Hill's Group: What really shaped Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders

[BlueMTexpat]

This is, on balance, a good article about BOTH candidates. But I will only post in this group because I will not put up with the mud-slinging against HRC that is the rule in GD-P or risk having it characterized as a "hit piece" against Bernie (it's not). Some of you are better persons than I and dare to do such things.

For me, life is just too short to put up with the cr** even though I still probably wouldn't see much because I already have most of the worst offenders on Ignore.

http://theweek.com/articles/611892/what-really-shaped-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders

Let's start with Sanders. He grew up and came of age in Brooklyn, and was a student activist in college. But the most important decision he made in his political life was his move to Vermont in his 20s. A state that is both firmly liberal and almost entirely white allowed Sanders to build a political career without having to alter the radical politics he came to as a young man. He stayed an independent until his run for president, and was able to become mayor of Burlington, a member of the House, and then a senator, without being too concerned about the kind of coalitional, transactional politics that characterize the Democratic Party in most other places.

That's why the Bernie Sanders of today isn't that different from the Bernie Sanders of 20 or 30 years ago. And it's why he has stumbled from time to time in dealing with some of the party's main constituency groups, like African-Americans and Latinos, sometimes saying the wrong thing at the wrong time — not because he doesn't sympathize with them and share their goals, but because he isn't practiced at working with them.
...
Clinton, on the other hand, began her career in her husband's home state of Arkansas, which contains lots of African-Americans and lots of conservative whites, both of whom Bill was adept at appealing to. From the beginning, she was deeply embedded in the Democratic Party and had national ambitions. At what point they became ambitions for herself as well as for her husband, I really can't say, but they were both always aware of where the party as a whole was and where it was headed. She then spent eight years as the wife of the party's leader and another eight representing New York, which is both incredibly diverse and a place where the party is a complex collection of characters, groups, and interests that have to be balanced.

That means that Clinton has had a lot more practice at handling the Democratic Party's constituencies than Sanders has, coming from his rather bucolic northern home. It also means that unlike Sanders, Clinton had to move as the party's consensus moved, sometimes in small ways but sometimes in larger ways.

[JohnnyLib2]

1. Thanks for posting this.

It helps bring out the strengths and liabilities of each in a way not often presented.
"Handling constituencies" can also be applied to international affairs in general and HRC certainly has more experience in that.

[BlueMTexpat]

2. My opinion too! Thanks. eom

[SunSeeker]

3. Yes, and Sanders "moved with his constituencies" too.

Like voting against the Brady Bill, and supporting the F-35. But of course under the double standard applied to these two candidates, when Bernie does it, he's being "responsive to his constituents"; when Hillary does it, she's "bought."

[BlueMTexpat]

4. Hillary can never win

with some people. Some of the worst offenders are not Democrats and never will be, whatever they claim now.

Insofar as most Democrats are concerned, she's got broad-based support. In spite of her primary losses to Bernie in some states, she will still pull most - if not all - of the anti-GOP vote in a GE. She will also attract some "mainstream" Republicans (literally a dying breed) who are deeply ashamed of what their party now stands for. Some Republicans will either vote for her or not vote at all. Not voting at all would work in her favor.

Counting on "independents" - as some continue to argue here - is like trying to build something on sand. But even some who style themselves "independents" have still voted for Hillary, just not nearly in the same numbers as for Bernie.

Millennials who now support Bernie will just have to decide whether they want to be included in fighting against everything that every single one of the GOPers stands for or sit this one out. Or vice versa, if they currently support Hillary and, by some miracle, Bernie ends up winning the most delegates. It's their choice. There are already many "millennials" who support Hillary and who are every bit as passionate about that support as any of Bernie's supporters.

IMO, anyone who does not choose one of the two viable options in the GE, i.e., Dem GE candidate or Rep GE candidate, has forfeited their right to bitch and moan about the consequences. Not voting, voting for any Dem who is not the GE candidate, or writing in a third candidate's name all = failure to stand FOR something.

These facts drive Hillary's detractors crazy. One can see that any day here on DU. Some assaults have become truly unhinged.

[Rose Siding]

5. Hillary's career began before she was in AK

She worked legal aid in SC, Children's Defense in New England and the South, she did work in NM or AZ? with registration and organizing. Before all that she staffed some committee in DC.

At each stop she built a base of familiarity.

[BlueMTexpat]

6. True, I noticed that the

article elided over events happening pre-1972. But on the whole, it made some good points.

[pandr32]

7. It seems Sanders moved to where it would be the easiest for him.

He has remained simplistic, made few friends in Congress, and has avoided any real dogfights. He dismisses people and problems he does not like rather quickly...like he did with the delegation from Sierra Blanca, and like he originally did with BLM--until the political race and his ambition demanded he deal with them.