I initially supported Bernie Sanders. I fully changed my mind by February and voted for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic caucus.
I understand why some people voted for Bernie Sanders. He’s been passionate about economic inequality and climate change and both are very serious issues. I also don’t believe the majority of Bernie Sanders supporters are fringe people.
But I’d like to talk about why I changed my mind and voted for Clinton. This is my journey. I don’t expect it to be identical to yours. Most likely, people will identify with parts of it but everyone will have their own story.
I started out supporting Bernie Sanders because of his strong focus on economic inequality. I didn’t think he would win the primary, but I hoped his candidacy would increase awareness of his stump speech issues.
I began to reconsider in October after the Republicans conducted their 11 hour Benghazi witch hunt hearing. Hillary Clinton was sensational. She got through an 11 hour witch hunt without giving the Republican Party a single sound bite. I knew there were only two people who had the political skills to outmaneuver the Republicans like that. They were Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. I told myself “I sure like Bernie Sanders, but Hillary Clinton’s political skills are a must.” I asked myself could Bernie Sanders have survived that hearing? Hillary Clinton has dealt with this shit 30 years. She’s still standing. Sanders never has.
Hillary has been not only savaged from the right and left, but she’s had to deal with the sexism embedded in our society. Melissa McEwan talks about that in her must read article "She Shouldn't Have To Navigate This Toxic Stew, But I'm Damn Appreciative She Does."
As the campaign continued, I noted Sanders had temperament issues. He would snap at people and mishandle situations that were a fraction as stressful as the Benghazi hearing. The Netroots Nation incident is one example — here. The New York Daily News interview — here — and the Univision interview (see embedded tweet below) are examples. His long term grudge against two prominent liberals Barney Frank and Gov. Malloy and, finally, his stubborn instance on rationalizing and explaining away the actions of his fringe supporters in Nevada- here.
I found myself contrasting Sanders temperament against Hillary Clinton’s skillful handling of Republican bullying not only during the Benghazi hearing but over the past 30 years. And Clinton has had to navigate all this through the sexism that’s embedded into our culture. She won that contrast hands down.
In watching Sanders campaign, I also noticed he wasn’t comfortable talking about anything besides his stump speech. How many times did he answer questions that weren’t related to his stump speech by reciting parts of his stump speech or pivoting back to it? Hillary Clinton is comfortable talking about ALL issues.
His recent Univision interview with Leon Krauze is one example. Sanders is visibly annoyed with Leon Krauze (the interviewer) for repeatedly asking questions about Latin America. After the 3rd or 4th question about Latin America, Sanders finally becomes very annoyed and tells the interviewer he’s running for President of the United States and they need to talk about health care.
I couldn’t help but wonder why Sanders wouldn’t expect a question about Latin America during a Univision interview?
I took a look at what the policy differences were between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders policy positions can be found on his campaign website here. Hillary Clinton’s can be found on her campaign website here. There are some modest differences, but nothing that justifies the hatred some on the left have for Clinton. And to the revolutionaries and “Bernie or bust” people, there is nothing that justifies not voting for Clinton in November against Trump.
Examples: Bernie Sanders proposes a single payer health care system. Hillary Clinton wants to build on the ACA. Bernie Sanders wants to increase the top tax rate to 52% for incomes over $10 million. Hillary Clinton will leave the top tax rate unchanged at 39.6%. They both have a climate plan to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. They both want to end wasteful fossil fuel subsidies and invest heavily in renewable energy. They both want to expand Social Security. They both support abortion rights and LGBT rights. They both support the Iran deal. They would both appoint progressives to the Supreme Court.
So what’s the big deal? Why are there people who hate Clinton so much?
This is what really got to me. While there are some modest policy differences, there is no practical difference between them. Both Clinton and Sanders would face a GOP House who will not let them pass a damn thing. I doubt single payer health care would get 25 Senate votes. I think Hillary’s approach is the only way.
If there’s no practical difference, doesn’t it all boil down to who is more electable and who is better qualified both in terms of outmaneuvering the Republicans and in mastering the issues?
I had to give it to Hillary Clinton on both counts. I think Hillary Clinton is more electable. Yes, people can point to polls that show Bernie Sanders does just as well if not slightly better against Trump. But nobody’s attacking Sanders. Hillary has been getting savaged from left and right. Her poll numbers should get better after the primary. I’ve explained why I’m not confident Bernie Sanders would hold up against the Republican attack machine. He’s never had to deal with it. Hillary Clinton has for 30 years and she’s still standing. She knows what she’s up against.
Then came Flint. Sanders response was to demand Snyder and anyone else who knew about it resign — but that’s all. I think Snyder and others should resign, but my point is that response generates more headlines, but what does it solve? But contrast that with Hillary Clinton’s response. She sent two top level aides to Flint to meet with the mayor and called for the government launch a health monitoring surveillance system to test residents for poisoning - here. She also came out with a plan to eliminate lead in 5 years — here.
How many articles had I read that presented Hillary Clinton as a politician who made decisions based solely on her own self-interest? Would a politician who cared only about herself have handled Flint the way she did?
I’ve heard it all. Hillary voted for the Iraq war. Hillary has big donors. Hillary was for the TPP, but is now against it. True, Hillary Clinton has made some mistakes, like all Democrats have. But why is there so much more hatred directed at Hillary Clinton? Didn’t 28 other Senate Democrats vote for the Iraq war? Didn’t Al Gore and John Kerry also have big donors?
How many politicians (and people) have evolved on issues? Franklin Roosevelt was not a New Dealer in the 1920’s. As President, he evolved and adopted policy positions social movements on the left created he had not previously supported. I suspect FDR believed what he did in the 1920’s because he was operating in the political paradigms of that time. The Depression caused a new debate to emerge about economic policy- he evolved with that. LBJ opposed every civil rights bill during his first 20 years in Congress- here. Again, he evolved. How many people have changed their mind on LGBT issues the past 20 years including President Obama- here.
I do understand the history of the post 1980 Democratic Party. I’ve read historian Steven Gillon’s book "The Democrats Dilemma." Yes, just days after Jimmy Carter won in 1976, his pollster sent him a memo detailing the New Deal coalition was falling apart. If Carter wanted to win re-election, he would have to create a new Democratic coalition that included the so called "Atari Democrats." That was just the new reality. Bill Clinton is the President that was actually able to build the new coalition. He and other Democrats governed as they did largely because that’s how a Democrat needed to govern to win elections.
Hillary Clinton hasn’t done anything other Democrats- some progressive heroes- haven’t.
Yes, I understand the frustration. I’m simply pointing out what happened. But the Democratic coalition keeps evolving. We now have "The Obama coalition." This is due to changing demographics. The “Atari Democrats” have less influence, and people of color are gaining more influence over the party. That will continue and the Democratic Party will evolve into an economically progressive intersectional party that is about ALL OF US! The days of white liberals running for President without a strongly intersectional economically progressive message are over. Hillary Clinton is winning because she understood that from the beginning.
This is already happening- but nobody can wave a wand and make it happen all at once. When is the last time a Democratic President proposed to expand Social Security- here? The current Democratic president just did, and both Democratic candidates want to do just that. That’s a far cry from the days we were trying to stop a “Grand Bargain.” What about this? The TPP isn’t going anywhere- contrary to NAFTA.
Personally, I always liked Hillary Clinton more than Bill Clinton. That was true from day one. Why? I suspect it goes back to health care. She took up universal health care because that was my number one issue.
If you want to know the real Hillary Clinton, read this interview. The writer says it better than I ever could. Hillary Clinton is probably the best qualified presidential candidate to be a major party nominee. She’s also a very warm and caring human being. She is someone who wants to make the world a better place.
In closing, let me say that I agree with Noam Chomsky here. Yes, the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization possibly in human history. That’s where our energy needs to be directed- not at Hillary Clinton because she’s not perfect or doesn’t meet some purity standard. She may not be perfect, but she’s damn sufficient and she’s moving in the right direction.
I guess I’m not a very good revolutionary. I’m just a plain old Democrat.
