Now that Sanders' campaign has picked up steam, the rhetoric of democratic unity is taking its gloves off.
Senator Sanders says that Mrs. Clinton cannot be both progressive and moderate. Well, that's campaign talk. That's a handler's line though Bernie's camp would never admit it.
Once you get into the Oval Office things are known to change, and in getting there every candidate has to widen their base. The presidency itself is a tightrope walk, and if you want bi-partisan support and votes from the floor you can't lean too far either way.
Sanders is challenging Hillary's ground, and has accused her of wanting it both ways. At the same time his communications director, Michael Briggs, has claimed that Sanders wants to build on President Obama's legacy, a legacy Sanders has not exactly embraced. (Sanders' slogan is "A Future We Can Believe In," while Obama's was "Change We Can Believe In," so there's that). Briggs prickled when asked to expound more on this claim but did not quite explain it. Mrs. Clinton isn't the only one stealing from somebody else's playbook.
Senator Sanders has been critical of Obama and there are reasons to be. But can he have it both ways while Hillary cannot?
Last weekend in Iowa, Sanders welcomed Princeton Law Professor Cornell West on his campaign stage. West is the progressive African-American who has derided the president for the lack of progress for black people during his tenure and for the president's his penchant for drone attacks. But he has also called President Obama a "niggerized president," a term he explains as a black person who's intimidated by putting a spotlight on white supremacy. He has called Obama a "Rockefeller in blackface," "a brown-faced Clinton," and has said Obama has "a certain fear of free black men."
If Sanders had West speaking at his rally to galvanize the black vote he lags in, it may not have been the perfect choice. Young voters will get on board, but older voters have a longer memory. Obama was handed a white man's mess and was expected to clean it up. He was met with a bigoted blockade from the right who obstructed his every idea and policy. America's boat wasn't listing, it was sinking, so we've come a long way under Obama, and many voters will take umbrage with West's insults.
I think it may be Senator Sanders who is trying to have it more than one way now. I think saying that one cannot be moderate and progressive is like saying one can't be both a mother and daughter, or that we can't admit that on some issues we are liberal and on some we are conservative. If Sanders does not like what Obama has done in office, own it.
Senator Sanders endorsed Bill Press's book, Buyers Remorse, How Obama Let Progressives Down. It was an above the title blurb and I take that as a validation. Why not? Progressives were let down. So why is Briggs backing off on that now and saying it wasn't an "endorsement" and that Sanders only meant that people should read the book?
That'd be campaign strategy. But can Sander's have it both ways?
Questions about Sanders do not sit well with many progressives, I have found. For pointing out that Sanders' base is not diverse enough I have been called a shill, an idiot, a Lesbian (why is that an insult?) and a woman who "loves her some pussy." I guess because I like Hillary it must mean I'd go down on her. It's as if Sarah Palin's supporters invaded the progressive's Twitter feed and are writing the sound bites.
I'm not decided when it comes to whom I want for president. I'm a progressive who leans toward the center, so I lean toward Mrs. Clinton. She has been endorsed by smart and solid liberals like Al Franken, whom I greatly respect, and by Cher, who also gets my vote.
She's no shill. I like the fact that Hillary stuck her neck out years ago for health care reform and her plan was as close to single payer as we will get in the next ten years. She was before her time on that and took a clobbering. As First Lady, she wouldn't talk to Katie Couric about how she keeps the White House rugs clean and was involved instead in policy. She took a beating for that too. She is still standing, and has in the meantime served in the Senate and as Secretary of State.
Now, the Republicans started the smear campaign that labeled Mrs. Clinton as sneaky and shady before the embassy in Benghazi was attacked. Still, up until that point, she had been pretty untouchable in her performance. They went after her server and her emails, even though Colin Powell admitted he used his private email, too. It has yet to be proved that Hillary leaked any classified information nor that she was some kind of international boob as Secretary of State.
Hillary is guarded and measured in her words. She flips both sides of the coin. She's running for president and that's her style. She's an enigma of sorts, but that doesn't bother me. She started out as a progressive in her early days and she's still rooted in liberalism. She's a private person and not warm to the touch. So what? I am not prepared to write her off or not give her my vote because of it. And I won't go along with the republican agenda regarding her.
Sanders says he works across the aisle, and he has, but what he came up with for his effort in this divisive Congress is been a handful of good amendments, not a cache of meaningful bills. This congress has not been willing to negotiate nor legislate. And Sanders did not literally "help write" Obamacare as he claims. That insinuates he sat down and helped craft the bill with the committee, which he did not. He wrote a different bill actually, which was single payer. Obamacare is closer to Medicare while Sanders' current plan is 100% government single payer with no co-pay. He got a very important provision into Obamacare, however; $11billion for community health care centers, which was a great addition before the vote. Sanders bill was denied one.
Actually, I wanted Elizabeth Warren to run for president. What happened? While Twitter was lit up weeks ago with talk of a deal between Clinton and Trump, why did no one question a deal between Sanders and Warren? Were two socialists on the menu too hard for us to choose from? Why is Sanders running as a Democrat when he says he a Socialist? He's not a Democrat, or can a Democrat also be a Socialist? That would be having it both ways.
A political revolution is happening, I agree. But I would include in my revolution more than one serious female candidate for president. My progressive revolution would mean more than three women on the Supreme Court and one African American. There would be serious Latino women and men in the forefront. So, the current revolution isn't quite as radical as I'd like it to be.
For making these observations about Senator Sanders I can count on being called a shill, an idiot, a Lesbian, and someone who loves me some pussy. But all that name calling makes a good case for my case. We don't have to be just one thing. In fact, we never are.
I am a daughter and a sister. An actress and a writer. A dog lover and cat lover. I am a morning person who likes to stay up late. I confess that I want a woman for president, and I think Hillary Clinton should be that woman. Not Fiorina. I am not just for any woman. Years ago I was a friend of Pat Schroeder, the Colorado Congresswoman, who ran for president. She was bright and funny and fully capable but didn't get far. She fell flat when she cried in public and the press played her tears as often as they played Howard Dean's victory yelp. Hillary has been called out for not showing us her tears. That makes her heart cold and dark.
I understand why many women won't vote for Hillary and why others don't like her. They have every right. I myself feel cheated that Warren did not throw her hat in the ring. She lives in a cold weather state so I know she has one. I am disappointed it's Sanders and not Warren who is running.
I'm weary of the bigotry in Congress, the hatred and disrespect. I'm weary of insulting comments from all sides. I'm annoyed that not enough has been said about the racism that reared up as Obama took oath. As our steward he brought us back from near death. If Sanders really wants to carry on Obama's legacy, explain it to me. Otherwise, don't say it.
President Obama himself was a revolution. Breaking the color barrier on the highest level gave America some dignity. In spite of any policy, he gave us what he promised. Hope.
Mrs. Clinton may be an island. She seems to stand alone, regardless of her husband and her PAC money. It's the contradictions about her that draws me to her. Her ambition has always been transparent. She is a dichotomy, but I find that presidential.