Dear Friends,
The debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night could not have done a better job of highlighting the choice that we have between these two candidates and their policies, opinions and positions.
War v. Peace
On foreign policy, except for a short discussion about NATO where the candidates are in basic agreement, the Middle East was the focus. Senator Sanders laid out a very clear and articulate position that acknowledged the right of Israel to exist in peace and security, but also acknowledged the same right for the Palestinian people. Senator Sanders made it clear that the Israeli response to the latest conflict in Gaza was an over-reaction by Israel. Secretary Clinton refused to acknowledge that Israel over-reacted. You cannot achieve peace between Israel and Palestine until you acknowledge the atrocities on both sides. Senator Sanders' approach is the only one that has any chance of bringing peace.
With respect to Syria, Secretary Clinton, who has frequently chastised Senator Sanders for criticizing President Obama, laid the blame for the Syrian situation on President Obama because he did not take her advice to more aggressively arm the "friendly forces" fighting against Assad and establishing a no-fly zone which virtually all experts say would lead to more US troops fighting in Syria. She also refused to take any responsibility for the debacle in Libya. President Obama has said that one of the biggest mistakes of his Administration was not planning for what happens after Gaddafi is deposed. Secretary Clinton refused to accept any responsibility even though she was a strong proponent within the Obama Administration for regime change in Libya. She blamed the Libyan people for failing to take her advice and accept American troops in Libya.
We have a clear choice - Secretary Clinton, a clear hawk or Senator Sanders, a thoughtful person who will acknowledge reality, seek peace and use force only as a last resort.
Status Quo v. Real Change
On issue after issue, it is clear that Secretary Clinton supports the status quo, with only incremental changes, and it is equally clear that Senator Sanders believes we need big and substantive changes now. This difference represents a fight for the soul of the Democratic Party. When Secretary Clinton says that Senator Sanders is not a real Democrat, what she means is that he is not part of the move to the right, Republican light, Democratic Party establishment founded by her husband. There is a great sentence going around the internet - "There is only one moderate Republican running in this election, and she is running as a Democrat." I have said before that President Obama is about as far right as President Eisenhower was. Secretary Clinton is clearly to the right of President Eisenhower particularly on the use of force. President Bill Clinton formed an unholy alliance with big business. Secretary Clinton will continue that alliance. Senator Sanders will break up that alliance.
Secretary Clinton claims that she wants to get to universal healthcare coverage but has only plans to add an incremental number of people and attacks Senator Sanders' plan for Medicare for all. She says he would throw out Obamacare which is not true. He would keep Obamacare until the Medicare for all was in place. She wants incremental change and calls it pragmatism. She says she supports the movement for a $15 minimum wage, yet she refuses to support Senator Sanders' bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $15 instead she supports a competing bill to raise the federal minimum wage to $12 an hour. She claims that she wants to protect the economy from another melt down but continues to fight against breaking up the big banks even though they are bigger now than before the great recession and the Fed and FDIC have recently called them too big. She continues to say we should regulate them but, in an implicit criticism of President Obama, says that she would be tougher. However, she fails to acknowledge that the big banks have successfully stalled on developing "living wills" for more than five years. She says that she stood up to the big banks before the great recession but fails to acknowledge that she completely failed in changing their behavior. The time has come to stop coddling the big banks and break them up.
She uses the overturning of the Citizens United case as one of her two litmus tests for any Supreme Court nominee and states that big money is corrupting our political system but refuses to acknowledge that it has any impact on her. Apparently she is immune to all the pressures that other politicians are not immune to. She cannot answer the simple question of why she will not release the transcripts of her paid speeches to Wall Street. Her only response is that she will not release them unless everybody does, obviously including all Republican candidates. Senator Sanders has not made closed door speeches to Wall Street. The only logical conclusion that I can reach is that she would be embarrassed by those speeches if the transcripts became public.
The most important area where Secretary Clinton's incremental only approach to change cannot be accepted is with respect to climate change. With every new report we are closer to a cataclysmic tipping point than was previously thought. The time for incremental action has passed. We need big change now. Senator Sanders would ban fracking, would ban further drilling on federal lands, would place a tax on carbon and would focus completely on moving to sustainable, renewable energy. Secretary Clinton promoted fracking around the world as Secretary of State, she refuses to say she would ban fracking, she refuses to say she would stop drilling on federal lands, and she refuses to say that she would support a carbon tax. She says we need to move to sustainable energy but will do it in a "practical" and "possible" way, which is to say with small incremental steps. That approach will destroy the earth for my grandchildren and is unacceptable.
Of course the debate was full of moments when Secretary Clinton obfuscated the facts while Senator Sanders was transparent about his positions. While saying she would fight climate change, she refused to indicate immediate actions she would take that would have a significant impact, while saying she supports a $15 per hour federal minimum wage, she actually supports a move to $12 per hour, while claiming she supports Senator Sanders' policy of extending the life of the social security trust fund she refuses to support raising the income cap on social security taxes or endorsing any other particular approach, while saying she would be tough on the big banks, she refuses to support doing anything more than have the regulators be "tough" which has failed miserably so far and while saying she will work for peace between Israel and Palestine, she refuses to acknowledge the Israeli atrocities only the Palestinian ones.
She also continues to distort Senator Sanders' record. She claimed that most of the gun deaths in New York resulted from guns from Vermont which is absurd. While acknowledging that her statement was incorrect, she refused to apologize. Instead she made the even more absurd statement that Senator Sanders does the bidding of the NRA in the Senate. That statement is blatantly false as everyone including the NRA knows since it gives him a D- rating.
She claims that Senator Sanders could not answer the questions in the New York Daily News interview correctly even about breaking up the big banks. I have actually read that interview in total and either Secretary Clinton is lying or she has not read the interview. But you do not have to believe me, you can listen to this segment of Democracy Now today (here), it is entitled, "Juan González: Clinton Has 'Really Distorted' What Happened When NY Daily News Interviewed Sanders". Senator Sanders answered the questions of the interviewer precisely and accurately. The question to which he answered that he didn't know was whether the Fed has the right to break up the banks. That is a correct statement, nobody knows for sure if the Fed does have that authority. When asked about the President's authority to break up the banks, he correctly stated the process under Dodd-Frank by which the President can break up the big banks including that in the end the banks themselves determine exactly what assets to shed, etc.
We have a clear choice and in my opinion Senator Sanders is by far the better choice.
I should also point out that Senator Sanders will win a general election against any Republican while Secretary Clinton is quite vulnerable against any Republican other than Trump. In the most recent polls reported by RealClearPolitics (here), both Clinton and Sanders beat Trump although Sanders beats him by quite a bit more. The interesting results are that Clinton is in a statistical tie with Cruz beating him by 1 point in one poll and 3 points in another poll. Sanders on the other hand defeats Cruz by 12 points in both those polls. With respect to Kasich, Clinton loses to him by 9 and 6 points while Sanders beats him by 4 and 5 points.
Sanders is by far the better candidate both because of his positions and because of his electability.
Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment