Introduction
I liked what little I knew about Bernie Sanders before his presidential campaign. But admittedly, until this campaign, I did not know him very well. Because he developed quite a following during his presidential campaign I decided to get to know him better. I started researching his stands on the issues, his political history and statements he has made through the years. There are ample reasons to like Bernie Sanders. But the unvarnished truth is he would not make a good president and my research clearly points out why.
Make no mistake, if Bernie Sanders wins the Democratic nomination for president, I will enthusiastically support and vote for Bernie simply because he is head and shoulders better than any Republican candidate for that office. But that is setting a pretty low bar. And the day I vote for Bernie will rank among the saddest days of my life -- and I say that advisedly -- simply because of what it will mean for the country and for the Democratic Party.
I start with the proposition that this is the most important, most consequential, presidential election of my lifetime. I believe that even the mere issue of appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court will have a profound affect on the future direction of this country. Either we are going to consolidate the gains and progress that was made during the Clinton-Obama years and move forward from there, or we are going to go backward as a nation and lose things like Obamacare, a woman's right to chose and maybe Social Security. I am a liberal. And like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton, I am a died-in-the-wool Hillary Clinton supporter (for good reason) and I have concluded she is the only choice for me.
II.
WHY I LIKE HILLARY
HRC has a long and distinguished history of loyalty, service to and accomplishments within the Democratic Party. She helped build the Democratic party at the state and local level over the last 35 years, held many positions and offices within and for the party and, in every role, she served with distinction and honor.
HRC has paid her dues to the Democratic Party and she deserves the support of the Democratic Party in 2016. She has been involved in leadership positions in the Democratic Party since the 1973 Watergate investigation of Richard Nixon. She played a central role in the health care reform push of 1993 which laid the groundwork for the creation of ObamaCare in 2010. In 1997 and 1999, she played a leading role in advocating the creation of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), the Adoption and Safe Families Act and the Foster Care Independence Act. She was the first and only First Lady to run for, and obtain, public office while still First Lady. Kenneth W. Starr drug her into the Whitewater Investigation where her marriage, professional life and political career were scrutinized under a microscope. She has long scared Republicans, not unlike her husband and the current president, in a way that is paranoid and irrational. At 22 years of age she was also the first ever student commencement speaker at prestigious Wellesley College where her commencement speech made the cover of Time magazine. It was a unique honor; HRC’s own classmates at Wellesley asked the school administration for Hillary to address them on their graduation day.
Hillary is a distinguished graduate of Yale Law School, former Director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic, former civil litigation attorney and former Law Professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law. She is the former First Lady of Arkansas and the former First Lady of the United States, and the first FLOTUS in U.S. history to hold a postgraduate degree. She is the first ex-FLOTUS in U.S. history to be elected to the United States Senate. She was elected by the State of New York to serve two terms in the United States Senate. She is a former U.S. Secretary of State, only the third female ever to serve in that position. The first female ever appointed to that office, Madeline Albright, was appointed by Hillary’s husband upon her advice, recommendation and “urging,” according to former President Bill Clinton. Clinton won the Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album in 1997 for “It Takes a Village.” She is a published author. She is a self proclaimed Pantsuit Aficionado. She married a man named Bill, who plays the saxophone. She was her husband’s most senior and instrumental advisor without portfolio while he served as the nation's 42nd president. She took on many of the most difficult assignments of his administration. She is the most qualified candidate for the presidency in the last 150 years.
The list of her accomplishments is so prohibitively long it will not fit within the limited confines of this article. But by all means go see “Hillary Clinton’s Awards and Accomplishments” in Wikipedia.
Hillary has something no other presidential candidate possesses: she will have the support and advice of the two most successful, prolific and iconic, former Democratic presidents, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, since FDR and the “New Deal.” As successful as Barack Obama has been with liberals particularly in his second term, Bill Clinton left office, (1) with the highest approval rating of any president in modern time, (2) as the only president to completely eliminate the deficit and leave his successor a surplus in modern times, and (3) the only president to create a net 23 million new jobs in 8 years in American history. Hillary has the support of the former president and the current president. That is a big plus in my book.
I am proud of her and her accomplishments. Secretary of State, Senator from New York, First Lady (she made the latter into a substantive, not merely a figurehead, role).
Throughout her lifetime no one has done more to champion the cause of women’s rights around the world than Hillary Clinton. She has personally delivered important speeches on the subject all over the world but her three best known were delivered to the United Nations General Assembly meeting on the issue of human rights, in New York City; in Beijing, China, to the Chinese people; and, before the International Commission on Human Rights. One of my all-time favorite Hillary Clinton lectures on women’s reproductive rights was in an exchange before a Republican congressional committee member while she was testifying as Secretary of State. It's on YouTube and it's simply wonderful; she made the Republican questioner wish he had never asked the question that triggered her brilliant, in your face, tongue lashing. I was proud for her and I was proud for the cause she was championing.
It's not necessary to be against anybody to be FOR Hillary Clinton. In every position in which Hillary has served this country, or the Democratic Party, she has done so with honor and distinction. Who else can you say that about?
III.
WHY I LIKE BERNIE
There are some things I like about Bernie Sanders. I like that he has spoken out about income inequality, I like his non-leadership support for, and role in, the Civil Rights Movement; and, given the fact that I am an unabashed liberal, I like the fact that he is too. I like, appreciate and commend him for his work, support, involvement in, and dedication to, various issues relating to veterans. Actually there a lot of reasons to respect, admire and like Bernie Sanders but that's not the issue. There are two issues: (1) would Bernie make a good president, and (2) as between Bernie and Hillary, who would be the best president. The answer to the first question is clearly “no,” and, the equally clear answer to the second question is, Hillary would make the best president.
But, I can and do again state unequivocally and unambiguously that if he wins the Democratic nomination I will vote for and enthusiastically support Bernie Sanders against any Republican nominee for president. After doing my research, I hope it never comes to that.
IV.
WHY BERNIE WOULD NOT MAKE A GOOD PRESIDENT AND HILLARY WILL
While I like Bernie, I do not think he would be a good president and the reason why is his own history. Hillary is clearly the best choice, as between the two, and here is why:
gun violence in the United States
I am against gun violence in this country and I strongly support reasonable gun control measures calculated to do something about it at long last and the N.R.A. can go jump in a lake. I don't care if it hair lips the N.R.A. There are too many acts of gun violence in this country today – we have far and away more gun violence than any other 10 nations combined in the world -- and I want something done about it.
Bernie’s positions on gun control absolutely scare the hell out of me and they should scare everybody: (1) Bernie voted against the Brady Act of 1993, (2) he voted against compensation for Sandy Hook victims, (3) he voted against several reasonable and common sense gun control measures, (4) he has received numerous campaign contributions and other material support from gun manufacturers and the N.R.A. for decades, (5) he opposed Amber alerts, (6) he enjoys a close personal relationship with executives at the N.R.A. (historically, they scratch each others’ backs), and (7) every time an act of gun violence occurs in this country Bernie disappears from public view for days. Bernie gets a lifetime “D” rating from the N.R.A (insiders speculate that was arrived at by negotiation between the parties and survives by mutual arrangement between the parties); Hillary has a lifetime “F”rating by the N.R.A.; she wears her “F” as a badge of honor.
The close relationship between Bernie Sanders and the N.R.A. is of profound concern. The N.R.A., and the gun manufacturers, support his political campaigns and, in turn, he provides critical votes when they need it. In 1990 when Bernie Sanders found himself in a tightening election he turned to the N.R.A. and asked for help. The infamous Executive Vice President and CEO of the N.R.A., Wayne LaPierre, personally, sent out an emergency request to their membership seeking support from them for Bernie. The request went out to 12,000 N.R.A. members. They responded and Bernie walked away easily with a big victory. The N.R.A.’s support for Bernie probably did not win the election for him in 1990 but it did secure the wide margin of victory. When Bernie needs political help he turns to the N.R.A. and gun manufacturers. When they need a critical vote Bernie obliges. I do not want a president cozy with the N.R.A. or gun manufacturers and that rules out Bernie.
The most significant gun control legislation ever enacted into law in this nation was the Brady Act of 1993 named after Ronald Reagan’s Press Secretary, James Brady, shot during the assassination attempt on President Reagan in 1981 by John Hinckley. Mr. Brady recently passed. The Brady Act was so difficult to pass that literally scores of Democratic Congressmen willingly, knowingly and voluntarily sacrificed their political careers in order to pass it through Congress. Bill Clinton called many of those Congressmen the night the Brady Act passed to commiserate with them and to thank them for their vote and for their past service to the country. They knew their vote would cause them to lose their jobs. They knew they would be “targeted” by the N.R.A. It was predictable. They did it anyway because it was the right thing to do. Bernie sat on the sidelines during that fight -- while Democrats sacrificed their political careers to pass the most meaningful gun control legislation in this nations’s history -- and then voted “nay.”
I want someone who will fight FOR meaningful gun control measures calculated to reduce the incidence of gun violence in this country. That is not going to be Bernie Sanders, not ever.
Bernie’s anti-Democratic Party history and rhetoric
Bernie’s anti-Democratic Party history and rhetoric is more than a little troubling: (1) Bernie has talked against the Democratic Party from the 1960’s until the present day, (2) he has been unduly and unfairly critical of JFK (JFK was and remains a hero of mine to this day), (3) he has been unduly critical of Barack Obama as recently as last week, (4) he won the Democratic nomination before, thumbed his nose at it and turned it down to maintain his “independence.” His criticism has too often been caustic, scathing and holier-than-thou. He has always talked condescendingly of the two-party political party system in general and of the Democratic Party in particular apparently refusing to recognize the key role political parties play in getting legislation passed through Congress.
He has acted like he was above the political party system in this country and yet here he is seeking the help, assistance and active support of the very party he has been so critical of, the National Democratic Party. Imagine that? And he cannot get a legislative agenda through Congress without a lot of support from . . . you guessed it, a political party.
The centerpiece of Bernie’s campaign is economic inequality. One cannot address economic inequality in this country without major reforms to the tax code. Taking on the tax code with its multitude of special interests and defenders coming out of every hole in the tax code where everyone is seeking to protect their own little niche would be a heavy lift anytime. Republicans will automatically oppose any realignment of the tax burden toward the wealthiest among us.
How will Bernie get major tax reform through Congress with what will be, at best, a divided Democratic caucus? It will be divided because, (1) they do not like Bernie and he does not like him, (2) Bernie has made condescending remarks about them and their party for decades, (3) he's not a Democrat and refuses to change his political affiliation, and (4) his interests are divergent from those of the Democratic Party. If Bernie has ZERO chance of enacting the sine qua non, or cause cé•lè•bre, of his political campaign, i.e., economic inequality – and he does – then what is the point of electing him?
For the last 50 years Bernie has consistently launched highly inflammatory, overly harsh and unduly caustic harpoons aimed at the Democratic Party. His own pyrotechnical words and statements through the years demonstrate why Democrats in Congress have never been able to get along with him. His own past statements underscore what Barney Frank recently said about, “his holier-than-thou attitude—saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else—really undercuts his effectiveness.” A relatively small sampling of his harpoons aimed at the Democratic Party amply and aptly serve to illustrate the point:
• “You don’t change the system from within the Democratic Party.”
• At the Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City in April 1990, he asked, “Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we don’t agree with anything the Democratic Party says?”
• “Is the Democratic Party a vehicle for social change? It is not,” Sanders told a Vermont crowd in 1986.
• In 1989 Sanders wrote “Like millions of other Americans, NOW understands that the Democratic and Republican parties are intellectually and morally bankrupt, and that we need a new political movement in this country to represent the needs of the vast majority of our citizens.”
• “It would be hypocritical of me to run as a Democrat because of the things I have said about the party." Actually, I agree with Bernie on this one: it is hypocritical of him to seek the nomination of the Democratic Party for president. So why is he doing it?
• “I am extremely proud to be an Independent. The fact that I am not a Democrat gives me the freedom to speak out on the floor of the House, to vote against both the Democratic and Republican proposals.”
• Year in and year out, Bernie has insisted that "[t]he differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties involve no issue, no principle in which the working class have any interest."
• In the 1970's he said to a reporter for United Press International that both major parties were “cowardly.” In an interview with the Valley Voice of Middlebury, Vermont, he said “there essentially is no difference” between them.
• “Back in those days [the 1970's],” said Maurice Mahoney, the head of the Democratic Party in Burlington in the ’80s, “his goal was to destroy Democrats—certainly on the local level.”
• “One can argue that the two-party system is a sham,” Bernie said in a talk at Iowa State University during an event called Socialist Week.
• In 1985 he said, “I am not now, nor have I ever been, a liberal Democrat,” in a profile in New England Monthly.
• “The main difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in this city,” he said in a 1986 interview in Burlington in July with a Cornell student writing a master’s thesis, “is that the Democrats are in insurance and the Republicans are in banking.”
• In the 1986 summer issue of Vermont Affairs magazine, he called the Democratic Party “ideologically bankrupt,” then added: “They have no ideology. Their ideology is opportunism.”
• In 1988 he stressed: “I am not a Democrat, period.”
• In an op-ed in the New York Times in January 1989, he called the Democratic and Republican parties “tweedle-dee” and “tweedle-dum,” both adhering in his estimation to an “ideology of greed and vulgarity.”
Bernie’s age is an issue
Bernie would be 75 years of age at the time he would sworn in as president and that's too old. That’s six years older than Ronald Reagan when he was sworn in and Reagan suffered from Alzheimer's toward the end of his second term of office. Of course, one never knows how long a president will serve but I want a president who can serve two full terms without a problem. Hillary is over six full years younger and she's a female meaning she has a longer life expectancy than Bernie.
Bernie is a pacifist and that's a problem
Bernie is a pacifist and that is a major problem for anyone seeking to be the Leader of the Free World. The fact Bernie Sanders sought “conscientious objector” status during the Vietnam War does not bother me any more than the fact Muhammad Ali (because of his conversion to Islam) did the same thing, which is to say not at all. This country has been involved in too many wars (223 out of 239 years, or 93% of the time) and has a bloated defense and military-industrial complex that far exceeds our ability to defend ourself. Our military is too expensive and its size needs to be reduced. The Vietnam War and George W. Bush’s disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003 were colossal errors of judgement that tarnished America's prestige and standing abroad. Having duly noted the preceding, I am not against every war and I want the United States to maintain its leadership role in the world. Permit me to give one example.
On August 2, 1990 Iraqi President Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied the sovereign nation of Kuwait in an effort to steal Kuwait’s oil resources and plunder their wealth, exercise more control over world oil prices and erase Kuwait as an independent country. Iraq’s actions threatened to engulf the entire region in armed conflict and of particular concern to the United States was our long time, then threatened ally, Saudi Arabia. Because of my studies of countries in the region, namely Iran, I knew immediately that the United States could not countenance Iraq’s conquest of Kuwait. George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush 41), however, waited days before he declared our intent to undo the invasion by force. An announcement that, I believe, should have been instantaneous. Saddam’s invasion and occupation were unacceptable to the entire world but without America’s strong leadership his action would have stood unopposed.
Virtually the entire world, and certainly the entire free world, stood with the United States in expelling Iraq from Kuwait. It was not just important to Kuwait that Iraq’s actions be countered, it was important to the world. Important principles were at stake; principles worth fighting a war for. America did not stand alone; America led the world in ending Saddam’s occupation of Kuwait. Over 30 different nations sent troops and scores of others provided material support for retaking Kuwait.
Had Bernie Sanders been president at the time, Kuwait would be a part of Iraq today. He voted against America’s involvement in Operation Desert Storm, the retaking of Kuwait. The world looks to America in times of world crises, like Kuwait, to provide necessary leadership and I think it is important that we continue to be the world’s leader when crises occur. Bernie would largely abandon that role and leave the rest of the world to fend for theirselves. That would creat a larger arms race in the world than that which exists today and a dangerous leadership vacuum would occur. Neither enhances our national security; in fact, his pacifism would place our national security at greater risk. Other countries would know, in advance, that aggression like Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait would go unchecked.
The one thing militarily that I personally wanted done after 9/11 was for the U.S. to track down and kill Osama bin Laden. I was proud when President Obama did that. Given the grave risks of invading a sovereign nation (indeed, ostensively an American ally in the so-called war on Terror) without warning or provocation in the middle of the night close to the preeminent military educational institution in the nation, I seriously doubt that Bernie would have ever pulled the trigger and authorized that action. It was only 50-50 that bin Laden was even there. Indeed, Joe Biden voted against it when advising Barack Obama on what to do. Hillary voted for the invasion and extraction of bin Laden. It was a high risk military operation with no guarantee of success. Maybe it was the wrong thing to do and we got lucky. I don't know. But I wanted us to get bin Laden, alive or dead, and I suspect most Americans wanted the same thing.
I thought the president acted boldly, decisively and seized an opportunity – albeit not one free of risks -- to get America’s Public Enemy #1. That's what I want and expect from America’s Commander-in-Chief. I want a military with cutting edge capabilities and a leader, when (s)he deems it necessary, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger to protect America’s interest abroad and this nation from enemies like bin Laden.
Bernie cannot get a legislative program enacted into law
In the 24 years Bernie has been in Congress he has managed to get exactly three (3) pieces of legislation that he sponsored through Congress and enacted into law. Two of the three bills he sponsored, which passed Congress, renamed United States’ Post Offices; the third was a bill relating to veterans. That is right: three bills in twenty-four years time. In contrast, in only 6 years Hillary Clinton got 20 bills through Congress and was able to form bipartisan coalitions on several to ensure their passage.
Bernie would not be able to get his agenda or legislative program through Congress. Bernie has had utter contempt for political parties until now. Barney Frank (former 16-term Democratic member of the House from Massachusetts, career liberal, former Chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee) recently wrote than nobody in Congress can get along with Bernie Sanders. Barney says Bernie has a reputation for being prickly. He recently said of him: “Bernie alienates his natural allies. His holier-than-thou attitude—saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else—really undercuts his effectiveness.”As evidence of that fact, Barney points out that not a single member of Congress has endorsed Bernie’s candidacy; to date Hillary has over 160 endorsements (that is a record for a non-sitting-member of Congress) from members of Congress. What do his Democratic colleagues think of him: “He screams and hollers, but he is all alone.” - Rep. Joe Moakley (D-Mass.)
Given (1) Bernie's outspoken and never concealed criticism of, and contempt for, the two party political system, and (2) his past over-the-too rhetoric against the Democratic Party in general and it’s leaders in particular, and (3) his inability to get along with members of Congress it's going to be exceedingly heavy lifting for Bernie to get any semblance of a normal legislative program through Congress. Hillary has shown the ability to form bi-partisan congressional alliances to pass legislation and has strong personal relationships with many Congressional leaders. You need the strong support of a political party to deal effectively with Congress. Bernie does not have it; Hillary does.
Bernie is not a Democrat
Bernie is not now, and has never been, a registered Democrat. Today, Bernie is a registered “Independent” and he continues to refuse to join the party whose support he needs and whose nomination he seeks. That continues to be a source of great friction and a festering sore in his relationship with Democrats. Unless Bernie is still nursing a belief that he is somehow above and better than the Democratic Party and its membership, most party regulars do not understand why he remains unwilling to change his political affiliation to Democrat. And if he still believes that he is better than the Democratic Party and its membership then that is an issue that will trouble, indeed plague, a Sanders’ presidency from day one.
Bernie has little or no minority support
Bernie has very little minority support. Minority support is essential in order to carry the “Obama Coalition” that successfully elected Barack Obama in two popular and electoral college victories in 2008 and 2012. It is minority support and turn out that twice propelled Barack Obama to victory. The success of the Democratic Party in national elections in recent years owes much to minorities in this country and they will not be left out of the selection process in 2016. Indeed, their input and support is critical to a victory come November 8, 2016. Minorities necessarily play a large role in the selection and election process.
Polls taken in July reflected that Hillary enjoyed 93% support from minorities. Bernie had 3%. Since that time Bernie has improved his position, significantly in some states, but Hillary still enjoys a commanding lead among minorities. Bernie has admitted that he has had a difficult time attracting minority support. In South Carolina, which has an early primary, Hillary currently enjoys a 50% lead in minority support, mainly among blacks, over Bernie. Minorities make up a very substantial part of the Democratic Party and can fairly be described as a “core” constituency of the party. 87% of blacks are self-identified Democrats; as are 61% of Hispanics. 90% of black voters regularly vote Democratic; 64% of Hispanic voters regularly vote Democratic. Bernie Sanders does not enjoy substantial support among a core constituency of the Democratic Party, i.e., among minorities, especially when compared to Hillary Clinton’s minority support.
More recently, on September 29, 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported::
"But Mrs. Clinton boasts one powerful advantage that poses a major impediment to Mr. Sanders: Her 76%-to-16% lead over Mr. Sanders among voters from minority groups, a critical constituency that tends to hold outsize sway in Democratic nominating contests. That advantage narrows when Mr. Biden’s name is added to the mix, with 59% of nonwhite voters preferring Mrs. Clinton and 26% favoring the vice president.”
Bernie cannot carry the Obama Coalition
Bernie cannot succeed to the Obama Coalition because the “Obama Coalition” was largely minorities and Bernie Sanders historically has never enjoyed substantial minority support.
Bernie is unpopular among his peers
Bernie is unpopular among his peers and colleagues in Congress. He has not received a single endorsement from Senators or Congressmen.
Bernie has always been an outlier
For all of his 24 year career in Congress Bernie Sanders has been content to be an outlier. Bernie wanted the freedom from political parties so he could be an “independent” critic sitting on the sidelines. Not once in his congressional history did he take on a leadership role and step into the arena of combat until this political campaign. Sure he let his opinion be known; but more is expected from a leader. Bernie has felt free to frequently and harshly criticize both political parties while in Congress; but he never got into the arena or showed any heart or passion for doing so. He was content to sit on the sidelines, and criticize others, and vote against the Brady Act but not willing to offer ways to improve it. He was content to vote against the liberation of Kuwait, but not to offer an alternative.
Bernie avoided the hard votes as much as he could and criticized others who bit the bullet and took the hits throughout his entire Congressional career. He was a critic, not a leader. As John F. Kennedy was fond to note, there is an important role to play for critics in our political system in this country. But Bernie was always content to sit outside the tent and criticize never once stepping inside under the tent, doing the hard work of building a political party, or working for a cause while creating something larger, i.e., a political party. You must have the strong support of a political party in this country to be elected and to govern. He does not have it.
the future of the Democratic Party is important
The Democratic Party and its future are significant, important and necessary considerations in deciding who would be the parties’ best nominee. The Democratic Party in the Unites States is 187 years old. It is the oldest “voter-based” political party in the world. In this country, it is the liberal counterweight to the increasingly extreme, strident and hostile Republican Party. The progress made in this country by the liberal cause over the last 85 years has been more a function of shoe leather work performed by the rank-and-file membership of the Democratic Party than it ever was a function of any one man, one person or one personality.
The Democratic Party is a treasured political and cultural institution in this country. It is the Democratic Party, as an political institution, that has made sure that this nation has maintained concern for the less fortunate over the last 85 years; it is the Democratic Party that has toiled in the bitter fields of political struggle and racial turmoil, injustice and oppression against an increasingly bitter, out-of-touch, mean-spirited, fact-and-science-free, racist, and desperate opposition; it is Democratic Party that has done the hard work of keeping everything going all the time; it is the Democratic Party that has carried the torch from generation to generation; it is the Democratic Party that worked tirelessly to ensure that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s American dream has never and will never die for millions; and it is the Democratic Party that kept the "hope" alive that Ted Kennedy always spoke of so eloquently, more than any single man or woman.
What is best for the Democratic Party is a legitimate concern in the 2016 presidential nomination process because of a unique circumstance, i.e., an outsider, non Democrat, frequent critic seeking this Party’s nomination. The party ought not be used or manipulated for the benefit of an outsider whose own interests he has long admitted, indeed preached, are divergent from those of the Democratic Party. Personally, I do not want to see an outsider using the party to promote “socialism” and the force of his own personality and projecting it into, and onto, the Democratic Party like a projection light onto a wall.
When one considers what's best for the party, in the short and the long run, that means Hillary Clinton. She's a leader and a party builder and the latter is important because she is not expected to be the last Democrat to hold that office; rather she is expected only to be the next in a long line of distinguished Democratic presidents. We need a Democratic president devoted and dedicated to building the Democratic Party and helping it prepare for and support the next generation of Democratic leaders to run this country.
The Democratic Party is not a one man show; it never has been; nor is it the “rent-a-party” for candidates untethered to a political party. We need a president willing to fundraise and travel the nation building this great party so it can identify, support and elect the next generation of Democratic leaders and the next Democratic president. I want a president looking to promote the Democratic Party, not one seeking to promote socialism while the titular head of a party he neither belongs to nor wants to help grow. A political party is about membership; if you are not constantly building your membership you are losing ground to your opposition.
Bernie has no foreign policy experience or expertise
Bernie has no foreign policy experience or expertise whatsoever. Mayor of Burlington, Vermont vs. Secretary of State. Enough said. This is still a very dangerous world in which we live. Lack of foreign policy experience creates more, not less, opportunities for us to wind up in an another unnecessary war. Hillary, on the other hand, not only knows foreign policy but she knows all the world’s leaders and, I suspect, has most of their numbers on speed dial.
IV.
CONCLUSION
I am not anti-Bernie Sanders. I am pro-Hillary Clinton. But the choice between these two candidates could not be more stark and clear cut. Hillary is the most qualified candidate for the Democratic nomination and election of anybody in the last 150 years. I am proud to support Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
Copyright © 2015 by Russell Wright