Bernie’s qualifications…
The pundits don’t know what to do with Trump and Sanders. The parties don’t know either. Both candidates are tapping into the smoldering anger that has turned into a conflagration in this campaign. Both are anti-establishment candidates. There the similarity ends. Trump has been a one-percenter all his life, his political choices always determined by his analysis of the deal: what does he get out of it (or America, we hope)? He’s a narcissistic sociopath (that’s a diagnosis of a mental condition, not an insult…and not one of Trump’s words that needs bleeping) and a real streetfighter—if you hit him, he hits back.
Whereas Trump has absolutely no political experience—even his touted business acumen and displays of one-percenter excesses received a huge initial boost from daddy’s gift—Sanders’s story is the truer American success story. His father was a Polish immigrant and his mother was second generation in another Polish-Russian immigrant family. Yeah, those immigrants Trump loves to hate. Clinton fails by comparison too. Where Sanders has been consistent and loyal to his principles, she’s been all over the board and unprincipled. I love consistency, and I respect someone who sticks to their principles.
I’ve been consistent my whole life too, my only tweak being the development of a hawkish counterterrorism mentality because of 9/11 (Sanders has to work on that in particular and foreign policy in general, but I’m still more in tune with Bernie’s worldview than with Hillary’s). For most domestic issues, Sanders and I are like twins. OK, maybe I don’t like it when unions tolerate and try to hide incompetence—I don’t like incompetence anywhere and don’t want people to get paid for it—but that’s a nit I won’t bother to pick. He’s the candidate whose viewpoints come closest to mine; there’s an enormous gap between him and everyone else.
Many of Sanders’s Polish relatives on his father’s side were victims of the Holocaust. A paternal uncle, leader of his father’s town’s Jewish community, was one of the first victims in Słopnice when the Nazis invaded that Polish town. If he wins the Democratic primaries, he would be the first Jewish-American to do so. If he wins the presidency, he would be the first Jewish-American to become president. Out of deference to Clinton’s bid to become the first female candidate and possibly president, he doesn’t advertise his rightful claims to “I’ll be first.” Considering that to do so would just give the anti-Semitic bigots, pundits or voters, another talking point (they’ll call him a Commie first—Trump already has—and then a Commie-Jew), that might be wise. (Interesting that Bloomberg can’t stand him—I doubt Bloomberg’s anti-Semitic, but, of course, he’s a one-percenter.)
But c’mon! Why can Clinton play that “I’ll be first” card and Sanders can’t? There, I’ve said it, and it just shows how stupid it is to play a gender or religion card. We should be beyond that! Sanders has proven he can get beyond that; Clinton hasn’t. Genealogy might be fine for entrepreneurial Mormons to make a bit more money by selling personal histories, but America is the world’s most diverse melting pot, so let’s look to the future, not the past. We have to learn to celebrate our diversity, not dwell on it. If you’re here living and working in America, you’re American, damn it! I don’t care what your ethnic and religious backgrounds are, I don’t care what the color of your skin is, I don’t care what your gender is, and I don’t care what your sexual preferences are. Sanders doesn’t either. We both just want equal opportunity and equal rights for everyone.
Considering future promise, Sanders shows a lot more than Clinton in that regard and in many others. When interviewing candidates for a job, I often moved quickly beyond the initial discussion of the applicant’s resumé. Clinton reminds me of those low-quality applicants who focused on past accomplishments and showed no vision for the future. I never cared much for what they did in the past. However brilliant, I knew it was often irrelevant when considering the applicant’s future performance. Clinton starts out every campaign event touting her experience. Whereas Sanders’s supporters are cheering and energetic, hers look like they’re bored to tears. I know how they feel. The History Channel is often boring; reading a bio of a famous person can be boring; and an autobio is often the author’s narcissistic pat on her or his own back . Clinton’s events are usually like that—just her patting herself on the back for what she’s done in the past.
Sanders surprised Clinton. She arrogantly thought she was a shoo-in. The media followed along in lock-step. The NY Times didn’t start reporting on Sanders at all until he really embarrassed the Clinton establishment machine in Michigan. Even now, ABC News’s This Week had an interview with Sanders on 4/3. Do you think they’d repeat portions of that on the evening news and GMA, which pretends to have news? Nope. They featured another piece of fluff with Clinton saying how she’ll unify the country. Ha! The GOP hates the Clinton dynasty more than Bernie Sanders! She’ll have less success than Barack Obama as President. And Clinton wants to debate Sanders on GMA for their NY debate, continuing her consistent avoidance of prime time debates (most Dem debates were on Saturday nights, while a debate on GMA will exclude all working people in the tri-state area who are commuting to work).
Clinton is the flawed candidate. She always has been. Her slight vote advantage has been accrued in the South where the Dems generally lose the general election. She has the party establishment behind her—especially those un-Democratic super-delegates—but she’s not a real progressive and she’s swindling the voters, who are starting to wake up to her scheming ways. For example, she was outspoken in her resistance to a min wage increase, settling temporarily and arbitrarily on $12, but this last weekend she made her photo-op with NY’s Governor Cuomo, who just passed the $15 min wage for NY state. Will she take credit for that? Probably. It was waffler Bill; now it’s waffler Hill.
Yeah, Clinton’s been around a long time—that’s part of the problem. She’s been around for so long we have learned not to trust her. She’s also shown that she lacks vision compared to Sanders. But, let’s check Bernie’s resumé because Clinton wants to dwell on the past. Managerial jobs are a bit difficult to compare. You can’t compare SecState with mayor of Burlington, for example—apples v. oranges as far as those managerial positions go—but that SecState job was a consolation gift from Obama, and she didn’t exactly shine in it.
Clinton often claims she’d be more effective in Washington than Sanders. She hasn’t been in the past. She couldn’t get her healthcare passed when hubby was president; she wants to continue the giveaway to health insurance companies and Big Pharma that Obama engineered with the Affordable Care Act (is that what she means when she says she’ll continue his policies, continued giveaways to the one-percenters like her?). Her sojourn as SecState didn’t help her resume any, so did she develop enough legislative good karma as senator that she’ll have better relations with Congress than Sanders? Let’s consider whether her legislative history is better than Sanders’s, including working across the aisle, something that’s more apples v. apples.
First of all, Clinton wasn’t in the Senate very long, and she was never a Representative. So it’s more a Gala v. Stayman apple type of comparison. Her legislative record is worse too, in spite of her claims, from results obtained to achieving bipartisan accord. She might have her name on more bills, but Sanders has done more to help others, and that’s what counts. He’s also considered the amendment king—his style was turning sows’ ears into purses for the underprivileged and needy. It doesn’t matter that his name’s not on the bill. What matters is getting that amendment attached to the bill that makes a so-so piece of legislation into something much more important for U.S. citizens.
Here’s a partial list obtained from Alternet to prove the point:
House of Representatives
Saving money for both colleges and taxpayers, 4/98.
Holding IRS accountable and protecting pensions, 7/02.
Expanding free healthcare via community health centers, 11/01.
Getting tough on child labor, 7/01.
Increasing funding for heating for the poor, 9/04.
Fighting corporate welfare and protecting against nuclear disasters by prohibiting the Export-Import Bank from providing loans for nuclear projects in China, 6/05.
Senate
Greening the U.S. government by ensuring newer government buildings have at least 30% of their hot water provided by solar power, 6/07.
Protecting our troops by providing $10 million for operation and maintenance of Army National Guards hit hard by the Iraq War, 10/07.
Restricting the bailout to make sure American workers are protected, 12/09.
Exposing corruption in the military-industrial complex by requiring the database of senior DoD officials seeking employment with defense contractors is made public, 11/12.
Support for treating autism in military healthcare, no date available.
Forcing Ron Paul’s long desired amendment through creating the first-ever audit of the Federal Reserve, no date available. (Did you get that? He did what Ron Paul never could do!)
This is just a partial list, but it shows that Sanders accomplished a lot more than Clinton. There’s also more: Clinton voted for the Iraq War, the greatest foreign and military policy debacle in U.S. history; Sanders voted against it. Clinton has also claimed all too often that Sanders is out to destroy Obamacare. In fact, his continued support of community health centers (see the House list above) actually saved Obamacare, providing a means for it to survive until funds were available. And, like me, he’s always been for a single-payer system, because that’s the only way you can eliminate the stranglehold of insurance companies and Big Pharma; Clinton’s earlier healthcare proposal when she was First Lady would have been even more of a gift to those greedy gougers than Obamacare.
In almost all these cases, Sanders worked his butt off and achieved bipartisan agreement, so much so that Republican leaders like McCain lauded his efforts. OK, Clinton was never a representative, and Sanders had more time to pad his curriculum vitae, but that time in the nation’s capital makes him a more familiar face to all concerned, and not a hated face. Maybe Clinton has her name on more bills, but Sanders has a proven track record when it comes to getting things done in Washington, where Clinton just causes rancor.
Take that, you resumé addicts! Sanders has never waffled in his over-arching goal of helping the Americans who need it, not the one-percenters of the country. When I say never, I mean never. I like that kind of consistency. That makes a big difference to me when someone asks for my vote. It should make a difference to you too.
***
[Have you ever wondered how the government might ensure that retired agents maintain government secrets when they retire? The Golden Years of Virginia Morgan offers one troubling answer. This mystery/suspense/thriller novel set in the future will raise some eyebrows. It’s also a bridge between two series, the “Detectives Chen and Castilblanco Series” and the “Clones and Mutants Trilogy.” Available in all ebook formats.]
And so it goes….
