Having read and written here at TL (5.00 / 1) (#109)
by caseyOR on Mon Jan 25, 2016 at 01:12:22 PM EST
for some years now I feel confident that I can say that I am a liberal and to the left of many here who are also self-described liberals.
When I look at Clinton's body of work- her votes, her policies, her speeches and public statements, the things she did at the State Dept., - I believe she is a liberal, not a neoliberal, but an old-fahioned FDR and JFK liberal. She is also a political pragmatist, which I think is a good thing since I am also a political pragmatist.

I find it interesting that commenters here, people I believe would be backing Warren were she running instead of Sanders, reject the very idea of Clinton's liberalism even in the face of evidence that Clinton's record is, in fact, more liberal than Warren's.

Yes, there was her horrendous Iraq war vote, a vote she has said repeatedly was wrong. To my mind that vote was no more injurious to the United States in the long run, and maybe less so, than Sanders' votes against gun control and against gun manufacturer liability. There is no politician that I know of, and I have been around politics and in politics for six decades now, who pleases 100% of her/his supporters 100% of the time.

Because I have been undecided between Clinton and Sanders I have very carefully watched and read and listened as this campaign has unfolded. What I have observed is that Sanders is basically a one issue candidate. It is an important issue, a critical issue, but not the only important and critical issue facing the country. Yet time and again, no matter what the topic is, no matter what he is asked, Sanders pivots back to his one issue.

Well, the country has a multitude of problems, problems that require more than angry denunciations of "the establishment" and calls for a "grass-roots revolution" to solve.

Two things have been critical to my decision to support Clinton. One is the need to rebuild the party from the ground up and get whichever one of them is president a Congress they can work with. Separate from her own campaign, Clinton is pouring money and people and hard work into this effort. Sanders is not.

The second was illustrated by the response each of them had to the horrific water situation in Flint, MI. Sanders called for the Michigan governor Rick Snyder to resign. All well and good and I agree.  Clinton, however, called the mayor of Flint to ask what she, Clinton, could do to help. She sent two staffers to Flint to do anything and everything they could do to assist. While also thinking that Snyder should resign, Clinton publicly called on Snyder to apply for federal disaster status so that money could start flowing to Flint to help on the ground right now.

These two examples illustrate what, for me, is a very important difference in the campaigns. Sanders is a big talker with big ideas. Clinton is a doer with policies and plans on how to actually do what needs doing.

So, I have thrown my support to Clinton. Should Sanders win the nomination I will support him whole-heartedly, but now my money and energy go t

o Clinton.

Many Democratic primary voters are taken with Senator Sanders' ideals and seem to have discovered, or dusted off, "Hope and Change" yard signs of past electoral cycles.

 Mrs. Clinton, rather than throwing the cold water of political realism on what are not viewed by most Democrats as radical or extreme positions, such as Medicare for All, might instead, agree wholeheartedly with the value of the idea, and speak to concrete ways and means to head in that direction over time.

 After all, even Senator Sanders (and probably most of his supporters) admits that his idea will not be achieved on Day One, or maybe even year four (recognizing the inherent difficulties of achieving an abrupt, or any, change).

It is the ideas that count. Progressives are about progress. And, progressives are underwhelmed by hearing how something can't be done, or that we tried that before and it did not work.

Mrs. Clinton was right to point out the differences between Senator Sanders on guns, particularly gun manufacturer liability.  However, once again, she has a winning hand on this issue, if she sticks to her noble goals in gun control.  And, recognizes,too, the difficulties existent in achieving this goal, but fighting on as she knows best how to do.  

Senator Sanders takes pride in being a democratic socialist, which if continued to be left to others to explain, would become a source of unrelenting distortion and criticism in a general.

Some Sanders' supporters do not seem to know or care what he means exactly, other than it somehow means taking on Wall Street and the economic establishment. Again, the "taking on" is good; the taking down, less so.

And, "taking on the establishment" up to then was reserved for the likes of Goldman Sachs, and then extended (albeit somewhat briefly upon criticism) to "the political establishment that included Planned Parenthood and HRC."  

But I also don't doubt that, in the unlikely event that Sanders would win the nomination, Obama would bring the full force of his support to Sanders' effort to win in November.  

So, what we seem to have here is the Obama/Clinton Mutual Admiration Society: is there really anything surprising about that?

I could actually do without Obama's retrospective epiphanies on his sort-of regret for having a campaign strategy that worked; I have a hard time imagining him making these same kinds of comments if his opponent had been a man.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not particularly looking for inspiration or a hero/heroine, as much as I am looking for someone who's on my side most of the time.  Who isn't actively trying to make my life harder.  Who doesn't play word games where the Constitution is concerned.  I'm looking for someone who understands that my vote means a lot to me, I don't cast it lightly, and I'd appreciate it not being taken for granted.  Don't tell me one thing, take my vote, and then do something else.  

As far as I'm concerned, these Democratic candidates give me the only kind of hope that matters: that we will prevail in November, and have at least 4 years in which to demonstrate to the American people why Democrats are the better choice.

They still are against her.

"But..but..it's a reeeeeaaally important issue"

Waaaaaaaaaa

I seem to remember Clinton and the kitchen sink plan that I don't think any democrat found appealing.

I read an article that summed up Clinton pretty well, uninspiring.  I think she would make a great President but I agree that she is more controlled and well thought decision maker, which is an excellent trait for a President, but not good for the election train, people want to be inspired.

It was a surreal exchange, with co-anchor Jon Berman getting in a good one at the end:

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (voice-over): The truth is, in 2007 and 2008, sometimes my supporters and my staff I think got -

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How dare you. they were -

OBAMA: Too huffy about what were legitimate questions she was raising. And, you know, there were times where I think the media probably was a little unfair to her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CAMEROTA: David, I mean he's sort of talking about you. Were you unfair? Were you too huffy with legitimate questions?

AXELROD: Well, Alisyn, part of - part of being staff is that when the principal wants to kind of distance himself from you, that's part of the deal. You sign up for that.

The truth is that the message in 2007 and 2008 was very much about challenging the system. It was against sort of conventional politics. And it was very successful then. And it was the right message at the time because of the situation that was going on in Washington.

Now you have a democratic president who has produced real change and has come up against the realities of life in Washington. And so there is a case to be made for preserving those changes, protecting them and building on them in a more incremental way and that it will take someone who knows how to navigate that system when it has broad experience to do it. And I think that's the case that he was making. I happen - I kind of remember him joining in those arguments back in 2007 and 2008, but that's another question.

CAMEROTA: I think that's called throwing under the bus, but not - not from your side to his. David Axelrod, thanks so much. Always great to get your impressions of all of this stuff.

AXELROD: Nice to see you.

CAMEROTA: You too.

AXELROD: Have a good day.

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Another way to say it is, I know you are but what am I, he's saying to President Obama right there.