Just watching this video from ‘The Big Picture’ talking about the latest debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders:
And oh lord her (Hillary Clinton’s) claims simply don’t hold water:
1) She makes the claim that because she is a woman running to be the first woman president therefore it doesn’t make her part of the ‘establishment’ – really? the ‘establishment’ is defined not by who you are as a candidate but by what your policies are. Obama was not an establishment candidate not because he is black but because his policies, when he was running against you, were to the left of where the centre is within the Democratic Party. The policies of Obama when he ran during the primaries put himself outside of the ‘establishment’ where as you were advocating the same sorts of policies that your husband advocated when he was president – you were part of the DLC/DNC establishment aka ‘third way’ Democratic. Fast forward to today and you’re advocating exactly what the mainstream DNC hierarchy wants from a candidate – it puts you squarely in the realm of being an establishment candidate.
2) People donate to you not because you’ve got a sparkling personality or you’re some sort of young go-getter but because your policies line up with their own vested interests. Now, the question as to whether money changes policies or candidates make policies to attract money is an open debate but assuming that it is policies first money comes second then the big concern should be why the big financial firms are so willing to give to Hillary unless there is something that they will gain from her winning the nomination and then ultimately the presidency.
3) Your track record when it comes to decisions matters a whole lot more than experience given that you’re never going to be making decisions in a vacuum so the question that’ll come up is how you digest the information given to you by your advisors and the decisions you’ll make based on that advice. In the case of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton – both looked at the same evidence that George W Bush used to justify the war in Iraq and both came to different conclusions. We have a real world scenario where Bernie Sanders has proven to be a better judge of the evidence and have made decisions that have been correct. That doesn’t even touch on the revelation by Elizabeth Warren regarding the bankruptcy reforms under George W Bush which, among other things, meant that you couldn’t have your student loan dismissed. Take a quick guess who voted for the law change. Now here the country is years later with students up to their eye balls in debt with a large section of the millennials who have defaulted on their loan which is why Bernie has 84% support by those under 30 and Hillary only has 16% of support so assuming she wins the nomination she is going to have to do a hell of a lot to convince the millennials that it is worth getting out of bed to vote for Hillary given that it was Hillary who set the wheels in motion for the financial clusterfuck that exists.
4) You cannot be an ‘outsider’ and ‘not an establishment candidate’ whilst at the same time playing the other card which is the claim that Hillary makes of being ‘pragmatic’ and ‘seen how the sausage is made’. She uses this as the basis that the problem with Bernie is that his ideas are too ‘pie in the sky’ and thus will never get done but apparently she has the Midas touch when it comes to getting legislation through the congress and senate. If you claim that Bernie is over promising with his vision then I could equally make the same claim about what Hillary promises given that the Republicans, as soon as they won the majority in the congress, made it abundantly clear in a secret meeting between big wigs, that the goal was to ensure that nothing would be achieved as so long as there was a Democratic president in charge.
So whether Hillary wins or Bernie wins both will face the same obstacles – what is Hillary’s game plan to win congress and increase the majority in the senate? at least in the case of Bernie he can propose an alternative vision and realises that you cannot just disband the organisational structure once you’re president – you need to keep the ‘bern’ alive by getting voters out to the polls, winning a strong majority in the lower and upper house so then at least the worst case scenario if there are any compromises they’ll be minimal rather than what happened with ObamaCare which was butchered to high heaven to get ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats (aka DINO’s) to vote for the bill which stripped out the public option, price negotiation power for the government to drive down prescription drug prices which would save the government, in turn the tax payers, a substantial amount of money resulting in cost curve taking a turn downwards vs. the unsustainable growth upwards.