On what issue is Hillary better than Bernie?

[Motown_Johnny]

I saw in another thread, a statement that the poster has yet to see any issue where Hillary is a better choice than Bernie (paraphrased).

The one exception here might be gun control. Bernie supports things like background checks and even simple common sense legislation has no chance of passing Congress. I will admit up front that Hillary might be better on this one issue, but as far as bills that might actually get passed, there is no difference.

So here is your chance Clinton supporters. If Hillary becomes President instead of Bernie, what liberal policy/policies will she implement that he wouldn't.



P.S. Bernie supporters, please be respectful. This could easily spin into a flame fest and nobody really wants that. Any rebuttal should be based on the candidate's record. Thank you in advance.

[Scuba]

1. Name recognition.

[daleanime]

8. +1

which 'maybe' why we still haven't scheduled the first debate.

[jfern]

273. Foreign policy? Are you kidding me?

Voted for the Iraq war. Voted for the Iran war (yes, Bush declined to do all of the warmongering that Hillary voted to allow him to do). Supported arming jihadists in Syria. Thanks to her, we have ISIS.

[daleanime]

275. ........

[Cal33]

264. In my opinion Hillary has the advantage of better name reognition, yes, but I also do see

that this advantage is only temporary, and that Bernie is catching up, fast, and before long
he will have surpassed Hillary.

The more people see him, they more they like him, and are being convinced by his messages.
They like the way he is telling them in which ways things are wrong now, and how he will
change them

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

276. If you're a Wall Streeter, Hillary's pro-banking agenda...if you're a CEO, her pro-corporate policies...if you're part of the military complex, her pro-war voting record.

[DCBob]

2. Electability for one.

Others..

-- foreign policy
-- gun control
-- racial injustice
-- women's issues

Just to name a few.

[daleanime]

7. Foreign policy-she never meet a war she didn't like....

how is that better?

Racial injustice-how?

Gun control-how?

Women's issues-how?

Saying it does not make it so, reasons please.

[DCBob]

9. Clearly she has more experience than Bernie in FP.

The Iraq war vote was mistake... she admitted that. I really think, down deep, she is less a hawk than she appears and her "Better Angels" will emerge once she become POTUS. Being a woman and wanting to be taken seriously as a candidate for President, I think she has always felt she had to prove she has the cojones to pull the trigger when necessary. She wont have to prove that anymore once she is in office.

[daleanime]

15. If her 'better angels' haven't emerged in the past....

I'm not sure we should entrust our future to their coming appearance. If you're willing to kill people, which is what voting to go to war is, just to project an image, then you are quite a scary person.

But we're not going to agree, are we? So have a lovely day.

[DCBob]

40. The Iraq War vote was tough one for many.

I would not have voted for it.. in fact I was out protesting against it the weekend before the war started. However, I can understand how many Democratic politicians were torn especially with the Colin Powell UN speech, whom most Dems trusted.

[MannyGoldstein]

46. Most elected Democrats got it right

And damned few made impassioned speeches urging their colleagues for War! War!

[FreakinDJ]

66. +1000

[daleanime]

73. +1

[Scuba]

266. + Eighty Gazillion

[jfern]

274. That's because they didn't read the intel

Senator Bob Graham, chair of the Intelligence commitee did, and realized it was bunk and voted no. He urged everyone who could to read it. Hillary never did, and voted for a $2 trillion war.

[leveymg]

92. Hillary certainly has more experience organizing failed regime change in Libya and Syria

Creating space for the rise of ISIS. "We came, we saw, he died."

[DCBob]

93. Nice RW talking point.

Get that from Drudge?

[leveymg]

118. Point made about HRC's record as SoS is factual, unfortunately. It isn't a RW talking point.

No, this is not a Rightwing issue. As far as I can tell, the Rightwing in both parties are delighted by the mass destruction and death that has spread in the Mideast-North Africa since '09. They like the destruction of political and physical infrastructure across the region.

The little men in bad suits from Republican Districts who infest committees on Capitol Hill are actually helping Hillary by creating diversions -- Benghazi! -- that are easily dismissed as unprovable conspiracy theory.

I prefer to stick to the plain facts on the reality-based side of the tracks. The RW can't be bothered with a factual debate over ME policy, and don't want one, as Trey and Co. actually agree with Hillary and support serial regime change. Drudge talking points aren't along the lines drawn above. They are arguing something else: they want US bombs to flatten Iran, next.

[Alfalfa]

126. +1

[6chars]

150. those are some damaged buildings

in the pix.

[cantbeserious]

105. What Are " Better Angels" - Sounds Like Wishful Thinking

eom

[Alfalfa]

30. +1

[lunamagica]

104. + 1

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Electability?

IIRC, Hillary's net favorability is highly negative in NH, IA, and all swing states while Bernie's is positive.

[DCBob]

37. Any yet he polls well behind her in every poll I have seen in matchups with GOP candidates.

And that's quite remarkable given the relentless onslaught from RW media and all GOP candidates who have totally focused on Hillary as the presumed nominee.

[MannyGoldstein]

43. Only to the degree that people don't know him (yet)

Statistics matter.

[DCBob]

50. Who says getting to know him will help him??

He's not the most lovable candidate.. I think many will be turned off by his negative demeanor.

[MannyGoldstein]

52. His net positives tell the tale. nt

[DCBob]

63. Not always..

Ben Carson has the highest net positive rating but polls much lower among GOP contenders.

[PatrickforO]

129. I disagree. For decades politicians have engaged in 'correct speak' aided by

the corporate owned media whereby they can talk about some things and differentiate each other, but other things like climate change, Medicare for all Americans, fixing Social Security, the corporations not paying any taxes on billions in profits, etc.

Bernie is the ONLY candidate we've had talking about the above in decades. Millenials love Bernie because they've been raised on Jon Stewart - most get their news from him, and he has shown how much bullshit we have to wade through when any politician talks.

Except Bernie. He's the anti-bullshit candidate because he tells it like it is, makes policy statements and backs those up with statistics. Americans are not too dumb for this approach as the corporate owned media have suggested. Instead we hunger for it - America is ripe for what Bernie calls a 'political revolution.'

[Vincardog]

137. ++

[DCBob]

240. That may be appealing to some and at the same time turn off others.

He often comes off sounding like he lecturing us, like he's some sort of know-it-all. Many people just want a politician to listen and understand our problems and then do something about it. Hillary is better at that then Bernie.

[Vincardog]

135. Is electability a liberal policy she will implement that he wouldn't?

[eridani]

190. A candidate with no appeal to the 63% is not "more electable" n/t

[Vincardog]

199. Her negatives are not that high. Granted they are higher than her positives, This thread is about

POLICIES. I do not want to be tricked into discussing HRC poll numbers.

[eridani]

203. I'm not talking about numbers. I'm talking about the fact that she has no appeal whatsoever

--to alienated voters. That would be the 63% who didn't vote in 2014.

[Vincardog]

207. That may be true but this thread is looking for POLICIES where she is better than Bernie. We can't

engage in discussing HRC's negatives;
that only adds fuel to those who want to call Bernie's supporters "haters".

[eridani]

210. OK, can't think of any policies where she is better. Not even gun control

Both get Ds and Fs from NRA.

[totodeinhere]

231. The solid blue wall in the Electoral College virtually guarantees that any

major Democratic candidate will win. And your other points are ridiculous. Bernie is great on all of those issues. And I get especially irked when people try to maintain that Clinton is better on racial issues given the racist South Carolina primary campaign that the Clinton's conducted in 2008.

[DCBob]

239. Nothing is guaranteed in politics.

The EC does benefit our side somewhat but people still need to show up to vote. We have a Republican Gov in deep blue Maryland because Democrats were complacent.

Fair or not, Hillary is perceived as understanding the plight of African Americans better than Bernie. Alot of it has to do with being associated with Bill.. the "First Black President". Regardless she wins that issue hands down and the polling clearly bears that out.

[djean111]

3. I have been informed it is Money. Pure and simple. Office for sale, it seems.

Issues? Not as important as money money money.

[cantbeserious]

106. HRC - Controlled By Oligarchs, Corporations And Banks - A Favorite Friend Of The 1%

eom

[Alfalfa]

115. +1

[DanTex]

4. "as far as bills that might actually get passed, there is no difference"

That applies pretty much across the board. Single payer? No. Free college tuition? No. Etc.

The big thing for me is electability. I don't see Bernie being able to beat the Republicans in the general election. On policy, I generally like him more than Clinton (with exceptions), but since most of Bernie's more ambitious agenda won't be able to make it through congress, I don't think the difference in what legislation actually gets implemented will be very big.

Arguably, Clinton has more experience wrestling with the GOP, so one could make the case that she would be more effective in actually getting things passed. On the other hand, you could also argue that Bernie would be starting the negotiations from further left, which would mean better policies ultimately get passed after negotiations and compromises. I'm sort of ambivalent here, I can't say with confidence that one or the other would be better at fighting the GOP.

On edit: in addition to issues, there is also the question of priorities. Bernie has made it pretty clear that his top priority is income inequality, and it's fair to say that he would push harder than Hillary to make progress in that area. The thing is, you can't do everything at once. While a financial transaction tax would be more likely under Bernie than Hillary, I would say that a comprehensive immigration reform bill, for example, would be more likely under Hillary, if only because she would make it a higher priority.

[Motown_Johnny]

254. But the compromises would be better

No single payer system? Ok, how about a public option then?

No free college tuition? Ok, then how about expanding grants and zero interest on student loans?

I don't expect him to get everything he asks for, but I do expect him to move things left.


I don't see Immigration reform being more possible under Hillary than Bernie. We all want that but the (R)s wouldn't even let Bush get anything passed. If we don't get 60 seats in the Senate plus winning back the House I just don't see how we get that passed. If something does pass, I think either one would sign it.


I also don't see Hillary as more electable. She just has so much baggage that her 51% disapproval rating and her 55% untrustworthy number is just to high a mountain to climb. She may have more experience with the GOP but the GOP also has more experience with her. The negatives are just to high to see her as more electable.

[DanTex]

258. I don't think that's clear. One could also argue that starting with single payer

would mean having barely any support to begin with, and the whole thing being DOA.

I think Hillary's experience would suggest that she is more qualified and skilled at maneuvering against the GOP. Bernie's never really had to do any of that, because he's always been so far to the left.

Immigration reform is going to be tough, but the reasons I think it would be more possible under Hillary are first, I think she would make it a higher priority than Bernie, and second because I think she has more political savvy.

It's true that Hillary has high disapproval numbers, but those always go up when someone gets into a political race. When she was SoS her approval numbers were great. And even with the high disapproval, she's beating everyone in the head-to-head polls. As for Bernie, I think it's naive to think that this country is suddenly going to get over the "socialist" stigma in the next 16 months.

[Motown_Johnny]

260. Hillary has never maneuvered against the GOP.

Bill did, not Hillary. Unless you are trying to talk about her time in the Senate, and Bernie has lots more of that than she does.

I think that the country is already over the "socialist" stigma. Bernie is a socialist the way FDR was a socialist. The way the entire Greatest Generation was socialist.

Democratic Socialist can easily be described as the new economic populist. He isn't suggesting that the government take over private industry and anyone who tries to argue that will look foolish.

[Thinkingabout]

5. She has a better record on women's and childrens issues.

She is a record of sponsoring minimum wage increases.
She has always voted for gun control.
She has a very experienced foreign affairs record.
She is well known world wide.

There are more and will post more later.

[djean111]

6. "She is well known world wide. " - That is an issue? Good grief.

Here's the thing - she will say all the right things, but many of us don't believe she will follow through. We have very recently been there, seen that. Plus, you know, war, "trade" agreements - issues I feel Bernie is a LOT better on.

[Thinkingabout]

11. Simply put she foreign experience and a relationship with world leaders, she would not have to

introduce herself every where in the world. Since you mentioned trade agreements, another responsibility of a president, yes she has had experience in working on trade agreements. On the war issue, Bernie voted for AUMF and troop expansion, good for the defense contractors. Without the funding the Iraq invasion could not have occurred.

[djean111]

16. OMG. You are laying the blame for the Iraq war, not on the people who voted for and shilled for it,

but on the people who saw the done deal and did not want our soldiers to be ill-equipped and ill-supported? How low can you go? Is this a new meme?

Without the funding the Iraq invasion could not have occurred.

That is a classic piece of odorous deflection, indeed.

[Thinkingabout]

20. Facts are facts, perhaps you are not aware of Bernie's votes on war funding.

[JaneyVee]

25. There hasn't been a war funding bill Bernie hasn't voted yes on.

[djean111]

31. Once the troops are there, you think the thing to do is leave them without support?

Like, Hillary voted FOR the war, but we should have just let our troops go without support, and after enough died, the war would stop? She voted for the war under the delusion that real people would not be getting killed?
Oh, please.

[neverforget]

88. Funny how they don't answer that. nt.

[djean111]

89. It is pathetic and quite illuminating that they do not answer that.

This meme is actually quite disgusting. And should play really well with the troops she sent overseas.

[Turchinsky]

211. To that I say: Yup.

Veterans are not going to be going en-masse for Clinton. They know Bernie has worked extremely hard for them, and unlike Clinton giving lip service, Bernie actually have done major work for the veterans, improving their lives after the Walter Reed scandal - you know, where there's mold, mildew, unsanitary conditions.

[beam me up scottie]

162. HC voted for the war and gets a pass, Bernie voted to support the troops and he's the bad guy.

Hillary supporters are excellent contortionists, aren't they?

[djean111]

166. Well, give them credit for a very bizarre spin. A spin that would not go over very well

with the troops, or the families of the troops. Or veterans. If that one is a trial balloon, it should be popped immediately. Just a suggestion.

[beam me up scottie]

167. Hillary voted to send my brother to Ramadi.

He came back but he'll never be the same.

So we're not quite as willing to forgive and forget as some of her supporters are.

Their dismissal of that vote speaks volumes about how much they care about the troops.

[840high]

221. Yep -

[valerief]

228. He voted against the Iraq War. Had there been no war, there'd be no war funding. nt

[Live and Learn]

13. And she has money and can get more blah, blah blah.

I am so sick of the she is known and has money rhetoric.

[Thinkingabout]

139. Who is talking about her money?

[Alfalfa]

32. Her foreign affair record includes the disaster that was Libya

And what she said later about Gaddafi's death was in extremely poor taste.

[Thinkingabout]

41. And what foreign experience does Bernie have?

[Alfalfa]

54. That was the same thing they asked about Obama prior to 2008

Sometimes no experience is better than bad experience.

[Thinkingabout]

56. Obama was smart enough to get Hillary as SOS. He also surrounded himself with very capable

cabinet, etc to assist him.

[Alfalfa]

58. I actually don't think the decision was that smart

She did many ill advised things during her term. If that's her "experience", we're probably better off without it.

[840high]

222. He had to give her something.

[Exilednight]

243. And yet Obama gave Afghanistan and Iraq to Biden because he didn't trust Hillary to do what's right.

[azurnoir]

83. Gosh that reminds me of something

[John Poet]

114. IT's 3 AM AND I'VE GOT TO TALK TO HILLARY!!!

Hello?


Hellooooo??


HELLO?!


She never takes my calls anymore...

[Sheepshank]

117. Isn't that Palin's point? Errrrrrrr wel. Done?

Or were you trying to joke?

[Comrade Grumpy]

134. Certainly not enough to challenge Hillary's record of war-mongering.

[Vincardog]

132. What liberal policy/policies will she implement that he wouldn't?

[Thinkingabout]

140. You tell me which policies he would not implement.

[Vincardog]

142. The question is about Hillary. What liberal policies would she pass? Support her position!

No vague "electability" because of her war chest.

Guns is already dealt with.

The question for HRC supporters is "What liberal policy/policies would she pass?"
In short "What policy does she have that would make ME want to vote for her over Bernie?"

[Turchinsky]

215. These Hillary supporters.. they don't have any concrete facts, so they come up with some bullshit.

Like, say their polls, or deflecting/attacking Sanders as if they were insane.

[Vincardog]

216. Then I see a lot of threads acusing Bernie supporters of swarming attacking

and HATING on Hill. Poor dears.

[beam me up scottie]

161. No, she doesn't.

1) She refuses to support a federal minimum wage of $15/hr.

2) She pandered to gun owners in 2008 because she wanted to make Obama look like a liberal anti-gun nut.

3) Her foreign affairs record includes voting to give Bush his war with Iraq. She's a war hawk

4) Notoriety is not a factor.

[Thinkingabout]

164. She sponsored a bill on minimum wage and another bill to tie minimum wage increases to Cingressional

Raises.

She is not the candidate who pandered to the NRA and voted against the Brady Bill, that would be Bernie.

What does experience in foreign affairs have to do with giving Bush his "war" any more than Bernie voting on AUMF, does his vote give him experience in foreign affairs.

When world leaders hear her name they understand who she is and she doesn't continue to be recognized as most influential by Forbes several years and it does not matter about her notoriety. Yes it is a factor.

[beam me up scottie]

165. Not good enough, Hillary.

Why won't she back the federal wage when Bernie and O'Malley both do? Who is she trying to win over, voters or the corporations that pay their wages?

Sanders never pandered to the NRA, he received an F rating from them for his pro-gun control record.

What her vote and record prove is that she's a war hawk. Oh and Bernie voted to support the troops she sent over there. He's not the bad guy because he didn't want to abandon them.

Again, fame is not a factor, we're discussing her RECORD, remember?

[eridani]

192. Unless said women and children are inconveniently located under US bombs n/t

[Thinkingabout]

197. link

[eridani]

198. Are you telling me you need yet another link to Clinton's advocacy of the Iraq war?

Voting for it was bad enough, but a 30 minute cheerleading speech was over the top. Also "We came, we saw, he died." Because the war of each against all that replaced Qaddafi is ever so much better for women and children.

[Thinkingabout]

201. No, I want a link to your post #192.

[eridani]

205. You need links to demonstrate that women and children were slaughtered in our ME adventures?

Shame on you.

[Thinkingabout]

206. I thought you read an article saying what you said in #192.

[eridani]

209. What I said in #192 was what any rational person would concede to be results of

--declaring war on countries for the purpose of establishing imperial power in the center of a big puddle of oil.

[Thinkingabout]

212. Yes, I have wondered why Bernie voted for AUMF, this funded the bombs, and also troop expansion.

[eridani]

214. All of which could not happen without approval of the war in the first place.

When did Sanders ever give a 30 minute cheerleading speech for war, let alone say anything like "We came, we saw, he died."

[Thinkingabout]

217. If the bombs was not have been funded it would not have happened. The funding was the most

Important part.

[eridani]

220. Neither would body armor for our soldiers have been funded

Don't approve of war and you don't have to worry about funding it. Sanders is not a hawk, period. Clinton is a hawk, period. Why are you trying to dodge this self-evident fact?

[Thinkingabout]

230. Dodging, I did not talk about body armors for our soldiers, I and not dodging that Hillary voted for

IWR, and I am not denying she voted for AUMF. About Bernie being a hawk, he would be the same who voted for the war funding on more than one occasion, and the defense contractors loved every vote.

[eridani]

232. Sanders is also not criticising Obama's Iran policy from the right

Clinton is pro-war, period.

[Thinkingabout]

246. Bernie is also, it helps the defense contractors. He votes for the funding of wars because the

defense contractors profit with wars. Why are you in denial?

[eridani]

268. Don't vote FOR wars, and you never have to worry about funding them n/t

[Live and Learn]

10. There has not been one issue posted so far that Bernie doesn't actually have a stronger record on

except gun control. And he only fails the gun control issue if you don't listen to his perfectly valid reasons for not supporting that gun manufacturers shouldn't be able to be sued for the misuse of their products just like any other industry can't be. Other than that Bernie has pretty much supported the same gun control issues that any other "progressives" have.

In addition, Bernie has much stronger positions (and proven support and votes) on progressive economic policies, trade agreements, war opposition, environmental concerns and justice reform.

[DanTex]

19. You're wrong about the gun bill. Every other industry except for the gun industry *can* be

sued for the misuse of their products. What Bernie voted for was a specific exemption for the gun industry only. Apparently he thinks so highly of gun manufacturers and dealers that they shouldn't have to play by the same rules as everyone else. I guess it's a good thing that he restricted this corporate giveaway to just the gun industry, but you have to wonder why someone who rails against the influence of corporations is at the same time voting to give them legal immunity.

You're also wrong that he has supported the same gun control issues that other progressives had. He voted against the Brady Bill, which is the most significant gun control bill passed in decades.

[Live and Learn]

283. What other industry can be sued for the misuse of their product?

Can a knife manufacturer be sued because someone used it for a stabbing? I don't think so.

[DanTex]

285. All of them. Look at the text of the bill, it only applies to the gun industry.

If you get stabbed, yes, you can sue the knife manufacturer. You're probably going to lose, of course, and if the lawsuit is frivolous, then you also have to pay their legal costs. The legal system already handles this situation just fine, without special immunity.

Here's more explanation.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629325

[Thinkingabout]

23. He has a record of voting no on trade agreements, this is a responsibility of a president, he can't

pick and choose the responsibilities of a president. I don't think I would point out Bernie's strength on trade is voting no if this is something he will be responsible for as president.

[beam me up scottie]

168. The POTUS works for us, not corporations.

I don't think I would try to use Bernie's strengths against him.

[Thinkingabout]

173. I am not using his strengths against him, the job he is running for requires he deal with trade.

It is a part of his responsibilities. Also should he win the primary he will be required to continue to work for corporations such as the defense contractors he currently works. This position is not a pick and choose, if he doesn't care to handle the responsibilities of president then why is he running.

[beam me up scottie]

174. 1) Bernie doesn't work for defense contractors

2) He won't work for them as POTUS

3) He's running because he gives a damn about people, not corporations

4) He already made that choice, now it's Hillary's turn


Bernie tells the truth, how about a little honesty from Hillary supporters for a change?

[Thinkingabout]

175. Okay, whatever you say.

[beam me up scottie]

177. No, not "whatever" I say.

If you want to make an issue out a candidate's record then you need to be truthful about it.

Opinions are one thing, spreading lies about a Dem who could be our nominee is quite another.

[Thinkingabout]

179. I have been truthful, I have said what I need to say, I don't need to this back and forth.

[Live and Learn]

284. I sometimes wonder if you thiink simply getting the last word in,

no matter how nonsensical, means you've won the debate.

[Thinkingabout]

286. post#179

[Sancho]

12. Bernie has the international experience of my pet schnauzer. Short list of other stuff...

Experience as the Secretary of State combined with lots of other travel and outreach is invaluable to a President.
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-smart-power-foreign-policy/
http://correctrecord.org/secretary-clinton-and-the-pivot-to-asia/
http://correctrecord.org/african-growth-american-business/
http://correctrecord.org/secretary-clinton-working-for-middle-east-peace/
http://correctrecord.org/engagement-abroad-prosperity-at-home/

Hillary has worked for decades with programming for children and immigrants (Children's Defense Fund, Too Small to Fail, Americorp, etc. etc.). Bernie has little or no frontline experience or record outside of Congress.
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/blog/2015/07/18/transforming-playgrounds-make-play-time-talk-time
http://www.childrensdefense.org/newsroom/cdf-in-the-news/press-releases/2013/honoring-hillary-clinton.html
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-and-immigration/
http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clintons-strong-support-of-americorps/

Hillary went to Yale law school and practiced law. She can do the best job of evaluating SC candidates - critical with a future President. (Obama's done a good job on nominations so far. Law experience seems to help.)
http://www.biography.com/people/hillary-clinton-9251306
Hillary joined the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock and, in 1977, was appointed to part-time chairman of the Legal Services Corporation by President Carter. As first lady of Arkansas for a dozen years (1979–1981, 1983–1992), she chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee, co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, and served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital, Legal Services and the Children's Defense Fund. In 1988 and 1991, The National Law Journal named her one of the 100 most powerful lawyers in America.

Hillary has board room experience and knows Wall Street operatives first hand. This is actually a benefit in a President that needs to regulate corporations. It's complex, and Bernie has already demonstrated he has simplistic solutions at best. This is one reason she focuses on the glass ceiling, immigration, and women't salaries. She served on the boards of TCBY and Wal-Mart. http://correctrecord.org/breaking-glass-womens-economic-empowerment/

Hillary is rated more effective in Congress by independent, objective analysis:
Hillary’s leadership rating is higher than Bernie
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/hillary_clinton/300022
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bernard_sanders/400357

[DanTex]

17. Thanks for those govtrack links at the bottom with the leadership scores.

I hadn't seen that before, interesting.

[Thinkingabout]

26. Good post Sancho, yes she has board experience also, has served on a presidential cabinet also.

[djean111]

33. Obama also had the international experience of your pet schnauzer.

Saying that didn't hurt Obama, it won't hurt Bernie.
Does this mean we get treated to the "3 am phone call" thing again? New playbook is needed.

[Sancho]

47. I think his lack of experience has hurt Obama...

He's in an adversarial relationship with Putin, Netanyahu, etc.

TPP is a mess (Australia just pulled out), China is stealing the kitchen sink, the mid-east is no better. No currency agreements in sight.

The Cuba issue and Mexican boarder issue got responses from Obama, but too little and too slow for the most part. Really hurt the Democrats in 2014. He is just now getting around to the international hacking problem.

I think a lot of these and other problems stem from Obama's lack of experience and personal relationships with international leadership. The examples are numerous. Obama has been focused on what he knew best, domestic policies (like health care). He has been drawn into a "reactive" international policy, but resisted any serious, creative efforts (like Jimmy Carter did for example).

If Obama had taken a bunch of trips (like he went to Africa recently) BEFORE becoming President, he would have been much more effective. Obama gets a "C" grade from me for international efforts.

In fact, if it wasn't for Hillary, Kerry, and others, international relations would have been much worse. Other officials had limited, but positive effects trying to put out the fires and change policy from the bottom up. Both Hillary and Kerry have face-to-face respect of most international leaders, even when they disagree with US policy.

[DCBob]

69. I wouldn't say those "problems" are due to President Obama's "inexperience".

I think it's more to do with transitioning from Bush's "cowboy diplomacy" to a more reasoned, even-handed, less in-your-face approach.

[Sancho]

98. I fully admit that Obama inherited an international (and domestic) mess.

I think that Obama would have benefitted in attempting fixes if he had some previous international experience. His international father and childhood overseas was not really a substitute for some frontline negotiations as the person-in-charge.

As such, he's had too many rocky relationships with other leaders or made to many "reactive" judgements (like the line in the sand) that weren't well considered.

Just my opinion. He seems to have had a good trip to Africa.

(Did you know that China spent three times more in Africa last year than the US? Maybe fewer F35's and more diplomacy would serve us well in the third world.)

[DCBob]

101. Sure.. it never hurts to have experience..

but I think there are much bigger issues at play here.

[Armstead]

85. That is not totally correct

If you look at Sanders past he has actually been quite engaged in internatonal affairs. In fact he was criticized in Burlington for being too focused on them sometimes as mayor.

He has been active in issues of war and peace since he was young, including opposition to Reagan's Latin American interventionism. He has a very extensive knowledge and perspective on the subject.

Now, one might not like his perspective. He is basically opposed to what used to be called American Imperialism, and our tendency to decide what's best for other nations despite what they want. he does not want America sending troops in needlessly -- especially when the primary purpose is to protect the interests of American corporations.

It is up to individuals to decide whether he is TOO much of "peacenik" for the current world or if is would be a necessary check on the excesses that led to things like invading Iraq.

Legitimate subject for debate. But you are mischaracterizing him when you say he has no qualifications or knowledge regarding international affairs.





Howe

[Sancho]

96. I don't think Bernie has experience...

I'm one of the original draft card burners, so I'm quite familiar with Bernie's positions.

Whether you are a peacenik or not, you won't achieve international cooperation with US laws. You achieve it by earning respect of the international community.

Obama is respected, but usually was disengaged and only recently created an international outreach.

Bernie is an unknown in much of the US, and virtually invisible worldwide.

Hillary is well-known, and generally respected even by those who disagree with US policy. She earned that respect with a combination of official duties as Secretary of State, unofficial duties as First Lady when she spoke out on women's rights, and lots of WORK with international organizations, foundations, and humanity causes.

[Armstead]

100. So was James Baker

Sure she's popular in many quarters overseas. And she knows her way around the matrix of money and power.

Perhaps that's an advantage.

However, you seem to assume that if Sanders got in he would be unable to actually hold a conversation and introduce himself.

And there is knowledge and there is knowledge. All of Hillary's knowledge did not prevent her from voting for one of the worst -- and obviously worst -- foreign policy disasters in US history.

I also, based on her role in the TPP, fear that her idea of diplomacy is negotiations between corporations on how to best carve up the world.

[MannyGoldstein]

42. Bernie Madoff should be Secretary of the Treasury by those measures.

e.g., Hillary made the most irresponsible vote in modern history, to go to war in Iraq. Bernie did not.

Hillary and her Third Way posse are highly responsible for where our country is today. For the vast majority of us, it's been a disaster although somehow Hillary and her posse have made mega millions. Enough mayhem already.

[JaneyVee]

44. She voted to go to war with Iran??

And I'm pretty sure her Sec of Treasury will be Stiglitz or Blinder.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. Posting without caffeine is a dangerous thing

In no possible universe will Stiglitz or Blinder serve in a Clinton administration.

[Armstead]

202. They will be "Special Advisors" and promptly ignored

[Sancho]

62. Funny that you mention Madoff...that's a common meme here in FL...vote for "another Bernie"

Last edited Sat Aug 1, 2015, 03:13 PM - Edit history (1)

I've heard more than one person describe Bernie Sanders as an economic pyramid scheme - because his economic proposals aren't realistic (like the Robin Hood tax), and promises things that can't happen.

As to the MIC, Bernie voted once on the Iraq war, but he was just as much a supporter of the military complex as anyone else if it helped him in Vermont. People keep going back to one vote, but Bernie is no saint on the same issues as other progressives.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/24583-bernie-sanders-doubles-down-on-f-35-support-days-after-runway-explosion
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/30/the-myth-of-bernie-sanders/
http://socialistworker.org/2012/08/09/vermont-says-no-to-the-f35
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2015/02/hypocrisy-alert-bernie-sanders-wanting.html
http://muckraker-gg.blogspot.com/2013/11/how-lockheed-and-sandia-came-to-vermont.html
http://www.libertyunionparty.org/?page_id=363
http://gui.afsc.org/birddog/bernie-sanders-calls-out-defense-contractors-and-lobbyists
https://thewordsmithcollection.wordpress.com/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-supports-the-right-wing-war-lobby/

[MannyGoldstein]

80. Do all of those links point to Sanders' desire for already-budgeted jobs

to be located in Vermont? On the F-35 program he's repeatedly called wasteful?

[Sancho]

90. Some do...others refer to years of courting Locheed Martin....

but we all know that Bernie continued to vote for war funding. Bernie did his share of representing Vermont before and after the F35, even if the corporation in question was part of the evil empire. The F35 is a clear example.

We can debate (again) all the complexities of Congressional votes (poison pills, compromises, representation of your own constituents, etc). I'm just saying that if you are going to continue to go back to one vote on one issue over and over and over, then it's possible to criticize ANY member of Congress. Hillary voted once for something she was fooled on and she says it was a mistake in hindsight. Hillary did NOT intend to vote for a 10 year, trillion dollar war - virtually no one intended that to happen except maybe a few Cheney's who actually planned on profiting. Bush probably didn't "know" it would turn out like it did after all.

Funny, I just watched the "Iron Lady" movie about Margaret Thatcher last night, and they correctly portrayed her charge into the Falkland Islands war; when the cost and lives quickly became more than either size expected.

If you held the Iraq war vote today, knowing what we all know, it would likely not pass.

The thread response focuses (again) on Hillary's vote as the NY Senator to supposedly go after the guys who caused 911, even though many didn't trust Bush and didn't like the authorization.

It may not seem so to you, but as I was alive to witness Korea, Vietnam, the cold war, Cuba missile crisis, etc. I had a bomb shelter in my back yard in the 1960s (really). I spent a few years growing up on military bases at the height of tensions.

I think that spending on the F35 is continuing the MIC that is just as responsible for our economic conditions and international conflicts as "Wall Street" or anything else. I think EVERY vote should be to reduce military projects and spending until it gets to be about 1/3 it is now, and almost every oversea US base is closed. To me, those votes are just as harmful as the Iraq war even if it's not on the news every day. Just saying..

[Admiral Loinpresser]

102. 911 and Iraq? I think you must have misspoken.

The thread response focuses (again) on Hillary's vote as the NY Senator to supposedly go after the guys who caused 911, even though many didn't trust Bush and didn't like the authorization.

There was never any credible link whatsoever between 911 and Iraq. Was that a typo?

[Sancho]

122. For people on DU there was never a connection...

but for most people on the street, well, they STILL think that the Iraq war was a response to 911.
It's amazing how confusing things were to people who watch the news twice a year, etc.

That's the people many Senators represent. Even on DU there are terrible arguments over what the "truth" is and that's among political junkies. When you ask your local auto mechanic or college student or single parent, you will get an answer that they picked up somewhere, but it's rarely even close to accurate.

People vote for a certain candidate because they identify with a demographic group (women, hispanic, Southern, etc.) or because of an important issues (choice, taxes, path to citizenship) or because they like a certain personality (Kennedy, Reagan), or because they are affiliated (Democrat, union member, etc.). Historical accuracy is way down the list and rarely matters.

A large segment "in the middle" can be influenced by propaganda. In this case, a LOT of that middle group was fed all kinds of stories about Iraq, 911, Bin Laden, etc. Remember the colored alert codes and duck tape for your windows?

[Admiral Loinpresser]

136. I will be candid.

There are only two reasonable explanations for Secretary Clinton's vote on the IWR in 2002, either she made a political calculation that her presidential ambitions would be more viable with a hawkish vote (like Kerry, Edwards, Biden and perhaps others) or she made a misguided vote on the biggest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history.

I wish you well in the coming campaigns.

[ismnotwasm]

78. Great post!

Thank you for taking the time. I generally stay out of these type of threads, because the actual list of why Hillary is the superior choice, does has an extensive liberal voting record, (up to and including mistakes she's made in rough political waters indeed--the more politically sophisticated of her detractors are, of course, aware of this), is much longer and far more comprehensive than she's given credit for here on DU and I don't take the time to debate these things. I think should probably sometimes, then I hear how she was a "Goldwater girl" when she was a kid and I just roll my eyes and think, nah...

[Vincardog]

143. Are any of those LIBERAL policies?

[Sancho]

151. Generally Hillary makes progressive or liberal decisions...she's a fairly liberal Democrat...

on the "liberal meter". It seems that Hillary and Bernie are pretty close on value-based voting records.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

Bernie obviously (for many years) has been influenced by the "socialist" economic theories. If you think of economic socialism as liberal, then he may be the most "liberal" in all of Congress and more "liberal" than Hillary. Of course, the Bernie "view" of economic justice is not universal, even among liberal Democrats so it's hard to put a tag on "who is most extreme".

For example, here are some quotes from the American Socialist website. Not perfectly aligned with Bernie, but you can see the influence:

Democratic revolutions are needed to dissolve the power now exercised by the few who control great wealth and the government. By revolution we mean a radical and fundamental change in the structure and quality of economic, political, and personal relations.

So-called fair trade is meaningless as long as the world economy is dominated by a few massive corporations.

We call for a minimum wage of $15 per hour, indexed to the cost of living.

We call for the elimination of subsidies and tax breaks that benefit corporations and all other forms of corporate welfare.

We oppose the court-created precedent of “corporate personhood” that illegitimately gives corporations rights that were intended for human beings.

There are plenty of discussions about liberal/socialist/progressive, but to me we need a Democrat to make as many good decisions as possible, fight off a crazy Congress, and deal with the changing world.

Just for fun:

http://muckraker-gg.blogspot.com/2015/07/debs-and-sanders-revolutionary.html
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/14-things-bernie-sanders-has-said-about-socialism-120265.html#ixzz3gSegIbi4

[Vincardog]

152. The question for thread is "On what issue is Hillary better than Bernie"? Respectfully this is not

about Bernie it is about HRC and

On what issue

is Hillary better than Bernie?

[Sancho]

154. I published a few ways in #12....

after that I just responded to some of the discussion...and someone asked are those positions "liberal". I explained my position, and implied why Hillary is better than Bernie.

If you follow, you'll see that I don't think simply being an "economic socialist" is "more liberal".

I like Hillary's positions on many issues, including economics, better than Bernie.

I hope that makes sense.

[Vincardog]

155. I saw the pet schnauzer post and believe it is a nice historical portrate of activities,

You say you like her on economics.

Fine, What economic POLICIES do you believe she is better on?

It is her economic policies that have me concerned.

[Sancho]

237. Ok...this could take a while, because there's lots of details...but here goes one at a time.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=77051

Selected quote from Hillary that have been pretty consistent (with minor variation for 10 years). This is useful (even though it's from 2007), because you can read the entire speech and see some detailed actions with the policy statements. Obviously, some things will change from 2008 to 2016. Which of the policies do you disagree with...and I picked this because it was BEFORE Bernie was on the scene, to you can't say Hillary is simply reacting to Bernie:

Now, it is working for corporations. Corporate profits have grown an average of 13% a year since 2001, adjusted for inflation. It's working for CEOs who've seen their pay go from 24 times the typical worker's in 1965, to 262 times the typical worker in 2005. And it's working for Americans with incomes at the very top. In 2005, all income gains went to the top 10% of households, while the bottom 90% saw their incomes decline, in spite of the fact that worker productivity has increased for six years.

Now, in past economic expansions, that's not the way it was. In the past, about 75% of net corporate revenues have gone to employee compensation, and only 25% to profits. However, for the past five years, the comparable figures are 41% going to employee compensation and 59% going to profits. Think about this: last year, the share of America's national income going to corporate profits was the highest since 1929 -- while the share going to the salaries of American workers was the lowest.

The inescapable reality is that globalization, modern technology, economic policy, are creating new conditions that threaten our middle class families and make it harder to maintain a middle class lifestyle.

Well, now we haven't heard much from Washington in the past six years about how to solve this growing problem of inequality. In fact, the tax, investment, trade and budget policies of the administration and its allies in Congress have made the problem worse.

I believe people are fed up with the policies of the past six years. So many people I talk to just want to hit the restart button on the 21st century and redo it the right way. And I agree with them.

Here's a statement of some policy plans for the President:

I believe that one of the most crucial jobs of the next president is to define a new vision of economic fairness and prosperity for the 21st century, a vision for how we ensure greater opportunity for our next generation, and then to outline a strategy and then to implement it.

Today, I believe we need a new progressive vision for this new century. Now, I consider myself a thoroughly optimistic and modern progressive. I believe we can grow our economy in the face of global competition, and in a way that benefits all Americans.

I believe we can curb the excesses of the marketplace and provide more opportunities for more Americans to succeed.

I believe we can support and promote smart trade policies that truly enforce strong labor and environmental standards.

I believe we can help more workers join unions to improve wages and conditions in our workplaces for jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.

I believe that, just as 20th-century progressives fought corruption with a new civil service, we can restore competence to the front lines of our government and ensure that we never, ever experience another Hurricane Katrina.

In short, I believe that our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.

Today I want to focus on how we ensure both strong economic growth and economic fairness.

Here's what I believe we should do.

First, I'm going to work to level the playing field and reduce the special breaks for big corporations. We say this in every campaign. We make a little bit of progress. And then unfortunately, when the Republicans get back in office, they reverse everything we've done and add to the corporate welfare.

Second, let's once and for all get rid of the incentives for American companies to ship jobs and profits overseas. It is one thing for the marketplace to encourage overseas investment. It's another for our own tax code to do so.

Third, let's reform the governance of our corporations and our financial sector. If you have any doubt about whether corporate governance impacts ordinary Americans, just think back to what happened at Enron, where thousands of workers lost much of their retirement savings.

Fourth, let's restore fiscal responsibility to our government. Let's get back to balanced budgets and save Social Security instead of running up our deficits.

Fifth, let's recommit ourselves to the idea that every young person in America who wants to should have the opportunity to attend college, and that a 21st-century education starts early in life and continues well into adulthood.

Sixth, for those who don't attend four-year colleges and those in the workforce who need to update their skills, let's provide more support for schools like this and for community colleges that prepare people for good, high-paying jobs.

Seventh, let's ensure that people who work hard every day can support their families and save for the future. I do not believe anyone who works full-time in America should draw a wage that puts that person below the poverty line. If you are a full time worker you should make more than poverty.

Eighth, let's ensure everyone the most fundamental benefit there is -- quality, affordable health care. Now, we know that this is going to be challenging but if we could spend more than $500 billion to fund the war in Iraq, we can surely make the basic investments to ensure that every American can see a doctor when he or she needs to.

Ninth and finally, let's make the investments we need to create the millions of good jobs necessary to lift up all of our families. To preserve and expand the middle class in an open, global economy, we have to have a source of good new jobs every five to eight years. Telecom did that during the вЂ˜90s. In this decade, that means an all out commitment to a clean, independent energy future.

[Vincardog]

259. I see a lot of hot air. Ballanced Budget nonsence and vague suggestions. Where is Free Education for

Everyone? Eliminate the CAP on SSI and raise the payout to at least $###.##/month?

Raise the minimum wage to $##.##/Hr?

Medicare for all?

How about get the cancer of money out of politics by Publically Financing Federal Elections?

Restrain the financial excesses by instituting a Financial transaction Tax?

You support her and Good luck to you. I see her as in Big Moneys' pocket and at best willing to tinker around the edges.

I still haven't seen one policy she would be better on than Bernie. That is where this thread started.

Can you name one LIBERAL policy she would pass that would be better than Bernies?

[Sancho]

262. "Those convinced against their will are of the same opinion still."

I can also cite Bernie's "plans" that are unrealistic, and give you the search history of many, many bills he introduced that never made it out of committee.

You asked for policy - and I gave you the simple policies from a stump speech. What do you disagree with and why?

If you want a few hundred pages of legislation that Hillary sponsored or cosponsored, we can get into the way that general policies become specific.

Hillary is ENTIRELY correct to avoid NUMBERS on caps, minimum wages, and other similar items because she is more sophisticated than Bernie and realized some things need to be indexed, variable, or flexible.

All the Democratic candidates have called for repeal of Citizens United and public funding of elections. Old news.

The Financial Transaction Tax is a HORRIBLE idea that is anti-liberal. My union opposed it. There's lots of good analysis to support other options. It's one of Bernie's ideas that will get him in trouble as people look carefully at it.

In my view, Hillary has the same or better policies than Bernie, and more importantly she has a realistic plan to get them done.

[Vincardog]

263. We will have to agree to disagree. " The Financial Transaction Tax is a HORRIBLE idea " BS we had

one in this country until they had to get rid of it because is was eating all the government debt,

[Sancho]

265. There are lots of disagreements about the FTTs...including the chances that it would ever pass...

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/08/Pros-and-Cons-Bernie-Sanders-50-Billion-Tax-Idea
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/2000287-Financial-Transaction-Taxes-in-Theory-and-Practice.pdf
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2015/07/22/bernie-sanders-doesnt-have-a-case-for-a-financial-transactions-tax-it-would-lose-money/
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/22/opinion/the-case-for-a-tax-on-financial-transactions.html?_r=0

There are a bunch of scholarly analyses...but the bottom line for state employees and union workers with large pension funds is that it would reduce their hard earned retirement, and would not really cost the 1% anything.

As I said at the beginning of this thread, you can't really see the problem with Bernie's "simple" solutions until you start digging into the details. Most of his ideas would never get passed, but even then, they simply aren't thought out. The second link above has a nice history of FTTs.

[Turchinsky]

229. Using David Brock's site?

Okkkkaaaaayyyy.....

Like I trust a propagandist.

[Sancho]

234. Links are simply convenient...it's not like it's hard to check Hillary's record.

There are editorial comments (and plenty of lies) that come straight from the NYT, members of Congress, Fox, or anywhere you want to look.

My opinions are pretty clearly my own. I usually have either some empirical evidence or logic or both. I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

Trust? Never!

OTOH, I'm willing to objectively accept what I see if it makes sense, even if something doesn't support my favorite candidate.

[JaneyVee]

14. Job creation, economic growth, gun control, race issues, national security...

Issues effecting women and children, etc. etc.

[fbc]

282. Job Creation?!! Sorry, trickle-down doesn't work.

[DCBob]

18. She is simply more prepared than Bernie for the Office of President.

Bernie is a rank amateur and frankly naive about what it takes to govern this nation and lead the world.

Bernie reminds me of Greece's Tsipras ... he made some great speeches and connected with voter anger but once elected he couldn't pull off anything he promised... and in fact he made things worse.

[HerbChestnut]

22. He has more experience...

in office than Obama did in 2008. Experience and "preparedness" is not an issue. I think the OP was asking specifically about things like healthcare, college tuition, wealth inequality, etc.

[DCBob]

27. Comparisons to President Obama are absurd.

Bernie Sanders is no Barack Obama.. not even close.

[MannyGoldstein]

51. Correct. Bernie holds traditional Democratic values. nt

[NorthCarolina]

124. ..

[840high]

223. Word.

[Thinkingabout]

28. Obama is not running this time so it is the present candidates experience and abilities.

[HerbChestnut]

29. It's a perfectly valid comparison.

If America was willing to elect a 1 (or 2?) term senator then clearly experience is not a major issue.

[DCBob]

34. Its still an issue when being compared to someone with tons more experience.

And as I said previously Bernie is no Obama. If he was I would be supporting him 100%.

[HerbChestnut]

39. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I think the experience card is overplayed, and I'd rather vote for someone who supports my ideals than someone who is more politically affluent.

[Thinkingabout]

53. This is why I am a Hillary supporter, she supports my ideals more than the other declared DNC

candidates. As a woman, women's issues are very important to me, we should have better pay for starters.

[HerbChestnut]

55. Well,

I don't want to drag this out or make it seem like I'm trying to sell Sanders to you, but he has come out strongly for equal pay for women. Just something to consider.

[Alfalfa]

60. +1

[Alfalfa]

57. Which women's issues specifically are we talking about?

[beam me up scottie]

160. Better pay for women? Then why doesn't she support a federal minimum wage of $15/hr?

Do you know how many women would be lifted out of poverty if that passed?

[Thinkingabout]

49. Yes, and George W was also elected, terrible president, did a lot of wrong things, took down two

companies before he was elected as president, he wasn't ready to be president and he let this country down. Now this should be reason to get someone elected to president with a good record rather than one who has a lesser record.

[HerbChestnut]

61. He was a governor

before being elected. These days, that's considered plenty of experience to be elected president. In fact, this discussion got me curious about the experience of past presidents, which led me to this page...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_previous_experience

According to that, Bernie is on equal footing with most on that list.

[Thinkingabout]

68. And a terrible governor I might add.

[dsc]

113. Of a state with an exceptionally weak governor

It clearly wasn't good prep for being President as his Presidency showed.

[Romulox]

71. "Prepared" = loaded up with corporate $$$$. nt

[cantbeserious]

107. Opinions, Opinions, Opinions - Where Are The - Facts, Facts, Facts

eom

[DCBob]

242. Here you go..

From electwomen.com..

1. History of leadership, smart, analytic capabilities
From her days at Wellesley College, to her prestigious work as an attorney, leading non-profit endeavors for families and children in Arkansas; her focus on health care, adoption and healthy families as First Lady, to her service and experience as a United States Senator and finally as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has a resume unmatched by any GOP or Democratic candidate. Great leaders emerge, and Hillary Clinton has demonstrated that she is a powerful force of leadership for America.

2. Foreign policy experience
Serving eight years as First Lady, then as a United States Senator and as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has amassed the most foreign policy experience of any other candidate, and she has relationships and respect from global leaders abroad. The crisis in the Middle East and beyond will take a pragmatic, proven leader to proceed with caution and the willingness to take action when needed. Her vote for the Iraq war was based upon information and intelligence provided to members of Congress at the time. Our country has learned from the mistakes of that experience and the public will trust that as Commander in Chief, Hillary Clinton will proceed with a focus on diplomacy first while continuing to build and strengthen military power with a focus on veteran’s issues.

3. Economic experience
Sometimes to the chagrin of her own party, Hillary Clinton has a track record of supporting fiscal policies that include investment along with personal responsibility. While speaking on the campaign trail for Democratic candidates in 2014, Secretary Clinton laid out a vision for economic policies that will make higher education affordable and strengthen our country’s workforce. She recognizes that the cost of education has weakened the middle class and is limiting our trained, skilled workforce, leading to a competitive disadvantage for U.S. manufacturers and businesses. Her policies will strengthen the middle class and increase America’s business competitiveness. She has relationships and the ability to build bipartisan support in Congress to advance her agenda.

4. Global leadership on women’s issues
During her tenure as First Lady and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton did not miss an opportunity speak out in counties across the globe on the state of women, women’s health and safety in war-torn countries and oppressive societies. It will take the leader of the free world to begin to stamp out systemic rape, violence, mutilation and oppression of women around the globe. Hillary Clinton will become the face of equality and opportunity for women and will use her position of power with countries to change the course of history for women.

5. Strength and courage–the right temperament to become president
During and following the 2008 presidential election, Hillary Clinton demonstrated to the world that she had the strength and courage to withstand the rigors of a presidential campaign, while remaining true to her convictions and emerging with dignity and grace. Her unwavering support for President Barack Obama, and her loyal service as Secretary State following the election, revealed that she is indeed a team player; acting in the best interests not only of the Democratic Party but for the nation. She has demonstrated her compassion for those less fortunate, and her willingness to listen to the concerns of all.

http://electwomen.com/2015/04/opinion-hillary-clinton-the-most-qualified-presidential-candidate/

[cantbeserious]

247. The Opinions Of Others - Does Not List Actual Acomplishments - Only Allusions To Accomplishments

eom

[DCBob]

248. Not opinions.. these are actual items of experience. ie.. Senator, Secretary of State, etc.

That was the original issue.. you wanted facts to back up experience\preparedness claims. If that's not good enough then I cant help you.

[cantbeserious]

249. So - What Did She Do Other Than Hold An Office

eom

[DCBob]

250. Read again what I posted earlier.. there are specific accomplishments there.

[cantbeserious]

257. Read Again - Reads As Excessive Posturing To These Eyes And Ears

eom

[HerbChestnut]

24. It's hard to come up with anything...

where Clinton is "better" than Sanders when it comes to the issues. I can understand where people are coming from in terms of political savvy and how that is an area of strength for Clinton, but to me that's not really a reason to vote for somebody. Nor is it an issue, which the OP is asking for. In terms of healthcare, education, wealth inequality, even race, I believe Bernie Sanders is the superior candidate.

[el_bryanto]

36. I think Bernie supporters (and I am one) pooh pooh the electibility argument.

The thing is - that on some issues; particularly protecting black communities and women's rights - Hillary Clinton is likely to be as good or better than Bernie Sanders. And she's more likely to win. If you are concerned with making sure that we don't lose any ground there but make progress, if that's your primary concern, than I can see an argument in favor of voting in favor of Clinton. That's a fair point. I think that the economic issues are as important but I can understand how people might see things differently

Bryant

[eridani]

195. The candidate of "hardworking people, white people" wil be better at protecting black communities?

Seriously?

[el_bryanto]

269. If that were the only thing she had ever said than I'd agree with you

But there's a reason why African Americans overwhelmingly support her over Bernie Sanders.

Bryant

[eridani]

270. That she was willing to say it to attack a black presidential candidate is appalling

I'm not really impressed with name recognition. There is no conceivable way she is better on issues relating to minority communities. Admittedly, minority voters are like other voters in that few are policy wonks.

[dsc]

38. Immigration

I just went to their respective websites. Bernie has not one single, solitary word about immigration under issues. He voted against Bush's reform in 2007 and has repeatedly blamed immigration for the lowering of wages. Conversely, Hillary voted for Bush's reform in 2007, and has on the front page of her website a link to where she explains in detail her position on immigration, which is this.

So I will fight for comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship for you and for families across our country. I will fight to stop partisan attacks on the executive actions that would put DREAMers—including many with us today—at risk of deportation.

And, if Congress refuses to act, as President I will do everything possible under the law to go even further. There are more people—like many parents of DREAMers and others with deep ties and contributions to our communities—who deserve a chance to stay. I’ll fight for them too.

The law currently allows for sympathetic cases to be reviewed, but right now most of these cases have no way to get a real hearing. Therefore we should put in place a simple, straightforward, and accessible way for parents of DREAMers and others with a history of service and contribution to their communities to make their case and be eligible for the same deferred action as their children.

But that’s just the beginning. There’s much more to do to expand and enhance protections for families and communities. To reform immigration enforcement and detention practices so they’re more humane, more targeted, and more effective. And to keep building the pressure and support for comprehensive reform.

vs not a single, solitary word. Just whom do you think is going to motive Hispanic turnout. This:

So I will fight for comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship for you and for families across our country. I will fight to stop partisan attacks on the executive actions that would put DREAMers—including many with us today—at risk of deportation.

And, if Congress refuses to act, as President I will do everything possible under the law to go even further. There are more people—like many parents of DREAMers and others with deep ties and contributions to our communities—who deserve a chance to stay. I’ll fight for them too.

The law currently allows for sympathetic cases to be reviewed, but right now most of these cases have no way to get a real hearing. Therefore we should put in place a simple, straightforward, and accessible way for parents of DREAMers and others with a history of service and contribution to their communities to make their case and be eligible for the same deferred action as their children.

But that’s just the beginning. There’s much more to do to expand and enhance protections for families and communities. To reform immigration enforcement and detention practices so they’re more humane, more targeted, and more effective. And to keep building the pressure and support for comprehensive reform.

or this

[Armstead]

97. I disagree with your interpretation, but I appreciate that you have raised an actual issue

Immigration is a very complex issue, and is one of those things where there are no easy answers.

Havcing heard Sanders on the subject, I believe he does (would) fully support lowering the barriers for citizenship, and supporting immigrants in other ways.

However, I also agree with him that opening the doors willy nilly -- or looking the other way about illegal immigrants -- is anotehr form of marginalization of American workers. If you can pay someone a whole lot less by bringing them into the country under "guest worker" or other special visas -- or hiring someone under the table -- that inherently does remove jobs from the pool available to citizens -- including legal immigrants.

And corporations loves that cheap labor.

But again, I appreciate the fact that you have raised an actual issue, other than ability to raise campaign money or "electability."

[dsc]

99. It really doesn't matter what either of us think Sanders position is

it matters what the people who vote on this issue think his position is. Currently, I don't think anyone who cares about this issue would vote for him over her as it now stands. As to the general election, if his position comes off as being just like Jeb's I can't see him getting the numbers of Hispanics that we need to win a general election. I have problems with his pretty much lack of a position on these issues to be both bad from a public policy standpoint (he hasn't even gone on record about reforming detention centers) and electorally.

[Armstead]

103. Well, I think if you really look at his past....

You'd find a lot to support the idea that he is very supportive of hispanics (and other immigrant groups). He hasn't been very good at pointing that out, but it's there.

He is especially sympathetic to the actual people in those countries. For example, he went to Nicaragua aand fought very visibly against Reagan's interventions in latin America, when it was not considered coool to do so.

I'm just saying look a little deeper.

In political terms, of getting Hispanic support at the polls, I agree he has to do a better job at articulating where he actually stands, and his history on related issues.

[cascadiance]

204. I think many of us who want a CLEAN immigration bill passed would support him because he WOULD too!

The immigration bills of recent years have always been cluttered with CRAP like H-1B program expansion, which Hillary Clinton likes that helps keep the bottom lower for employees in the tech industry along with the trade bills that Hillary Clinton loves both of.

Even those coming here to work on H-1B visas don't like having to use this program to come to the U.S. to work instead of having a better pathway more streamlined and cleared for them to REALLY immigrate here, rather than just be "used for a while" by these programs for cheap labor and sent back home.

Watch this interview of a "body shop" (and this isn't about repairing one's car) victim and ask whether he liked much how his experience was with H-1B visa program.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Silicon-Valleys-Body-Shop-Secret-280567322.html

It is this kind of program and helping corporations exploit cheap labor that this allows and other trade agreements like TPP that she also didn't have the time to take a position on when it counted earlier either, that makes it harder for people to do legitimate immigration here, as companies are less inclined to help people get green cards to come here legitimately with a better path to citizenship, when they have CRAP like H-1B NON-immigration programs to use instead.

There are many here that try to characterize him as weak on immigration by INCORRECTLY confusing his stances against these programs as being "against immigration" when being against them in immigration bills in my book is MORE pro-immigration, as it would help get more public support for immigration bills in my mind, and also have such bills only have immigration components in it, and not programs for just "temporary residents" (NOT immigrants)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/25/this-is-a-massive-effort-to-attract-cheap-labor-why-sen-bernie-sanders-is-skeptical-of-guest-workers/

Note how in that article he says he's a VERY STRONG supporter of the DREAM act.

[lunamagica]

112. + 1

[NorthCarolina]

45. I think you can expect she would implement

Chained CPI and means testing for Social Security, and probably add raising the retirement age to get GOP approval of her 'plan'. That would be one example of her 'liberal' policies. Another would of course be the implementing the 'liberal' TPP deal, and the 'liberal' Keystone pipeline too.

[George II]

59. Why don't YOU come up with the issues on which Sanders is better than Clinton, okay?

[HerbChestnut]

72. Here's my list...

1. Healthcare - Bernie supports universal healthcare as a right of citizenship. Clinton says she wants to "strengthen" medicare. I'm not really sure what that means. Sanders also supports universal child care and paid paternal leave for both parents, something that every other industrialized nation already has.

2. Minimum Wage - Bernie advocates for a $15/hr national minimum wage over the next few years, which is larger than the $12/hr minimum wage that Clinton supports as of last week (I think).

3. Infrastructure - Bernie has proposed a $1 Trillion investment into our infrastructure that will improve roads, dams, power grids, etc. It will also be focused heavily on renewable energy projects, which will help us get off of fossil fuels. I'm not sure where Clinton stands specifically on this. Her website just says that we will make the "necessary investments".

4. Foreign Policy - This is where past records are invaluable. Bernie voted against both Iraq Wars while Clinton infamously voted for the most recent one. Whatever the reason for that vote, it shows a lack of judgement on her part.

5. College Tuition - Bernie advocates for free college tuition and a severe reduction on interest rates for current student loans. Clinton's website says she wants to make college "affordable".

I think that's a good start.

[George II]

125. Has he articulated just how he intends to implement those things?

By the way, most of your characterizations of Clinton's positions above are false.

[HerbChestnut]

141. How does...

any president get anything passed? How did FDR pass the New Deal? It comes from the will of the people, and if the people want the things that Bernie is proposing then it will happen. Turns out if you look at polls, a majority of people support Sanders's positions already.

As to my "characterizations" of Clinton's policies, they came directly from her website, except the $12/hr minimum wage stance that I read about on a thread here a couple of days ago and was discussed at length.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

267. He would need a solid progressive majority

in the House and the Senate to get much of his proposals through. Without a HUGE groundswell of public support that even Republicans can't ignore, ANY Democrat elected in 2016 will have to take a more incremental approach to things.

[Armstead]

108. Are you a ringer who is really working for Sanders?

If not you might consider it, because your are not helping Hillary with responses like that. It's almost a satire.

The OP simply asked Clinton supporters to list issues they believe she is much better on.

That seems like a reasonable request.

If you thinks it's a dumb OP, and don't want to waste our time, you could just pass this post by.

But you have instead chosen to reinforce the complaint that many Sanders supporters make about what they perceive as Hillary's issues-free campaign style.

As a fellow Sanderista I salute you. Job well done.

[George II]

127. The entire premise of the OP is argumentative with an undertone of one with a chip on one's shoulder

[NorthCarolina]

111. That's and easy one.

Pick ANY issue, and Bernie is better than Clinton. Why? Because of who their policy positions on the issues truly support; it's Wall St. (Clinton) vs Main St. (Sanders). Choose your side wisely.

[Motown_Johnny]

145. because that is easy

But feel free to start your own thread instead of just attacking mine

[FreakinDJ]

64. HRC is better at taking donations from Wall St CEOs and Corporate Super Packs

Can't deny that

[VanillaRhapsody]

65. and can Sanders beat the Republicans without money? Can't deny that either!

Good luck with that Bernie! You are going to need all the luck you can get!

[FreakinDJ]

67. Nope - just the Working Class - aka: The 99%

Nice try - but Corp Shills don't get it

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. Keep telling yourself Bernie can get elected on dreams and wishes alone...

but we realists understand that until Campaign Finance Reform happens....THAT is the way this game of thrones is played like it or not. We CANNOT afford a loss to those crazy folks on the Right....we simply CANNOT!

[FreakinDJ]

75. Sorry - I won't be supporting any more Corp Shills

[FreakinDJ]

77. You keep telling yourself that

surely some one will believe it

[VanillaRhapsody]

79. I have reality on my side.....I am the realist in this conversation...

[Armstead]

87. Everyone dies. Nothing lasts. Therefore nothing ultimately matters.THAT'S REALITY.

Now, what one does with that "reality" is what matters. One can choose to go to bed and never wake up because...Why bother?

Or one can engage in life, find happiness and meaning and make the most of that reality and do what one can to make life better.

This mantra that we have to be political zombies because of "reality" is a bunch of crap that is always used by those who prefer to convince others to maintain the worst of the status quo instead of actually trying to improve things.

[VanillaRhapsody]

94. uh Huh???

and one can believe in rainbows and unicorns and floating on rivers of milk chocolate....just because you believe it....doesn't make them reality!

[Armstead]

110. Just a visceral response to that ever-present dismissive putdown using that word

Why can't people like you simply make your points without pretending that you are the sole source of knowledge of what "reality" is? And that any different set of interpretations or priorities is just rainbows and unicorns?

Obviously you think your interpretation of reality is the real reality. BFD.

Other people have their own versions of reality. Neither is either 100 percent right or wrong. It is a difference, and at times a disagreement, of what "reality" is, and the best way to deal with it. And what priorities should be.

I could give you a long list of "realities" from my perspective that negate yours. I can't claim mine is the sole interpretation of "reality" no matter how much I might believe in it.

You can't either.

[VanillaRhapsody]

116. Obviously under the circumstances....my "position" is that our opponents

and their various SuperPacs are raising and quite willing to spend ENORMOUS amounts of money on the next election....but someone Bernie is going to win on a tiny fraction of that! Stand back....the milk chocolate river just flooded!

[NorthCarolina]

119. So, you believe Clinton to be the better candidate

solely because she has her hands in the pockets of Wall Street campaign financiers? It's not about policy, positions, or anything of import beyond the access to campaign cash is what I am hearing you say.

It would be great if you could list ANY specific policy positions that you think sets Clinton above Sanders, but I guess the only place she excels over Bernie is her war chest because that's all I ever see you mention. Nothing else, just her cash.

[Armstead]

121. A reasonable point

And my response is that if we totally base everything we do on trying to attract the same money and give them the same favors, what is the point of having more than one political party?

My version of "reality" is that there is the possibility that if enough people were mobilized (including businesses who are not using campaign money as a form of extortion) it would be possible.

And if you boil it down to very conservative numbers-- Say 32 million people -- 10 percent of the population -- gave $1 to a candidate/party, that would be $32 million. Start multiplying that by multiples of whatever combination of $5 or $10 or even $100....that's a shitload of money. Of course, that would require those people believing they have a valid reason to donate even such a small amount. That's where a candidate who they see as being on their side and advocating for their interests comes in.

Maybe Bernie would not be that candidate. Maybe not. Perhaps Hillary could pull that off. Maybe someone waiting in the wings. Dunno.

But my point is that as long as everything we do is limited bu the limited straightjacket that the wealthy and powerful, and the political hacks, want to impose on what candidates are chosen and what they say and do, we might as well stop pretending we live in anything but a feudal Oligarchy and just drink and watch baseball.

So why the hell not try to even CONSIDER alternatives to the crooked rules of the road, and prefabricated definitions limitations and definitions of what is "acceptable" and "practical" to even begin to make real reform possible?

Obviously you may -- do -- disagree. But it's condescending and boring to dismiss such ideas out of hand -- or even steps in that direction --as the only way to deal with "reality."

[bettyellen]

169. I think you (guys) lose a lot of credibility with the "both parties the same" bullshit. Everytime I

hear someone say that, I want to finish it "...if you're a not a woman or POC"
Sorry, but MOST of us- the base- see it differently. And you should thank your lucky stars we do- otherwise no Dem would have a chance to keep the presidency next year.

I am not putting any party on a pedestal, but we were in much deeper shit in every measurable way under Bush.
It seems pretty silly (and very narrowly focused) to pretend otherwise.

[Armstead]

170. No the paarties are different, But too often not different enough.

Yes I much prefer the Democratic Party.

But in the core ways that really matter unfortunately, there is too much that they share. Too many Democratic politicians eitehr fail to challenge, or are actively complicit in the worst policies and actions. Annd those affect POC, women, males, yong, old -- everyone who is not lucky enough to be in the top echelons.

What was done in the 90's set the stage for the disasters happened under Bush. When Bill Clinton and the DLC supported deregulation of the media, they did terrible damage to our communications system. Financial deregulation wrecked the economy, along with the decimation to employment caused by free trade. The failure to enforce anti-trust laws allowed a handful of corporations to swallow up the economy. And all of this escalated the obscene concentration of wealth and power at the top, and is destroying the underpinnings of the middle class, and further undermining the disadvantaged.

So many times during that long process, I (we) kept hoping the Democrats would grow and spine and challenge these totally avoidable problems caused by Conservative Free Market Darwinism. But inevitably, they either ignored what was happening or actively contributed to it. They maybe made some feeble token gestures to fight the GOP/Oligarchs, but they totally refused to acknowledge the fundamental underlying problems or fight fopr the steps that were necesaary.

[bettyellen]

171. See, this rhetoric (even this Yes- but...' REPLY) is ridiculous- you are focused on economics ONLY

and not everyone is. Sorry, but exaggerating the case and going off on repeated rants about the economy while ignoring everythign else that matters- not good.

[Juicy_Bellows]

172. I suppose not everyone is concerned with the economy.

Those folks must be doing pretty well. For so many others, this is not the case.

"Knife and fork upon the table, but nothing in your pan. Say anything about it, you'll be in trouble with the man."
- Leadbelly - Midnight Special

[Armstead]

180. No I am not. It's economics and power and all that stems from those

It IS possible to walk and chew gum at the same time. It IS possible to think and care about the economy, and also to think and care about other issues too.

And I wish I was exagerating. But if you look at the big picture its pretty bad. Do you REALLY think it's a good things for a handful of massive and immoral banks to have total control over our economic lives? And have the power to crash everything as they did in 2008?

And it is not "just" economics. These things affect everything.

The fact that we have turned over control of all of our institutions to corporations (privatization, deregulation, etc) with no accountability doesn't matter to the real lives of people? Bullshit.

Okay, let's talk criminal justice. You think it's a good idea, for example, to have for-profit corporations running our prison systems, and determining how criminal justice is carried out? It's okay for those prisons to become defacto slave labor camps with prisoners hired out to the highest bidder? You would prefer that to a public system that is accountable?

Does it matter whether the corporation you have to buy electricity from is required to behave themselves in terms of what they charge and quality of service or not?

Does it matter whether health coverage is truly affordable and accessible to everyone -- or is just another unregulated business that can do whatever they want to make a profit off your health? You want to talk about women's health? Think the economic structure and driving motivations of providers doesn't matter to that?

Sorry if you think all of that is irrelevant.

[NorthCarolina]

144. Because "Real Dems" should only support Corporate Shills...

nice bumper sticker you got going there...go hillary

[840high]

224. A real Dem sides with the 99%.

[HerbChestnut]

86. Obama got elected on Hope and Change...

with most of his donations coming from small donors. It can be done. Bernie has already done it throughout his political career.

[Romulox]

70. She is much better at representing the interests of the very rich. nt

[Thinkingabout]

91. I did not know a president was only supposed to represent the interest of a few, I thought it was

everyone, the interest of all American citizens are important. Do you think Bernie is only going to represent the interest of the poor?

[840high]

225. He will much more - Hillary owes too

many rich people favors.

[qazplm]

81. "but as far as bills that might actually get passed, there is no difference."

You realize that's true about the vast number of policy positions each of them have don't you?

There's nothing magical about Bernie that's going to result in substantially more liberal policies in a divided government.

[Thinkingabout]

109. One difference is the number of years spent in Congress, 1991 to present for Bernie,

for Hillary 2001 to 2009.

[newfie11]

82. None

[COLGATE4]

84. Winning a general election? nt

[HerbChestnut]

95. I think any democrat has a good chance of winning the upcoming general...

And Bernie is now polling ahead of a few Republicans in a general election matchup. His name recognition is holding him back, but once he gets more exposure (like on a debate stage) you'll see his numbers rise.

[BainsBane]

120. Gun control, women's rights

and she is more effective speaking to concerns of people of color, at least polls would suggest so.

I might also put immigration and Latino rights, though I don't know how much of Sanders recent misstep is a reflection of his views/policies or an unfortunate gaffe.

[Alfalfa]

130. Could you be more specific

Many people have said "women's rights" without elaborating further.

[BainsBane]

138. Clinton is much more forceful in defense of reproductive rights

She issued a strong statement in defense of Planned Parenthood soon after the controversy broke. She was clear she saw the attacks on them as an attack on women's reproductive rights.

She has been a strong advocate for women's issues her entire political career. She does not see them as secondary to class, though she has also addressed the great problems of wealth inequality and poverty in this country.

As Secretary of State, she elevated the issue of human trafficking to a key area of focus.

Sanders is good on advancing economic interests of women, but he does not as forcefully champion reproductive rights and other issues involving sexism and misogyny. He was not forceful like Clinton in defending PP. He spoke before a group of firefights and said "we can agree to disagree on abortion" but what matters is your children's education. I don't dispute the importance of their children's education. However, I want a president who does not hedge on my basic civil rights. If Clinton had the courage to make clear she would be an unwaivering advocate for reproductive rights around the globe as SoS in her confirmation hearing, where GOP Senators had the power to filibuster her nomination, Sanders could speak up before a group of firefighters.
He chose not to. As well meaning as he is, he doesn't know what it's live to a woman or a person of color, and his central focus on class has the effect of eclipsing issues important to key Democratic constituencies.

[peacebird]

123. On issues, she is not better than Bernie. She has name recognition and money.

[stone space]

128. Yeah, that one.

The one exception here might be gun control.

I'm a Bernie supporter, but damn!

Dude really needs to evolve on that one!

Arms manufacturers are no better than Big Tobacco.

And they deserve not one ounce more of special protection.

People are more important than profits.

[BlueMTexpat]

131. I think that your question would be better posed this way:

what liberal policy/policies will Hillary try to implement that Bernie wouldn't?

The very real issue is that a US President can only do so much on his/her own. A President must have allies and coalitions in Congress or their policy proposals will wither on the vine.

The policies favored by both candidates are quite similar, IMO, in spite of the fact that too many here focus on differences that don't really exist. Either Hillary or Bernie (even Martin O'Malley, for that matter) will try very hard to implement policies that most DUers will like. I know that I will like and support them. How successful any will be at getting those policies implemented will depend on how well they can convince both Democrats and Republicans to work with them.

In this respect, Bernie's reluctance to identify himself as a Democrat until now - even though he has caucused with Democrats rather than Republicans - could put him at a slight disadvantage. Party ID counts for many Dems.

[NCTraveler]

133. Influence, women, social justice,...

orginization, willingness to get dirty in order to accomplish things, Bill is simply the shit, greatly respected by many around the world(including friendships with world leaders), guns, economy(used for both candidates). The list goes on.

Sanders. Single payer or bust at every turn. While some not currently being realistic, and truly further off than single payer, his economic ideas surpass Hillary and her plans. You know where he will stand on an issue before he even talks about it almost every time.

[Motown_Johnny]

147. Bill isn't running. Influence isn't an issue,

and I see no space between them on women or social justice issues. In fact, Hillary supported Bill's crime bill that is the source of many of the social injustices now being suffered. As far as economy goes, this is Hillary's weak spot. Her being seen as for the 1% more than the 99% hurts her. Bernie is the economic populist that people want.

Pushing for single payer isn't a bad thing. It counterbalances the Repeal Obamacare nuts out there.

We know where he will stand on an issue because he has not strayed from his approach to issues for decades. It is called having a moral compass.

[NCTraveler]

149. "Bill isn't running." Seriously?

Wasn't even aware I referenced him in political terms. The thing people take issue with.

"Pushing for single payer isn't a bad thing."

That's why I put that in the win for Sanders column.

[Motown_Johnny]

191. It sounded like you used Bill as a reason to support Hillary

from your post



...orginization, willingness to get dirty in order to accomplish things, Bill is simply the shit, greatly respected by many around the world(including friendships with world leaders), guns, economy(used for both candidates). The list goes on.



Maybe I misunderstood, but it still looks like simply being married to a former President what you were presenting as a qualification. Not that it answers the question I asked in the OP, what policies would she implement that would be different.

[NCTraveler]

233. The two are detached by the comma as was the part before and the part after that you didn't bold.

Although that would still be accurate. And if you told me Sanders might have unfettered access to Bill for his thoughts, I would say big plus. Guy has some serious experience. He still isn't running.

[Motown_Johnny]

236. ok, I thought you were describing his respect around the world

and his friends when you are saying that it is Hillary you were describing.

I must have misread that, sorry.

Even so, we have not elected a former Sec. of State to the Presidency since Buchanan and even then he is seen as one of the worst ever.

The respect and friendship earned as chief diplomat does not translate into a qualification for Commander In Chief. If it did, we would have seen more of them running. It even looks like it might actually be a negative since she now refuses to state a position on at least two serious issues that she was involved with as SOS. Waiting until she is President until we know what she thinks about TPP or the XL pipeline isn't acceptable and could be a problem for her in the debates.

I think we should just keep Bill out of this. His advice would be available to any President of either party. As would Pres. Obama's. Having a former President back in the White House in an unofficial capacity could create a very strange power dynamic. I really think we should just let Hillary run as Hillary and not drag him into this at all.

[TheKentuckian]

146. Virtually none and if any rare thing like women's health it is a great record to

be proud of and ahead of the curve for years even on our side of the aisle that he can legitimately argue has little to nothing to knock and so is comparable at worst.

[arcane1]

148. Over 140 replies so far, and not one straight answer to your OP.

If there is one, I missed it.

[beam me up scottie]

153. Ikr?

Nothing but recycled memes and blatant misrepresentation of his record from the usual characters.

Hillarious.

[Motown_Johnny]

157. The only 2 possibilities that I have seen

are gun control, which I mentioned in the OP, and Immigration.


I am still not convinced that Hillary and Bernie would be any different when it came to implementing policy as President on these issues. Still, there are 2 possibilities.

But only 2, and only possibilities.

[rock]

156. She doesn't draw nearly as many fanatics

[Motown_Johnny]

158. IMO she draws only fanatics.

Since there is no real reason to support her based on policy (as this thread has shown).

She only has fans. It is almost a "cult of personality" although that is to strong a term for what is happening.

People support Hillary because people support Hillary. No rational thought required.

[rock]

159. "Fanatics" not "fans"

[Motown_Johnny]

163. I was trying to be nice

I thought that the text including "Cult of personality" made the point clearly enough. Also support without any rational thought.

Yes, fanatics.

Bernie supporters want a real live economic populist for President. If another candidate entered the race who was better on the issues important to us, we would switch our support.

Clinton supporters are not like that. They support her because they support her, no rational thought required.



Fanatics.

[rock]

200. Well, I was trying to be nice too

Nice try but language doesn't work like that. You can't just make up meanings for words.

I found these in a thesaurus for "fanatic" (exactly what I had in mind):
>activist addict bigot devotee enthusiast extremist fiend freak maniac militant nut radical
>visionary zealot bug crank crazy demon fool monomaniac ultraist

Hillary draws supporters, Bernie fanatics.

[Armstead]

208. Then you should switch allegences

Sorry, cheap shot, I know.

I've been an avid Bernie supporter since the 90's, when he was a voice in the wilderness in Washington. The things he (and other progressives) were saying and warning against have all come to pass (remember 2008?) whole the things the DLC "centrist tyoes were saying proved to be hot air.

I would rather see someone who was right about issues and where they were leading us.

So call me a fanatic.

[rock]

218. Why should I switch allegiances?

I don't follow, really. The point I was trying to make was that Bernie has a lot more fanatics supporting him than Hillary does. By the way: I don't blame Bernie for this, I'm talking about his supporters. Bernie seems to be a real nice fellow.

[Armstead]

219. My headline was a bad joke about "who's a fanatic"

The listing of bad traits you associate with Sanders supporters brought it out.

Sanders supporters may be more passionate -- and perhaps more riven because they (we) are underdogs. And there may be a few fanatics there.

But no more so than Hillary's supporters or any other politician. Especially when races reflect underlying issues and differences more than just the selection of a candidates.

[rock]

253. OK, I get it

Not so cheap a shot. Certainly you're entitled to your opinion as I am mine. I particularly agree with your sentiment that perhaps they're more riven because they are underdogs.

[Motown_Johnny]

238. You started using that word, not me.

And as this thread shows, there really is no policy reason to support Hillary over Bernie.

We are supporting him based on his stance on the issues. Hillary supporters support her simply because she is Hillary.

That makes your side the fanatics.

[rock]

244. Neat how you avoided addressing my original point

I call your side the fanatics and after running around the block instead of addressing my point you try to redefine the the term and finally wind up saying my candidate has the fanatics. Now you asked the original question and I answered it. Don't ask a question that you don't want an answer to.

[Motown_Johnny]

245. Yes I did

it is my position that people who are issue driven are not fanatics.

It is my position that people who only support Hillary because she is Hillary are the fanatics.

How was that unclear?

[rock]

251. Perfectly clear

As clear as I knew that fanatics do not take criticism of their idol.

[Motown_Johnny]

252. The way Hillary supporters freak out when

we point out that she constantly changes positions on important policies?

Yep, fanatics do that.

Go ahead and criticize Bernie if you want. I care about his policy positions and I doubt very much if you can criticize them.

You really are the fanatic. You are just so far gone you can't see it.

Just FYI..... If Biden does get into the race I may support him instead of Bernie. Why? Because I care about the issues more than I care about the candidate and the seated VP may be able to win my support. Can you say the same? I doubt it. Why? Because you are a Hillary fanatic.

[Thinkingabout]

176. Bookmarked

[bravenak]

178. Bernie seems to be running against Obama's legacy and Hillary is running on solidifying it and

preserving it. The way she and her supporters run on Democratic accomplishments will pull in the Obama coalition. Bernie cannot win by being the anti Obama. It hurts him with vital voting blocks, black people, women....

I don't like the anti Obama rhetoric from his supporters. Most black people just don't like folks who don't like Obama. I've noticed that his biggest fans are some of the people who say the nastiest shit about Obama. I'll vote against the anti Obama crew.

[Motown_Johnny]

181. Against it? To me it looks like he wants to broaden most of it.

Can you please give me a quote that makes you think Bernie is anti-Obama?

He is against the TPP and he wants to expand health care reform to a single payer system. I don't see that as being anti-Obama. It is just his stance on these policies.

[bravenak]

184. Bernie said he thought Obama should be primaried. Look in the AA group. On Tobin's thread.

That fact is making the rounds through black media right now.
Plus quite a few of his supporters trash Obama, Lynch, and Holder constantly. We are wondering they have issues with the color of those people we actually love and respect. They seem to love Cornell West who constantly talks shit about Obama in a racist nasty evil way. Do a DU search, but it's not just on DU, they do it everywhere, and seem to forget that black people are on the internet reading their words to decide which group to belong to. Very uncomfortable to be a part of a group of supporters who hate yr Persident.

[Motown_Johnny]

187. To try and move him to the left.

These are clearly policy differences.

Here is the quote you are referring to:

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/07/22/277124/bernie-sanders-primary-obama/

^snip^

SANDERS: Brian, believe me, I wish I had the answer to your question. Let me just suggest this. I think there are millions of Americans who are deeply disappointed in the president; who believe that, with regard to Social Security and a number of other issues, he said one thing as a candidate and is doing something very much else as a president; who cannot believe how weak he has been, for whatever reason, in negotiating with Republicans and there’s deep disappointment. So my suggestion is, I think one of the reasons the president has been able to move so far to the right is that there is no primary opposition to him and I think it would do this country a good deal of service if people started thinking about candidates out there to begin contrasting what is a progressive agenda as opposed to what Obama is doing. […] So I would say to Ryan [sic] discouragement is not an option. I think it would be a good idea if President Obama faced some primary opposition.



Is that really what you consider being anti-Obama?

[bravenak]

188. I don't care why. Obama is the Democratic President of the Untited States and our first black one.

He is the fulfillment of a promise, a fulfillment of a dream of our people that we could one day be a part of this nation fully. I do not think you realize that our connection (black people) to Obama is emotional and real and our loyalty unwavering. Those who would seek to harm him earn our wrath.
We are less loyal to ideology and idealisms than we are to him. To us he is MORE than Dr. King. He is OUR founding father.

[Motown_Johnny]

189. By that logic

we should support Hillary just to have a woman President.

Besides, how is trying to move him to the left harming him?

[bravenak]

193. Trying to move him to the left while his supporters trash him?

Please. We see right through that.

You still think this is about logic? Love is not logical. We LOVE him. Like family. We are his family. Period. It feels like you all are trash talking my cousin Pookie When you try to 'force him left'. I don't like folks trashing my family. I do get back.

[Motown_Johnny]

194. OK, thanks for admitting this is not a rational argument.

I think the guy is a great President but I do not worship him as an idol. I can't argue with that. Nobody can.

[bravenak]

196. Exactly. We agree with him and love him.

We respect him. Trashing him just makes us go away. No interest.

[Turchinsky]

226. I'm a Sanders supporter....

and I want to tell you I voted for Obama both times, and both times, he has greatly disappointed me. But he is still the President, so I have to support him.

I respect and like him - I think he's got great personality, but some of his policies suck, especially when it comes to trade. I can't forget that he put Social Security on the table with Chained CPI - it threatens ME directly. Right now my meager income is at risk next year thanks to the Republicans first act when they got control.

[bravenak]

186. Here:

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/07/22/277124/bernie-sanders-primary-obama/


I had never known this otherwise I would have never have given Bernie a second look. Never.

[uponit7771]

261. +1, I figure if they don't like that guy then they'l hate me

[artislife]

182. Stumped.

Can I call a friend?

[Motown_Johnny]

183. Unlimited life lines.

Feel free to poll the audience too.

[artislife]

185. Heee! nt

[BKH70041]

213. Odd question.

Do you somehow believe that she isn't better than he would be on certain issues or would implement policies he wouldn't if you can't be convinced it's true?

[Motown_Johnny]

241. I am looking for a rational reason to support her

and can't find one.

To answer your question, she is far worse on most of the issues I care about.

She is a war hawk who voted for the Iraq war while Bernie voted against it.

She was slow to "evolve" on marriage equality while Bernie has been right on this issue for decades.

She won't even tell us her position on TPP or the XL pipeline. I find that completely unacceptable.

She is still all over the place on trade in general and won't give any solid answer as to her position.

Bernie is for breaking up the big banks and Hillary would never consider such a thing.

Bernie is pushing for a single payer health care system, and even if we just get public option out of it then it would be a great improvement over what we have now. Hillary no longer addresses health care at all.

The list goes on and on, but my reason for this OP was to try and convince myself that there are rational reasons to support Hillary. Now it seems that her entire campaign is some junior version of a cult of personality. Hillary supporters support Hillary because she is Hillary. For them, it seems to be enough.

Do you have some policy (other than maybe gun control, maybe) that she would be better on than Bernie as President?

[DebJ]

227. You know what scares me in this thread?

There seems to be a presumption, by several posters, that no Democratic President would be able to get certain changes made.

In other words, it sounds like an assumption that Congress will remain solidly Republican.............

[gollygee]

235. That's because of gerrymandering

There are changes coming to gerrymandering, but it will take a while to affect enough of the country to make a huge difference.

[Motown_Johnny]

255. can you see 60 Senate seats for us in 2017?

Or a majority in the House given the gerrymandering?

It seems like a pretty reasonable assumption until after the 2020 census.

[kath]

256. Wow. More than 250 responses, yet no HRC supporter has been able to answer the question in the OP:

"If Hillary becomes President instead of Bernie, what liberal policy/policies will she implement that he wouldn't."

Pathetic. really pathetic.

[Recursion]

272. OK, what's a policy that Sanders would implement that Clinton wouldn't?

What's a concrete difference to the governance of the country that Sanders's election would bring about?

[Recursion]

271. On the issue of being able to win a national election, which is the most important issue

A primary vote is not a session with a therapist or a chance at self-expression. A President's own beliefs don't drive very much in terms of policy; the beliefs of the 51st Senator and 218th Representative do.

[Motown_Johnny]

278. No, that isn't the topic being discussed here

And I see no evidence that she won't implode under the stress of a general election campaign.

Please at least try to answer the question posted in the OP

[Recursion]

279. Yes, it really is

That is the only question: who can actually win a national election.

I think it's O'Malley

Clinton supporters think it's Clinton

As far as I can tell, Sanders supporters think that worrying about that is a sign of being "Third Way" or "DLC" or whatever the shiney quote of the moment is. It's kind of hard to keep up.

[Motown_Johnny]

280. Not at all, we think he can win and win big.

I think he has a much better chance than Hillary simply because she doesn't have the experience to hold up will in the general election. She has only won her Senate seat elections in New York, and most any well funded (D) could have done that.


Bernie's economic populism crosses over to the other side and has some (R)s supporting him

If I thought he couldn't win I wouldn't be supporting him either.

[Divernan]

277. HRC voted pro-cluster bombs; Bernie sponsored legislation banning them

The main point: Hillary Clinton voted to let our military continue to use cluster bombs in areas with concentrated civilian populations, despite the thousands of innocent children who have died or been handicapped due to picking up unexploded cluster bomblets.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/21/425303/-Hillary-Clinton-Voted-to-Continue-Cluster-Bombing-Civilians
Clinton's vote in support of continued use of cluster bombs was cast September 6, 2006 on an amendment to the Defense Appropriations act by Senator Dianne Feinstein - Senate amendment 4882 to H.R. 5631 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2007.
Statement of Purpose: To protect civilian lives from unexploded cluster munitions.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2008-03-18/article/29503
Commentary: Hillary Clinton’s Shameful Vote on Cluster Bombs
By Paul Rockwell
Tuesday March 18, 2008-

In her autobiography, Living History, Senator Hillary Clinton portrays herself as an advocate for children, a defender of women and human rights. In fact, the Clintons have a long history of sacrificing the rights, even the lives of children, for political expediency. It is time to set the record straight.
I. CLUSTER BOMBS
On September 6, 2006, a Senate bill—a simple amendment to ban the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas—presented Senator Clinton with a timely opportunity to protect the lives of children throughout the world. The cluster bomb is one of the most hated and heinous weapons in modern war, and its primary victims are children.

Senator Obama voted for the amendment to ban cluster bombs. Senator Clinton, however, voted with the Republicans to kill the humanitarian bill, an amendment in accord with the Geneva Conventions, which already prohibit the use of indiscriminate weapons in populated areas.

All senators are expected to inform themselves on the issues before they cast a vote. The evidence is overwhelming. It is hard to believe that Senator Clinton was unaware of the humanitarian crisis when she voted to continue the use of cluster bombs in cities and populated areas. A U.N. weapons commission called cluster bombs “weapons of indiscriminate effect.” For years the international press reported the horrific consequences of cluster bombs on civilians. On April 10, 2003, for example, Asia Times described the carnage in Baghdad hospitals: “The absolute majority of patients are women and children, victims of shrapnel, and most of all, fragments of cluster bombs.” Reporting from a hospital in Hillah, The Mirror, a British newspaper, became graphic: “Shrapnel peppered their bodies. Blackened the skin. Smashed heads. Tore limbs. A doctor reports that ‘all the injuries you see were caused by cluster bombs. The majority of the victims were children who died because they were outside."

IN STARK CONTRAST, BERNIE SANDERS OPPOSED THEM
Bernie Sanders assumed office in the Senate on January 3, 2007. The following month, on February 14, 2007, as a brand new, freshman Senator, Bernie introduced (with co-sponsors Dianne Feinstein (CA), Patrick Leahy (VT), Barbara Mikulski (MD) the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2007 (S. 594). This far-reaching legislation would have banned the use of cluster munitions in or near civilian populated areas, and prohibit funds for the use, sale, and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent. The bill was referred to the Senate committee on Foreign Relations, then chaired by Republican Richard Lugar, where it died. https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/594/all-info
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Foreign_Relations

While administration officials dawdle, some policymakers are beginning to pay attention. On February 14, 2007, Senators Dianne Feinstein (CA), Patrick Leahy (VT), Barbara Mikulski (MD), and Bernie Sanders (VT) introduced the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2007 (S. 594). This far-reaching legislation would ban the use of cluster munitions in or near civilian populated areas, and prohibit funds for the use, sale, and transfer of cluster munitions with a failure rate of more than 1 percent.

http://fpif.org/a_cluster_bomb_treaty_again_its_the_us_v_the_world/

Hillary supported the use of land mines and cluster bombs, regardless of how many children were killed and maimed by same. Guess she hadn't "evolved" into being a self-proclaimed champion of children yet. I want a president who will not only honor but strengthen the Geneva Conventions.That ain't "never-served-a-day-in-uniform-but dodged-sniper-fire-in-Bosnia, Hillary Clinton."

"The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law: wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or destruction not justified by military necessity." -- Nuremberg conventions, Principle VI

Combatants "shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and, accordingly, shall direct their operations only against military objectives." -- Geneva Conventions, part IV, Article 48

[Rosa Luxemburg]

281. Working with Wall Street

[raouldukelives]

287. Shareholder value. nt