role for 12 years like Clinton was. Compare his Congressional record to Clinton's time in the Senate and you'll find there's not much difference in effectiveness.
Yes, Bernie was there. In the background. Following Hillary's lead.
The Clinton campaign made a similar response - something along the lines of "Yes, he was behind, with Hillary in the lead, how history repeats itself".
Also, the Sandboys are also forgetting something else - while he's standing behind her at the podium, and while she gave him a photo saying "Thanks for the help", Sanders himself wrote in his autobiography "Outsider in the white house" regarding the legislation: "The complicated and compromised bill which they brought forth was not something that I could support."
So, despite the very rapid finding of a photo with him showing up, in his own words, he did not support that legislation, despite giving his assistance during the process.
That's pretty shaky logic. I mean, Sanders was a freshman in the House in 1993. Of course the First Lady is going to be more emphasized than him. He's done a lot more than showing up and shouting in his 30 year tenure, but he hasn't been in high profile executive role for 12 years like Clinton was. Compare his Congressional record to Clinton's time in the Senate and you'll find there's not much difference in effectiveness.
Wasn't 1993 his second term in Congress? Young, but not a freshman.
And yes, I'm aware that he was young at the time and didn't have the pull that Hillary did - but I think that just plays into my larger point about the notion of him "fighting" as much as Hillary did. You can't point to his place as a young Congressman and say "look he fought too." It's not an actual counterpoint to Clinton's assertion.
Clinton has done much more effective work outside of the Senate, I think. She's used her position to actually champion a cause. You can say it's hard to do that in Congress, but I will point out that there are Congresspeople who do indeed get a high profile from their involvement.
Sanders has the voting record, no doubt. I have nearly 100% support for his nuts-and-bolts work to-date. But some of his causes take more than votes to support.
That's pretty shaky logic. I mean, Sanders was a freshman in the House in 1993. Of course the First Lady is going to be more emphasized than him. He's done a lot more than showing up and shouting in his 30 year tenure, but he hasn't been in high profile executive role for 12 years like Clinton was. Compare his Congressional record to Clinton's time in the Senate and you'll find there's not much difference in effectiveness.
Elizabeth Warren says hi. Even though she's only been in the Senate for three years, I would say that Warren already had a higher profile than Bernie, up until he decided to run for president and she didn't.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bernie is that he keeps talking about this impending "revolution," but hasn't done anything in his 30+ years in Congress to get it started. He hasn't campaigned for other progressives, he hasn't mentored other politicians who agree with him, he sits up in Vermont yelling, but not actually doing anything. Imagine how different things would have been if 30 years ago he started his own coalition, started supporting candidates who were more liberal. They would have trickled their way through government.
As a Hillary supporter I have to point out that you shouldn't judge your support on the idiots who support someone. While Bernie has some freaking moron's most of his supporters are not super crazy just as most of Trumps supppp...... hahaha I can't even say most of Trump's supporters are not racist. hmmm. Scratch that point.
I am just getting tired of all the completely incorrect meme's going around by the Bernie People. From the pictures of a white dude with glasses standing behind MLK (not actually him) to dinging Clinton on an environmental bill that he himself didn't vote for. Plus the complete lack of understanding of the primary system from the beginning to the end and the disregarding of the Southern states primaries because "They won't vote Democratic anyway but Screw those voters". Not to mention all the crap about how if Bernie loses the primary it will be against the majority of people who want Bernie even though he has like a million votes deficit right now. Apparently loyal democratic voters don't count in the Democratic Primary... compared to the Indep and Republicans that seem to vote for Bernie.. funny that. //rant over.
He writes a lot of legislation. It doesn't make news because it all dies in committee because that's how Bernie rolls, always championing the lost cause. His downfall in leadership is that he's an independent. He doesn't network like Clinton does. He doesn't have the allies Clinton has. He doesn't talk the Democrat talk or walk the Democrat walk. He is more dedicated to the voters in Vermont who put him into power than to the people who would escalate his power. That removal of himself from the establishment is what's led his long tenure to feature few things like chairmanship, and why he has few Congressional endorsements.
The primary process is about picking the best Democrat to lead the party on the national stage. If anything, Bernie sticking to his guns and ignoring inner-party politics is a reason to not vote for him; he hasn't shown any interest or investment in the Democratic Party to this point, so why should we make him our representative now?
He writes a lot of legislation. It doesn't make news because it all dies in committee because that's how Bernie rolls, always championing the lost cause. His downfall in leadership is that he's an independent. He doesn't network like Clinton does. He doesn't have the allies Clinton has. He doesn't talk the Democrat talk or walk the Democrat walk. He is more dedicated to the voters in Vermont who put him into power than to the people who would escalate his power. That removal of himself from the establishment is what's led his long tenure to feature few things like chairmanship, and why he has few Congressional endorsements.
And let's not forget this:
I totally get what you're saying and, to some degree, I respect Bernie for that. At the same time though, a politician who doesn't network, who doesn't have allies, who's an outsider, and isn't even a member of either party isn't a very effective politician. That's great that he writes a lot of legislation, but unless some of it gets passed, unless he's able to influence other bills or other members of Congress, he's still just yelling into the void. Bernie Sanders isn't in Congress by himself. In order to get things done, you have to work with other people, you have to compromise, you have to have political allies and network. These relationships are just as important, if not more so, to presidents.
You put Sanders as the Democratic nominee if you believe that the Democrats have completely folded to a heavy conservative push to the point where Sanders' very globally moderate ideas are considered radical in the US. The Democrats no longer represent what many liberals believe they want in politics, as they look to countries like Canada or countries in Europe as representations of the lives they want to live. Sanders is not good friends with the Democrats, he doesn't have their support, and he is an outsider. And some of us like that, since we think the Democrats don't need another well-connected person who makes compromises. If you think that is what they need, more power to you.
He writes a lot of legislation. It doesn't make news because it all dies in committee because that's how Bernie rolls, always championing the lost cause.
This, ironically enough, is the thing I think I ultimately dislike about him.
Why are these "lost causes?" If you never network or politick, then sure, your efforts will stall out.
But if Sanders spent 20 years "playing the game" as described above, maybe he'd have been able to actually create the support base necessary to make sure that his causes aren't actually "lost."
I 100% support his ideas, and I absolutely loathe the way that he "fights" for them. Writing non-starter legislation isn't fighting - he might as well just write a blog.
If your aim is to fight successfully, you have to get your opponent to move. Facing them and throwing shots straight into their gloves isn't fighting.
We need a lot of representatives like Sanders, people who are not afraid to put forth ideas that are unpopular because they're the thing that's right. Increasingly, though, I see him not as a leader. He works - he does not direct work.
I think he might make a good VP, though - someone who is given leverage, and who will use that leverage to move a platform. He clearly cannot build his own leverage, so if he piggybacked on someone who can, he might actually be able to get things done.
This 12 second interaction was pretty much the straw that put me in camp hillary: (EDIT: timestamp links don't work, go to 11:48)
I don't think he has the qualities to be a good leader when he can't even engage in an equal and respectful way with the female journalist. She has to do a lot of coded submission (and his wife has to elbow him hard) before he lets her get a question out.
As a Hillary supporter I have to point out that you shouldn't judge your support on the idiots who support someone. While Bernie has some freaking moron's most of his supporters are not super crazy just as most of Trumps supppp...... hahaha I can't even say most of Trump's supporters are not racist. hmmm. Scratch that point.
I am just getting tired of all the completely incorrect meme's going around by the Bernie People. From the pictures of a white dude with glasses standing behind MLK (not actually him) to dinging Clinton on an environmental bill that he himself didn't vote for. Plus the complete lack of understanding of the primary system from the beginning to the end and the disregarding of the Southern states primaries because "They won't vote Democratic anyway but Screw those voters". Not to mention all the crap about how if Bernie loses the primary it will be against the majority of people who want Bernie even though he has like a million votes deficit right now. Apparently loyal democratic voters don't count in the Democratic Primary... compared to the Indep and Republicans that seem to vote for Bernie.. funny that. //rant over.
Well, to clarify:
It's not that I've looked at Sandboys and said "ugh these people are all idiots, and I'm not an idiot, so why would associate with them?"
Rather, I've followed arguments and read many articles. I've looked at the evidence that has been provided by the rabid pro-Sanders camp. The thing that I've found is that, time and time again, I disagree with their assessment of the same evidence.
It's not that I'm turned off by the people - it's that the arguments mounted by the people have shown me that Sanders is not the candidate I wanted him to be.
And that honestly really sucks, because he's probably the only candidate I've ever seen whose platform actually matches almost the entirety of what I want.
If there was an actual viable at this time movement, Sanders would be creaming Clinton right now in the Democratic Primary. As it stands he can't even win the majority of Democratic primary voters. Who are more nature supporters of his cause, if he had been effective at building a "Movement" or "revolution" in the last 20 years maybe he'd be somewhere today. But as it stands he's about 20 years too late at building the movement he wants to inspire today.
When Sanders loses this race, his movement will largely fall apart because the fact that it's currently only standard bearer is Sanders. His movement is hollow.
Bernie Could have been working within the party all this time building a team of people to work with much like the Tea party Caucus in the Senate and House. But he didn't do that. That shows very ineffective use of power. I want to vote for Sanders but I don't view him as someone who can effectively govern the country at this time.
This 12 second interaction was pretty much the straw that put me in camp hillary: (EDIT: timestamp links don't work, go to 11:48)
I don't think he has the qualities to be a good leader when he can't even engage in an equal and respectful way with the female journalist. She has to do a lot of coded submission (and his wife has to elbow him hard) before he lets her get a question out.
I wasn't aware of this show, I gotta watch it now...
When Sanders loses this race, his movement will largely fall apart because the fact that it's currently only standard bearer is Sanders. His movement is hollow.
As a figurehead yes, but I think the Democratic Party will mobilize to try to keep the people he's introduced into the party. He's proven that there was a large part of the country that does care about these issues but feels unrepresented. His pull of independents isn't something to ignore if you're in the business of winning elections.
You guys should also keep in mind I didn't vote for him for what he'll do with Congress as President. I'm assuming the GOP will keep control of Congress through 2018 at least and continue with their obstructionist actions, and that Sanders and Clinton will have the Congressional policy of one of those wooden birds that dips its head with a veto stamp attached to its beak. I'm voting for him because Clinton wants to advance War on Terror policies whereas Bernie has yet to say anything about those that scares me like she does.
Working with the Democratic party would corrupt everything Bernie stands for, and it's likely he would be just like any other Democrat if he did. What makes him unique, and why his policy and voting record are so appealing, is because he's rejected party politics for the most part.
Working with the Democratic party would corrupt everything Bernie stands for, and it's likely he would be just like any other Democrat if he did. What makes him unique, and why his policy and voting record are so appealing, is because he's rejected party politics for the most part.
But it's also why he's not going to be President...
Working with the Democratic party would corrupt everything Bernie stands for, and it's likely he would be just like any other Democrat if he did. What makes him unique, and why his policy and voting record are so appealing, is because he's rejected party politics for the most part.
But it's also why he's not going to be President...
Which is more important in the general, appealing to pledged Democrats or appealing to swing voters and moderate Republicans?
I suppose it boils down to what you value most. A moderately corrupt politician who get's stuff done, or one who might not be as effective but sticks to their principles.
Hint: One of those decisions has led our political system to today's shitshow.
Working with the Democratic party would corrupt everything Bernie stands for, and it's likely he would be just like any other Democrat if he did. What makes him unique, and why his policy and voting record are so appealing, is because he's rejected party politics for the most part.
But it's also why he's not going to be President...
Which is more important in the general, appealing to pledged Democrats or appealing to swing voters and moderate Republicans?
Here is the thing, it doesn't matter. If you are in the Democratic primary you have to win the Democratic Primary before you can start appealing to Swing voters and Moderate Republicans. You only have to look at a long list of Republican candidates that have to awkwardly be far right in the primary and swing for the middle in the general. Honestly not sure how much swing voters and Moderate republicans are going to hang with Sanders in the General. The D's would have had a tough election regardless of who wins if the Republican party hadn't picked this moment to completely self destruct.
Also on top of that when you have a polarized election such the US has gotten into it's more important to push your base out then try and convince people.
I suppose it boils down to what you value most. A moderately corrupt politician who get's stuff done, or one who might not be as effective but sticks to their principles.
Hint: One of those decisions has led our political system to today's shitshow.
Andrew is completely right, the whole reason the republican party is blowing up is they let their right wing no compromise candidates take over their party and now they are stuck with a lack of ability to govern properly. Which has created an enormous wedge within the party.
The Democrats are not at that point yet, but the more "No Compromise talk" that occurs the closer they will become to acting just like the Tea Party folks.
Comments
Ha.
Here's the thing though.... Listen to the crowd. Something about the sounds there give me a visceral, get-ready-to-defend-yourself feeling.
There was this thing floating around reddit. You know how Hillary said "Where was Sanders when I was fighting for healthcare in '93 and '94?" And then they show that picture with Hillary at a podium with Sanders right behind her?
That says something that I think Sandboys have missed -
Yes, Bernie was there. In the background. Following Hillary's lead.
You want to be a leader, you need to actually be in the foreground.
The more I've been thinking on that point, the more I realize that Bernie really hasn't lead or been a champion. He's yelled from on high and watched nothing happen. He's spent 30 or so years just showing up and shouting.
So many images are "look, here's a time when Bernie showed up."
You need to do more than show up if you want to be POTUS.
Tell me why I'm wrong.
Also, the Sandboys are also forgetting something else - while he's standing behind her at the podium, and while she gave him a photo saying "Thanks for the help", Sanders himself wrote in his autobiography "Outsider in the white house" regarding the legislation: "The complicated and compromised bill which they brought forth was not something that I could support."
So, despite the very rapid finding of a photo with him showing up, in his own words, he did not support that legislation, despite giving his assistance during the process.
And yes, I'm aware that he was young at the time and didn't have the pull that Hillary did - but I think that just plays into my larger point about the notion of him "fighting" as much as Hillary did. You can't point to his place as a young Congressman and say "look he fought too." It's not an actual counterpoint to Clinton's assertion.
Clinton has done much more effective work outside of the Senate, I think. She's used her position to actually champion a cause. You can say it's hard to do that in Congress, but I will point out that there are Congresspeople who do indeed get a high profile from their involvement.
Sanders has the voting record, no doubt. I have nearly 100% support for his nuts-and-bolts work to-date. But some of his causes take more than votes to support.
One of my biggest criticisms of Bernie is that he keeps talking about this impending "revolution," but hasn't done anything in his 30+ years in Congress to get it started. He hasn't campaigned for other progressives, he hasn't mentored other politicians who agree with him, he sits up in Vermont yelling, but not actually doing anything. Imagine how different things would have been if 30 years ago he started his own coalition, started supporting candidates who were more liberal. They would have trickled their way through government.
I am just getting tired of all the completely incorrect meme's going around by the Bernie People. From the pictures of a white dude with glasses standing behind MLK (not actually him) to dinging Clinton on an environmental bill that he himself didn't vote for. Plus the complete lack of understanding of the primary system from the beginning to the end and the disregarding of the Southern states primaries because "They won't vote Democratic anyway but Screw those voters". Not to mention all the crap about how if Bernie loses the primary it will be against the majority of people who want Bernie even though he has like a million votes deficit right now. Apparently loyal democratic voters don't count in the Democratic Primary... compared to the Indep and Republicans that seem to vote for Bernie.. funny that. //rant over.
And let's not forget this:
Why are these "lost causes?" If you never network or politick, then sure, your efforts will stall out.
But if Sanders spent 20 years "playing the game" as described above, maybe he'd have been able to actually create the support base necessary to make sure that his causes aren't actually "lost."
I 100% support his ideas, and I absolutely loathe the way that he "fights" for them. Writing non-starter legislation isn't fighting - he might as well just write a blog.
If your aim is to fight successfully, you have to get your opponent to move. Facing them and throwing shots straight into their gloves isn't fighting.
We need a lot of representatives like Sanders, people who are not afraid to put forth ideas that are unpopular because they're the thing that's right. Increasingly, though, I see him not as a leader. He works - he does not direct work.
I think he might make a good VP, though - someone who is given leverage, and who will use that leverage to move a platform. He clearly cannot build his own leverage, so if he piggybacked on someone who can, he might actually be able to get things done.
(EDIT: timestamp links don't work, go to 11:48)
I don't think he has the qualities to be a good leader when he can't even engage in an equal and respectful way with the female journalist. She has to do a lot of coded submission (and his wife has to elbow him hard) before he lets her get a question out.
It's not that I've looked at Sandboys and said "ugh these people are all idiots, and I'm not an idiot, so why would associate with them?"
Rather, I've followed arguments and read many articles. I've looked at the evidence that has been provided by the rabid pro-Sanders camp. The thing that I've found is that, time and time again, I disagree with their assessment of the same evidence.
It's not that I'm turned off by the people - it's that the arguments mounted by the people have shown me that Sanders is not the candidate I wanted him to be.
And that honestly really sucks, because he's probably the only candidate I've ever seen whose platform actually matches almost the entirety of what I want.
When Sanders loses this race, his movement will largely fall apart because the fact that it's currently only standard bearer is Sanders. His movement is hollow.
Bernie Could have been working within the party all this time building a team of people to work with much like the Tea party Caucus in the Senate and House. But he didn't do that. That shows very ineffective use of power. I want to vote for Sanders but I don't view him as someone who can effectively govern the country at this time.
You guys should also keep in mind I didn't vote for him for what he'll do with Congress as President. I'm assuming the GOP will keep control of Congress through 2018 at least and continue with their obstructionist actions, and that Sanders and Clinton will have the Congressional policy of one of those wooden birds that dips its head with a veto stamp attached to its beak. I'm voting for him because Clinton wants to advance War on Terror policies whereas Bernie has yet to say anything about those that scares me like she does.
Hint: One of those decisions has led our political system to today's shitshow.
Also on top of that when you have a polarized election such the US has gotten into it's more important to push your base out then try and convince people.
The Democrats are not at that point yet, but the more "No Compromise talk" that occurs the closer they will become to acting just like the Tea Party folks.