There are limits to the analogy between Clinton’s 2008 primary contest with Obama and Sanders’s primary contest now with her. Clinton doesn’t get that. But she needs to figure it out because the differences matter.
We got to the end in June, and I did not put down conditions. I didn’t say, ‘you know what, if Senator Obama does X, Y, and Z, maybe I’ll support him.’ I said, ‘I’m supporting Senator Obama, because no matter what our differences might be, they pale in comparison to the differences between us and Republicans.’ That’s what I did.
At that time, 40 percent of my supporters said they would not support him. So from the time I withdrew, until the time I nominated him — I nominated him at the convention in Denver — I spent an enormous amount of time convincing my supporters to support him. And I’m happy to say the vast majority did. That’s certainly what I did and I hope that we will see the same this year.
— Hillary Clinton, at an MSNBC town hall-style event, Apr. 21
That is true. Six days after she lost the California primary to Obama in early June 2008 she made a gracious speech strongly endorsing Obama and urging her supporters to support him, and repeated it in a primetime speech at the Convention.
Which almost certainly is what Sanders will do, almost exactly. But what he also will do is attempt to play a role in the drafting of the party platform. And when he endorses Clinton and then campaigns for her he will point out both that Trump’s actual fiscal-policy and healthcare policy proposals, published on his website, are geared toward gaining favor with the Republican Party elite, especially the donors who have been (very) effectively financing the so-called think tanks that draft and dictate Republican Party dogma and have been doing so for several decades now.
And Sanders also will remind the public that he remains a senator, as does Elizabeth Warren and Sherrod Brown and three or four others–among them now Chris Murphy of Connecticut, he made clear a day or two ago in an eloquent statement–who comprise the Senate’s contingent of what’s often referred to as the Warren wing of the Party.
Which is why it is so off-base, so missing the point, for Clinton and many pundits to claim that Sanders’s primary campaign and his decision to remain an active candidate seeking additional elected delegates in the remaining primary and caucus states endanger Clinton’s, and the down-ballot candidates’, chances in the general election. Because of critical distinctions between the nature of Obama-vs.-Clinton in 2008 and Clinton-vs.-Sanders now, the very opposite is likely true: There were few significant distinctions between Obama’s and Clinton’s domestic-policy proposals, but fairly large distinctions between some of Clinton’s and some of Sanders’.
The main policy distinction between Clinton and Obama in 2008 was on foreign policy. Clinton as a senator had voted in favor of the Iraq war authorization. Obama, not yet a member of Congress, nonetheless had publicly voiced opposition to it. The virulently angry Clinton supporters—the 40 percent of her backers who, if the poll she referenced was accurate, thought in June 2008 that they would not vote for Obama that November—almost certainly were mostly middle-aged women, many of them upscale career women like her, and older women, who were angry at Obama for halting the road to the presidency for a woman. They were not, suffice it to say, pro-Iraq war voters; instead, for them the chance to see woman elected president was paramount. Policy differences, such as they were between two candidates, were secondary.
As Paul Krugman often reminds, the key domestic policy difference between Obama and Clinton was Clinton’s support of an individual mandate to obtain healthcare insurance as a key part of her detailed healthcare-insurance proposal, and Obama’s rather craven opposition to the mandate in his own proposal. As someone who supported John Edwards in 2008 until it became clear that the race was between Clinton and Obama, but who remembers well that it was Edwards who brought healthcare insurance into the primary contest, proposing a plan that Clinton quickly adopted almost in full as her own because Edwards was gaining media and voter admiration for making it an issue—and who was not pleased that Obama needed to be prodded to propose his own plan and then proposed one that clearly was weaker than Edwards’s and Clinton’s—I seriously considered switching my allegiance to Clinton rather than to Obama.
The deciding factor for me then in choosing Obama? That I didn’t want another triangulator as a Democratic president, and figured that while Clinton surely would be that, Obama only might be one. He wasn’t particularly specific about most domestic-policy positions, something that annoyed ad concerned me. But he was promising change.
Clinton fails at her own (rather large) risk to recognize the differences between the 2008 primary contest and this one, and why Sanders’ campaign is helping her own chances in the general election—a well as those of down-ballot candidates. To illustrate the key differences between then and now, I’m selecting excerpts from two campaign reports, one by Baltimore Sun political reporters Kate Linthicum and Chris Megerian, from April 24, the other a lengthy Campaign Stops blog post by New York Times correspondent Emma Roller. Both reports are from
Linthicum and Megerian write from the campaign trail in Reading, PA:
In recent months, Bernie Sanders has transformed Dennis Brandau from a guy who hated politics into a first-time voter. On Tuesday, the 29-year-old line cook will proudly cast a ballot for the Vermont senator in Pennsylvania’s Democratic presidential primary.
But the bruising campaign this year also has turned Brandau into a fierce opponent of the Democratic front-runner, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He says he has a hard time imagining backing her this fall if she wins the nomination.
“I don’t know if I can vote for her,” Brandau said. “I don’t even want to hear her talk.”
Sanders’ chances of winning the nomination have dimmed since his 16-point loss to Clinton in last week’s New York primary. Polls show he faces an uphill race in several of the five Eastern states that vote on Tuesday, as well as in California’s June 7 primary.
Some of his supporters remain so steadfast, however, that a #BernieOrBust movement has picked up momentum on Twitter. So has an online pledge for supporters who vow to vote for Sanders as a write-in candidate if he loses the nomination.
Roller reports, also from Reading:
KEITH MANDICH had been to this theater before, to see John Mellencamp.
Now Mr. Mandich, a retired steelworker, was back in downtown Reading, Pa., to see another guy he thought of as a hero for working-class America: Senator Bernie Sanders.
In his bid for the Democratic nomination, Mr. Sanders has nurtured vocal support from young, college-educated liberals. But he also has fervent support from people who remember the era of well-paying union jobs at manufacturing plants — and who are very aware of how far we are from that time.
“I just like Bernie because he’s old like me,” joked Mack Richards, 70, another retired steelworker at the Reading event. Pennsylvania is among the five states holding a primary on Tuesday, and it has the most delegates at stake. Since neither party has locked up its nominee yet, the state’s white workingclass voters have more of a voice in the primary process than they have had in years past. In 2008, they were considered Biden voters — the white working-class denizens of Scranton, Pa., and places like it — whom Joe Biden, Scranton’s own, was supposed to win over for Barack Obama.
This time around, the fight for these voters has focused significantly on a somewhat unlikely contender for juiciest campaign issue: international trade deals and their repercussions.
Any presidential candidate on the stump knows how to work a good metaphor into a speech, and Mr. Sanders knew to use the very ZIP code he was rallying in.
“In many ways, what is happening here in Reading, what has happened over the last several decades, is kind of a metaphor for what’s happening all over this country,” Mr. Sanders told the crowd. “We have seen a city which once had thousands of excellent-paying jobs lose those jobs because of disastrous trade policies.”
He went on to list corporations, including the Dana Corporation, that had shut down plants in Reading and moved overseas. Mr. Mandich, the Sanders supporter and Mellencamp fan, said that he was laid off from his job at the Dana Corporation, which manufactured automobile frames, when the company closed its Reading plant in 2000. The Dana Corporation was one of the companies that supported the Clinton administration’s effort to pass the North American Free Trade Agreement, which activists and liberal economists argue did more harm than good to the United States economy.
Kevin Wright, a high school physics teacher in line to see Mr. Sanders, saw parallels between the populism on the left and similar sentiments on the right. “We’re the response to the Tea Party,” he said.
His sister, standing next to him, laughed nervously. “Careful!” she warned.
“The Tea Party has taken over the Republican Party,” Mr. Wright continued. “I think our movement’s stronger, and has more numbers, and is more rational and grounded in reality. And you can see that just based on the people here.”
The crowd in Reading skewed a bit older than a typical Sanders rally — possibly because it took place on a weekday afternoon. Fritz Von Hummel, 55, a self-employed appliance technician who was laid off from his previous job in November, canceled a couple of appointments to come to the event. He said he had not had health insurance for the past seven years because he could not afford it, and he was eager to talk about the shortcomings of President Obama’s signature health care law.
“I’m just furious with the situation the way it is,” he added.
Roller went on to report from a Trump rally a few miles away. Some of the people she spoke with there echoed refrains similar to those of the Sanders’ supporters. Here article is titled “CAMPAIGN STOPS: Pennsylvania, Where Everyone Is ‘Furious’.” The Linthicum and Megerian piece is titled “Voters’ ‘Bernie or Bust’ efforts persist despite Sanders’ vow not to be another Ralph Nader.”
I myself think there’s little danger that most millennials like Dennis Brandau and perhaps-millennials but anyway youngish Sanders supporters like Kevin Wright and his sister won’t ultimately vote for Clinton. I think they’re more likely to fear Trump than the middle-aged and elderly working-class Sanders supporters. And I think that thanks in part to social media, they’re more likely to know or learn before November, simply from their web use, that Trump’s fiscal-policy platform is drafted by standard-issue Republican operatives, borrowing from Republican lobbyists and the Club for Growth/Koch brothers’ think-tank-payroll folks.
I think this is so even though Clinton effectively wrapped up the nomination by winning by 16 points in the New York primary in which only those who were registered as Democrats by early October 2015 were able to vote in that primary, and large percentages of young and younger New Yorkers were independents. Clinton, understandably, doesn’t mention that publicly. But it is a fact.
And what about the middle-aged one-time factory workers who support Sanders now? And the middle-class white collar workers whose kids will borrow, or have borrowed, large amounts in student loans? What about those who pay high healthcare premiums with out-of-pocket expenses that to Clinton may seem negligible but seem less so to the ones who pay these?
These are not people who are livid that Clinton is keeping a Jewish 74-year-old male from gaining the nomination. They are people who care, deeply, about the policy differences between the two candidates. And I’m pretty sure that many of them care, as I do, that Clinton keeps feigning ignorance about what people mean when they use the phrase “the establishment.” And that Clinton has campaigned against Sanders largely using a playbook seemingly co-opted from a used-car-salesman sales manual, pre-lemon-laws.
I myself harbor not so much as a second of doubt that I will vote for president in November, and about whom I vote for. It will not be the Republican nominee. And I absolutely know that I will be joined in that by many, many millions of Sanders primary supporters.
And I dearly hope that Sanders will follow the playbook I say above that I expect him to.
And I will say this: Far from hurting down-ballot candidates’ fundraising chances for the general election, those of us who have contributed to Sanders’ campaign—we’ve done so through ActBlue.com—will continue to receive, as we already have, ActBlue’s solicitations for contributions to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. We’ll click the buttons and fill in the blanks, like we have done for Bernie Sanders. We’ll do so upon our own accord, and also at Bernie Sanders’s urging. We will be reminded that the Warren wing, the Sanders wing, of the Democratic Party badly needs to grow. Into a majority in Congress.
Turns out that millennials already have figured this out, according to dramatic results of a newly released poll taken by the Harvard Institute of Politics. And many progressive older folks know this, too. At least those who aren’t New York Times op-ed columnists or the like.
ADDENDUM: Just want to add that once Trump chooses Scott Walker as his running mate–he seriously seems headed in that direction, and recently hired Walker’s campaign manager as his campaign’s deputy director or something–the Dems’ problems will take care of themselves, thank you very much.
Added 4/27 at 4:29 p.m.
1. Are we supposed to make the considered judgment that since Bill Clinton was alleged to be a triangulator in the 1990s, that inevitably his wife will be one, too, twenty years later?
2. Are we supposed to simply ignore the fact that in most of her Senate years, Clinton received a 95% or !00% rating from American for Democratic Action — and voted with Bernie Sanders at about the same rate?
3. Do we ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton has been the most admired woman in the world for 14 years — with any contrary views coming entirely from (1) the furthest left segment of the Democratic Party that imagines ideal legislative solutions are as easily done as they are said, and (2) the propaganda organs of the Republican Party anticipating for many years her eventual run for President?
4. What President has not been a triangulator to some extent? Is it not called governing? And which other President besides Clinton followed a 12 year period of Republican Presidents who told a believing American public that government is the problem, twice won the Presidency without a majority, and faced a Congress dominated for six out of eight years by an especially hostile competing party led by someone like Newt Gingrich, after trying to move in a progressive direction with a successful effort to increase the top marginal income tax rate and an unsuccessful effort to adopt a universal health insurance program caused by an uprising of the real establishment?
If you understand history, you should realize that the whole “triangulator” meme is a canard. Even FDR, tough Harry Truman, and head-buster LBJ did significant “triangulating” at critical times in their Presidencies.
People if you take nothing else from the above article. Except that change is possible if you help Bernie and Warren when they ask for help for explicit people; reform of the democratic party is possible.
If you believe that the common belongs to the nation and those who benefit should be taxed according to assistance they have received as a member of this nation. But, dino’s like the Clintons’ or Obama are no better than having a republician, as the goal is not the common good.
Let us think about Obamas’ recent behavior of going too England and tell the people there that have had a successful revolution and are trying to disengage from the European Union. Obama is over there telling them what a mistake it would be and that TPP would be good for England if it remained a member of the European Union.
Clinton told his policies advisor if he follow their advice it would damage those who he campaigned to help. But he still followed the advice that would hurt the majority of the nation and help short term profits of Wall Street. Least we not leave out the First Lady who campaigned for NAFTA and even more draconian legislation than was in the 96 welfare reform bill.
Some of my friends want to believe that Hillary has changed and is now a good person. I will agree that Hillary has made an effort to change her public image. I would suggest Hillary has been running for president for since the Clintons left the white house.
Hillary has been an almost model citizen, preparing for her run for the presidency for the past fourteen years. Except for not sending help when an embassy asked for more security and when she cut the throat of average citizen by passing a bill that makes it almost impossible for the average citizen to file bankruptcy.
For those interested in the real Hillary; listen to her.
” But, dino’s like the Clintons’ or Obama are no better than having a republician, as the goal is not the common good.”
It is hard to imagine the stupidity required to write that sentence.
EMichael, I take it you disagree. Well refute the statement. I’m sure you can find something positive to post.
16 million uninsured Americans
Define the 16 million as if the PPACA does “not” cover them.
Tens of thousands of American lives each year.
EMichael, good post, but was more interested in economic issues for rebuilding the middle class.
Obama care can be looked at in a number of ways which are not positive. The only really positive is that if it turns out to be true, that insures may no longer dump the insured when they get sick.
Not sure about the thousands of live refers.
You know what’s sort of funny to me about this thread? I had forgotten this until this weeks’ Woman’s Card contretemps—specifically Clinton’s “Deal me in” response to Trump—reminded me of it. Clinton responded with something like “If equal pay, and guaranteed paid family leave, and affordable preschool, and women’s healthcare are playing the Woman’s Card, deal me in.” Ah; then I remembered the moment when I concluded that Clinton really DOESN’T have a core, or much of one anyway: When at the first debate last fall, after Sanders mentioned his proposal to tax everyone’s income at (I think) $1.54/a week (it was well less than $2.00) to pay for guaranteed paid medical and family leave, Clinton used, for the first of many times during the fall and very early this year, her rebuttal line that she wants to raise middle-class incomes, not lower them.
Until that moment I had thought that the one thing that really WAS her core politically was the panoply of traditional women’s issues, including guaranteed paid family leave. Guess I was wrong about that, I said to myself. So, apparently, did a good swath of other progressives.
She was raked over the coals for that—a stunning, dumbfounding comment from a Democratic candidate for president—yet she kept repeating it until the polls showed Sanders effectively even with her in Iowa and leading her in New Hampshire. I remember the dismay and anger from commentators and others. Several pointed out that that comment was straight from the Republican Party playbook. And that apparently Clinton thinks FDR and LBJ wanted to lower incomes because, well … Social Security and Medicare.
Clinton thinks her problem in not being a natural politician is simply that she’s cold and stiff in her physical presence and speaking style. She doesn’t recognize—and either do her campaign folks her feed her these sound bite lines she adopts—that her biggest problem, by far, is fondness for sound bites that are actually appalling. Her husband raised taxes. Guess he wanted to lower incomes rather than raise them.
I’ve debated here in AB threads several times with people who disagree with me that Clinton simply is not very bright. That she’s so fond of this kind of thing—the asinine, self-defeating sound bites and sleights of hand that have been a hallmark of her campaign—is what I’m talking about.
NYT columnist Charles Blow has a good column today in which he calls Clinton a waffling contrivance. Perfect!
But all that said, the bottom line is that EMichael is, extremely obviously, exactly right. Why would anyone who is appalled by Citizens United and the Voting Rights Act opinion—two Supreme Court opinions that, unlike most of their other truly awful ones, most ARE aware of—think the outcome of the election between Trump and Clinton doesn’t matter?
I know that most people have no clue that most of the really important stuff that happens in federal courts happens at the district court (trial court) and circuit court (appellate court) levels. Much less do they know the genuinely appalling effect of the complete takeover of the entire civil and criminal justice systems, state and federal, by the Conservative Legal Movement. Even less do they know the extraordinary breadth and reach of what this has affected.
Nor do they know that, finally—finally—in the last three years, thanks mostly to the decision by Harry Reid to kill the filibuster for circuit and district court nominees, the makeup of those courts has changed significantly and VERY meaningfully.
So, yeah, I repeat what EMichael said:
“”But, dino’s like the Clintons’ or Obama are no better than having a republician, as the goal is not the common good.”
“It is hard to imagine the stupidity required to write that sentence.”
Bev, was it not the Clintons who eliminated the courts ability to adjust sentences, with their welfare reform bill.
The courts do not make policies, only rule if the congress made a mistake when writing the law.
As previously posted where is the economic policy of a democrat president that is helping rebuild the middle class.
“The courts do not make policies, only rule if the congress made a mistake when writing the law.”
Wow. Are you naive. Really clueless.
And, no, neither the Clinton welfare reform law nor the Clinton crime law had anything to do with sentences. But another bill that Clinton signed into law, in 1996, effectively eliminated federal-court habeas corpus review of state-court criminal convictions–at least as that statute has been interpreted by the Conservative Legal Movement Supreme Court justices. That law–which was conceived and written by Conservative Legal Movement activists–is a true abomination. Clinton signed it because he feared being Willie Hortoned in his reelection bid.
the inability of people to communicate on a semi competent basis is frightening.
Bev, thanks for the help on Clintons record.