For first time in decades, New York State actually has the potential to tip the balance of the presidential election — and not just for one party, but both Republicans and Democrats— when we go to vote in the primary election April 19.
And when was the last time there were three New Yorkers— out of five candidates — vying for President?
One who embraced New York (Hillary Clinton), one who abandoned New York (Bernie Sanders) and one who would possess it (Donald Trump).
After careful consideration — after hearing the candidates debate, seeing them give speeches, hold rallies and town halls — former New York Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, with her “pragmatic progressivism” is the best candidate for the Democratic nomination and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, as the advocate for overturning partisanship in favor of compromise, is the best choice for the Republican nomination, even though in actual policies (anti-woman, anti-worker, trickle down economics), he toes the Republican party line.
In the Democratic primary, Bernie Sanders comes off as one-note, hollow, candidate having trouble actually fleshing out how he would achieve the noble vision he outlines, and I can only imagine what will happen, if he is the Democratic nominee, when the Kochs and Republicans throw $1 billion in negative advertising plus all the dirty tricks (voter suppression) at him.
Will he still rely on $27 campaign contributions from 6 million Americans, or even the public finance system which is woefully inadequate in the era of Citizens United?
After 30 years of attacks (including 11 hours of Benghazi interrogation), it is hard to imagine them finding new material to throw at her, but Sanders is a blank slate.
On policy, actual proposals and electability, Hillary Clinton, with her “pragmatic progressivism,” is the preferred candidate.
Hillary Clinton comes across as the most presidential among all the candidates— Democratic and Republican — including those who are not “officially” in the race (looking at you, Paul Ryan).
Clinton knows the issues in micro-detail, has had more experience than any of the rest in making decisions, handling crisis, handling the big issues that impact. Her policy prescriptions make sense.
And judging by how effective she was as a U.S. senator, she has been able to work across the aisle and before she was a Presidential candidate, actually earned respect of Republicans.
Authentic. That is the word that I came away with after seeing her in a fairly intimate setting at Medgar Evans College in Brooklyn, addressing the issue of women’s issues in the campaign. (As it turns out, “women’s issues” are basically all the issues: economic growth, jobs, income inequality, education, child care, pre-K, national security, fighting terrorism, criminal justice, gun violence prevention, immigration reform, infrastructure, and yes, access to health care and reproductive rights, without which, no woman is anything but a slave of the state.)
Authentic is also the word that comes to mind when I saw her at the Landmark Theater in Port Washington, on a panel with Congressman Steve Israel and five women who know all too well the pain and tragedy of gun violence.
It’s a word that surprises my 20-something son when I use it, and probably would surprise people who have not seen Hillary Clinton in person —‚ especially when 30 years of anti-Clinton propaganda has effectively painted her as “dishonest” and “untrustworthy.”
But “authentic” and “genuine” are labels that would not surprise anyone who had.
On the other hand, I would bet that 95 percent of Sanders’ supporters had never heard of him prior to six months ago.
Sanders has effectively created his own mythos — “he marched with Martin Luther King” (no he didn’t — he attended the March on Washington).
He fought for civil rights because he was arrested for protesting for desegregating housing at the University of Chicago.
In fact, Hillary Clinton was the braver of the two and the more committed to civil rights, women’s rights, minority rights, rights of children and the vulnerable, who worked for the Children’s Defense Fund.
As a 24-year old law student, Clinton went to Alabama to go undercover to help prove that the Nixon administration was not enforcing the legal ban on granting tax-exempt status to so-called segregation academies, the estimated 200 private academies that sprang up in the South to cater to white families after a 1969 Supreme Court decision forced public schools to integrate.
Sanders has focused his assault on Clinton around campaign finance, accusing her of being unable, therefore, to stand up against Big Fossil, Big Pharma and Big Banks.
But on the issue of gun violence prevention — the biggest differentiator from an otherwise parallel progressive agenda—‚ Sanders can be shown to kowtowing to the gun lobby which was the biggest reason for his first defeat, but his ultimate victory in being elected to Congress.
Imagine if Sanders had been the senator from New York (the state where he was born but left), where Wall Street is such a significant constituency (New York City prides itself as the financial capital of the world, and Wall Street accounts for 13 percent of the state’s economy) rather than Vermont, where the NRA is probably the most powerful lobbying entity.
When you think about it, Sanders’ positions— on income inequality, climate action — don’t actually contradict or challenge the establishment in Vermont, a relatively tiny, non-diverse state certainly without the complexities and diversities of New York, but on the one controversial area where he might truly have stood up for a noble purpose and against entrenched interests— gun violence prevention— he took the path of least resistance which was the NRA position.
Clinton’s closeness to Corporate America is a benefit, not a disadvantage (let’s not forget that Google and Apple are now the most valuable companies in history).
I have seen over the past dozen years at the Clinton Global Initiative how fomenting partnerships between government, private enterprises and non-governmental organizations has changed corporate culture, has actually shifted how they conduct business in such a way as to be a positive for the communities they work in and sell to and made a positive impact on 430 million people in more than 180 countries, including the US.
I don’t think you sell your soul by getting Goldman Sachs to create a new financing mechanism to save coral reefs, or Proctor & Gamble to devise and distribute millions of packets that can purify water so that millions of children do not die from waterborne illnesses, and getting Walmart, Coca Cola, Chevron, Monsanto, the World Bank Group and others to invest in sustainable development.
That’s not selling out, that’s converting the very entities that have the power and the means to make real change.
On the other hand, Sanders railing against Big Business and Big Banks, while it may work well with progressives, has opened the way to attacks (you are already hearing) of being anti-Capitalist, even Communist.
Yet, when it came down to “how would you break up the banks?” or what size would be the limit, Sanders apparently did not have an actual plan.
On the other hand, Dodd-Frank has proved to be an effective framework, and as Clinton has pointed out, it is more important to regulate things like credit default swaps and the non-banks, and impose a “risk fee” which seems more constructive.
Did she shift her stance since leaving her cabinet position on Keystone XXL and TPP?
Perhaps. So what? That just shows she is sensitive and responsive to constituents, not to mention she has the independence she did not have while serving the Obama administration.
The fact is she has consistently pushed for climate action and the transition of our economy and society to one based on clean, renewable energy.
Sanders’ constant use of the 2002 Iraq War Resolution as the “disqualifier” for Clinton to become president is embellished— that resolution was not to go to war, because it required that all diplomatic avenues be exhausted. As we know now, Bush came out with his three-day deadline, telling the international inspectors they had better get out before the bombing started.
He could afford to vote against the Iraq War — the vote was 77-23 — he’s never had to be in a position to be the one making the on-the-spot, life-or-death decision (take out bin Ladin or not?).
On the other hand, Clinton comes with the best foreign policy experience — from mistakes and failures as well as her successes, most notably reversing the poisoned relations from the Bush/Cheney administration. Sanders’ entire foreign policy depends on “forging coalitions” well, Clinton is correct when she says she’s actually done it.
But Sanders doesn’t speak much about his votes that nixed comprehensive immigration reform in 2007, or his support for the Minutemen and other militias, vigilantes who patrolled the Mexico border.
And I find it hard to comprehend what his foreign policy would be about, beyond broad-brushed “No regime change” and “Building coalitions.”
Indeed, his remaking of the domestic economy— infrastructure development which is expected to also mitigate income-inequality— is based on cutting back on military spending.
But the Republicans control the purse strings and have shown their willingness to shut down government, and destroy the nation’s “full faith and credit” to achieve their ends.
He has now started touting how those who are skeptical of his ability to accomplish anything that has become the sugary candy of his campaign— free college tuition, universal health care (practically free), affordable housing, breaking up the banks, and most of all, overturning Citizens United and reshaping campaign finance— is that they don’t dream big enough, they don’t aspire high enough.
But a dose of reality is in order. Sanders keeps saying how he was on the committee that wrote the Affordable Care Act, yet he attacks it as being woefully inadequate, not to mention the mistake in the language that opened the way for a Supreme Court challenge of the law.
He’s been in Congress for more than 25 years, yet he has very little to show for it. And if he thinks he is going to out-Obama Obama as President, when the Republicans have honed their skill in neutering the Presidency, that is really pie-in-the-sky.
When it comes down to it, they are very close in terms of what they stand for, who they would advocate for, but Clinton, I believe, can be more successful in accomplishing these important goals.
It boils to electability in the first instance and the ability to govern as President and commander-in chief in the second.
On both of these, the balance is tipped in her favor. “Fighting for Us” to me is more potent than “A Future to Believe In.”
Vote Tuesday, April 19 in this historic election.
