Minnesota Network for Progressive Action


 
Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Listed on BlogShares

 
site search

Site Meter
 
  Progressive Political Blog

Progressive Politics in Minnesota, the Nation, and the World

It's OK To Point Out Dem Candidate Differences - But Be Fair

Category: Presidential Politics
Posted: 02/07/16 15:25, Edited: 02/07/16 15:25

by Dave Mindeman

I realize that when you have an intra-party contest, there will be points of contention and differences that need to be defined. I get that. But there are a couple of arguments going on lately which I think are pretty lame. And it is one on each side.

First, in regards to the Clinton contention that Bernie Sanders' preference for single payer will blow up Obamacare. That is not even close to accurate and pretty unfair. With a President Sanders, Obamacare will never be repealed and will only be dismantled if a better system can actually pass Congress. If he can't get it through, then we still have the current system. End of argument.

Secondly, the Sanders campaign charges about Clinton's Goldman Sachs speeches also stretches the bounds of credulity. Yes, Clinton takes a lot of corporate donations and yes, a lot of money comes from Wall Street. She has taken a similar pathway to most of the other Presidential candidates, including Obama. Bernie has carved out a preferred donor base, but not many political figures are able to do that. Kudos to him - but it hardly makes Hillary Clinton some kind of corporate shill. I live in the 2nd Congressional district - I know corporate shills.

And let's take the Goldman Sachs speeches. Yeah, that is a lot of money to be paid for a speech, but Bill and Hillary Clinton built a reputation and a global foundation that commands those types of fees. Goldman Sachs is not buying influence - they are trying to take advantage of a brand. When they can announce that Hillary Clinton is going to give a speech on foreign policy at their venue, it raises the profile of not only Hillary Clinton, but also Goldman Sachs....or whatever corporate or non-profit entity manages to get either of them for their discussions.

Sure, it is easy to look at the correlation and be suspicious. But I also think it is unfair to assume the worst. I think she has trouble explaining such fees because the Clinton's have acquired a high level of influence. I doubt that Goldman Sachs is going to be able to pressure the Clintons to bend to their will when they have global connections all over the world that interconnect in a host of ways.

The proof of that is a thoughtful and tough policy on the banking industry. Nobel economist Paul Krugman said that Hillary's plan is the best of any of the Presidential candidates.

And in addition, Clinton's reasoning about representing New York, the home of Wall Street is valid as well. Bernie Sanders' representation of Vermont has definitely affected his stances on the gun industry. Both Hillary and Bernie are moving leftward on those positions now....and for me, their explanations are good enough.

So, before we get into these constant charges and counter charges in social media, please remember - these two candidates are head and shoulders above the public policies that we would see if the GOP candidate would win.

If you want to point out differences, I understand, but let's keep it fair.
comments (4) permalink
SW
10/13/16 14:21
TRUMP 2016

Say FU to Hillary, the bias media, and corrupt government. Let them know we the people control our vote - not them.

Get out and vote Minnesota - we can make a statement as we proved when electing Jessie Venture for Governor.

Now lets give the Republican party a chance, the Democrats have done nothing for us over the last 8 years - time for real change.

TRUMP 2016
 
Ford
02/09/16 12:27
Laughable! Seriously? She threatens to make Bill sleep on the couch and you call that a "win?"

Hillary has done little to move the ball in any direction. Most importantly, she is the lightning rod creating problems. You cite two examples of failure by any measure and call it success? The woman has a very long history of not getting it done. Why?

Leadership is more than air miles. Leadership is more than waiving hands, shouting loudly, and protesting as you vote for or against a measure. Leadership is about getting it done. And this is one politician who fails to get it done so often as to make said failure 'bankable.'

I'm just sayin...
 
Stephen H. Parsons
02/09/16 08:11
Agree with Dave Mindeman. Hillary has practiced politics as the art of the possible. I love Elizabeth Warren, but she unfairly accused Hillary of changing her position on bankruptcy "reform" when she got into the Senate. When Hillary was first lady, with influence over one person who could stop the "reform" bill, she used it, and President Clinton did a pocket veto of the bill. But that bill had passed on an 85-15 vote in the Senate. Lots of Democratic votes in there in favor of the bill. When Hillary got into the Senate and (most importantly) George W. (who would have signed the bill) was President, she negotiated for provisions in the "reform" bill that would have protected child support for women. But the price of that negotiation was that she had to support the bill as amended. As it was the 2001 "reform" bill never got to Bush because of House/Senate disagreements on abortion issues. Hillary did not vote on the "reform" bill in 2005 because she was with her husband when he was in the hospital, but issued a statement in opposition. I suppose that, had Hillary KNOWN in 2001 that the "reform" bill wasn't going to get to Bush for signature she could have drawn her line in the sand instead of practicing the art of the possible. Elizabeth Warren insinuated in her mid-2000's interview with Bill Moyers that Hillary had surrendered to financial industry money. Other Senators might have, but it's totally unfair to insinuate that Hillary did so.

 
Ford
02/08/16 10:02
Bill Clinton is painting the Democrats into a corner. Their only viable candidate, Bernie, is a leper? Seriously? The Clintons are showing their real character. It takes unbelievable hubris and arrogance to think that only the Clintons can run the place. To think that only they are the ordained priests over Liberalism.

It is customary for political parties to eat their own. Primaries provide ample opportunity for the opposition party to challenge the extreme credentials (either left or right) that get enshrined in the primary process. Dayton didn't even try to work the endorsement process and wins the party's affection anyway. Such is the state of the MN Democratic Party--a meaningless nomination process.

Letting Bill Clinton take the stage is a huge gamble. He attacks his own party's only viable candidate to what end? Self Interest... Just think of all those young interns running around his house! He can't wait!
 

Calendar

« November 2017 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30


Latest posts


Archive

(one year)

Categories


Comments



Links


RSS Feeds

RSS 0.91
RSS 2.0

 
 
 
Powered by
Powered by SBlog
 
Copyright © Minnesota Network for Progressive Action. All rights reserved. Legal. Privacy Policy. Sitemap.