Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Sanders Argues for "Yes We Can" While Clinton Counters "No We Can't"
This is the difference between the 2 candidates. Hillary is a peace meal approach, Bernie is a wrecking ball. We have done the peace meal approach, it's failed millions of people. It's time for change!
More at link!
Sanders Argues for "Yes We Can" While Clinton Counters "No We Can't"
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/05/sanders-argues-yes-we-can-while-clinton-counters-no-we-cant
"Hillary Clinton does represent the establishment," said Sanders. "I represent, I hope, ordinary Americans."
Amusing to Clinton or not, it has become quite clear that many, many people consider Clinton one of the firmest members of the Democratic party establishment—something that numerous observers (ex: here, here, here) appeared shocked to find out was restricted to only one gender.
According to John Nichols, writing at The Nation, Thursday night's debate was quite clearly a case of the 'It’s Just Not Achievable' argument from Clinton and her establishment backers (many of them in the media), versus the demand for a 'Political Revolution' espoused by Sanders and his supporters. In recent days, much has been made about how each candidate [link:http://commondreams.org/news/2016/02/03/bernie-and-hillary-twitter-debate-asks-what-makes-progressive|understands and defines the word "progressive."
]
In a blog post at the Campaign for America's Future, co-director Robert Borosage framed the debate as a battle over what each candidate believes is politically possible:
Sanders dominated the early portion of the debate, repeating his core message about the rigged economy and corrupted politics. In response to moderators quoting Clinton saying “It’s very hard to see how any of his proposals could ever be achievable,” Sanders reminded voters that “these are not radical ideas.”
He took on Clinton’s “No, We Can’t” refrain directly: Every major country in the world “has managed to provide health care to all people as a right and they are spending significantly less per capita on health care than we are. So I do not accept the belief that the United States of America can’t do that.” The same is true, he said, with tuition-free college and standing up to the ripoff of the drug companies.
Sanders’ argument is that our politics are corrupted and the rules are rigged to block these and other reforms. So we need a political revolution – millions of Americans standing up and demanding change – if we are to break the hold of big money and entrenched interests.
And with both candidates increasingly willing to make such contrasts between them known, as Nichols points out, Sanders made perhaps "the most powerful statement of the night—and one of the most powerful statements of the campaign" when he was given a chance to explain why Clinton's close ties with Wall Street—and the money she's received from investment firms and big banks in terms of campaign contributions and for speaking fees after she left State Department—should be concerning to voters.........
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/02/05/sanders-argues-yes-we-can-while-clinton-counters-no-we-cant
"Hillary Clinton does represent the establishment," said Sanders. "I represent, I hope, ordinary Americans."
Amusing to Clinton or not, it has become quite clear that many, many people consider Clinton one of the firmest members of the Democratic party establishment—something that numerous observers (ex: here, here, here) appeared shocked to find out was restricted to only one gender.
According to John Nichols, writing at The Nation, Thursday night's debate was quite clearly a case of the 'It’s Just Not Achievable' argument from Clinton and her establishment backers (many of them in the media), versus the demand for a 'Political Revolution' espoused by Sanders and his supporters. In recent days, much has been made about how each candidate [link:http://commondreams.org/news/2016/02/03/bernie-and-hillary-twitter-debate-asks-what-makes-progressive|understands and defines the word "progressive."
]
In a blog post at the Campaign for America's Future, co-director Robert Borosage framed the debate as a battle over what each candidate believes is politically possible:
Sanders dominated the early portion of the debate, repeating his core message about the rigged economy and corrupted politics. In response to moderators quoting Clinton saying “It’s very hard to see how any of his proposals could ever be achievable,” Sanders reminded voters that “these are not radical ideas.”
He took on Clinton’s “No, We Can’t” refrain directly: Every major country in the world “has managed to provide health care to all people as a right and they are spending significantly less per capita on health care than we are. So I do not accept the belief that the United States of America can’t do that.” The same is true, he said, with tuition-free college and standing up to the ripoff of the drug companies.
Sanders’ argument is that our politics are corrupted and the rules are rigged to block these and other reforms. So we need a political revolution – millions of Americans standing up and demanding change – if we are to break the hold of big money and entrenched interests.
And with both candidates increasingly willing to make such contrasts between them known, as Nichols points out, Sanders made perhaps "the most powerful statement of the night—and one of the most powerful statements of the campaign" when he was given a chance to explain why Clinton's close ties with Wall Street—and the money she's received from investment firms and big banks in terms of campaign contributions and for speaking fees after she left State Department—should be concerning to voters.........
