Yesterday, Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post explained the divide between President Obama and Bernie Sanders.
The day after Bernie won the NH primaries, Obama said that voters...
"instinctively know that issues are more complicated than rehearsed sound bites." They "understand the difference between realism and idealism." They possess "the maturity to know what can and cannot be compromised, and to admit the possibility that the other side just might have a point."
Obama went on to downplay Sanders' dark, exaggerated view of the intersection between corruption and politics:
There's also the notion sometimes that our politics are broken because politicians are significantly more corrupt or beholden to big money than they used to be," he said. "Folks aren't entirely wrong when they feel as if the system too often is rigged and does not address their interests."
Still, he noted, invoking America's rich history of political pocket-lining, ward-bossing and vote-buying, "the truth is that the kind of corruption that is blatant, of the sort that we saw in the past, is much less likely in today's politics." You wouldn't know this from Sanders' thundering.
Marcus called Obama's speech an " implicit disagreement with Bernie Sanders and an "unstated endorsement of Hillary Clinton's more-plodding pragmatism."
This is consistent with a former White House press secretary's that Obama prefers Clinton. Link
Mind you, Marcus is no fan of Hillary.
Comments are closed on this story.