I’m with Her
The Massachusetts primary between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton was very close, with Clinton squeezing a narrow victory. Like a microcosm of my state, I’ve loved them both for decades before this campaign began. I doubt that either is panting for my endorsement, but I’ll give it anyway.
Ultimately, I voted for Clinton because of her progressive body of work, her overall practicality, her depth and breadth of public service, her leadership style, and her strong prospects in the general election.
It’s easy for me to get behind either candidate because they agree on the issues I hold close. They voted together 93% of the time when they occupied the Senate together. (I documented their similarities in my January column, so I won’t repeat the specifics here.) Despite claims that Clinton is a closet conservative, both are siblings in our progressive family.
Some Democrats fret about Clinton’s electability, but that’s wobbly. Sanders is pumping iron in current general election polls, but he’s only slightly more muscular than Clinton. And it’s barely morning for general election sunset polls. Republicans have tossed a few pebbles at Sanders, but they’ll catapult boulders the second he approaches the nomination. Republicans are terrible at governing but fantastic at negative campaigning.
Sanders could crater 20 points in a month without the time to counter Republican attacks and climb back. Clinton has weathered such storms for decades and is still the perennial “most admired” woman in the world. “Hillary Hate” runs hot but not deep. Republicans have overflogged their wheezing Clinton attacks. They’ll churn up new lies, no doubt, but they’ll sound stale. Fresh attacks on Sanders, by contrast, will be shiny objects flickering across the public mind.
In debates, Sanders would certainly outpoint Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee. But too many uniformed voters erroneously believe Sanders and Trump fill similar populist roles. With Clinton, the contrast is greater. And Clinton’s tough streak, developed from decades of having to deal with condescending men, equips her better to bury Trump for his issue ignorance and obvious lack of presidential character (hand size? really?).
Yes, Clinton gave speeches to Wall Street groups. I would too–if they asked. Sanders should too because they could learn a lot from him. Yes, Clinton took campaign donations from Wall Street. Good. Sanders should too. That means she’ll have funding to run against the Republican nominee, who will command untold billions in dark money from Wall Street and far worse. Many Democrats were elected with the help of Wall Street money (including President Obama), and those same Democrats passed Wall Street reform. Wall Street will hate Clinton just as much as they hate Obama when she follows through with her proposed Wall Street reforms.
Sanders wants a revolution against the 1 percent. Clinton wants substantial incremental reform to benefit the 99 percent. We all love a revolution, but that’s just not possible right now. Sustained reform over long periods would build more bridges and feed more people than a stalled revolution.
Clinton became a Democrat in college, just as I did, and has since worked within the party to create sustainable progress. She has mentored countless Democrats and helped them raise money to battle Republicans. Sanders, on the other hand, only became a Democrat for this election. Creating positive change from within the system is less glamorous but can have a deeper effect than booing from the balcony.
The vast majority of people who have worked with both Clinton and Sanders have endorsed Clinton and praised her passion for serving the American people. Most of the people who criticize Clinton have never met her. I’ll take the word of the folks who know her rather than the ones who repeat right-wing garbage, fourth-hand attacks, and gossip.
No candidate wears saint’s robes, of course. Sanders voted to shield gun manufacturers from lawsuits, helped block immigration reform, supports the wasteful F-35 bomber and has said that he will raise taxes on the middle-class, not just the wealthy and corporations. He reduces every issue to economics, and his foreign policy lacks specifics. And, frankly, he can be a grump.
Despite his flaws, Sanders has pushed Clinton to the left, but she was already 93 percent there. If Sanders gets the nomination, I’ll support him with all my heart – but Clinton has my brain as well. My heart also likes the fact that she’s a woman. Just as African-American children can look to President Obama’s example for generations to come, so too will young girls have an inspiring role model in the White House.
By the way, for my Republican friends who have accidentally stumbled this far, if you think Clinton abandoned those brave men in Benghazi or will be indicted because of her e-mail or that the Clinton Foundation was her personal slush fund … umm, no. Those are bird droppings on the windshield of reality. Please scrub away Fox, Rush, Drudge, and the other monosyllabic propagandists who are blocking your view.
When it comes to Sanders versus Clinton, there are no bad choices. Sanders is a strong left hand, and Clinton is another, even stronger one.
The bad choice is not voting. And the worst choice is voting Republican come November.
John Sheirer’s column appears every second Monday of the month. He is an author and teacher who lives in Florence and can be found at JohnSheirer.com.