I have found the Democratic debates really interesting to watch. For the first time in my lifetime, these debates actually have some substance and drama. There was a couple of interesting moments last night, including the suggestion by Hillary Clinton that it is out of bounds for Sanders to raise the money that she has taken from Wall Street as a “smear.” I thought that Clinton did a good job on various points with strong responses, including the progressive label issue. However, one of the most intriguing moments was Clinton saying that it was ridiculous to call her the “establishment” candidate because she is a woman. For many, the Clintons are the personification of the establishment with huge donors, PACs, control of the DNC, and a massive political machine. Even the Washington Post responded with “Come on” to the suggestion that she is not the ultimate establishment candidate. Yet, Clinton’s point is that she is also the trying to become the first woman president and thus must be considered an outsider candidate. It seemed to resonate with the crowd, though Sanders appears to have tied Clinton in a national poll despite an concerted campaign from Democratic leaders and politicians aligned with Clinton. I thought it would make for an interesting discussion on the blog.
Here is the exchange:
Sanders: “I will absolutely admit that Secretary Clinton has the support of far more Governors, Senators, Mayors, members of the House. She has the entire establishment or almost the entire establishment behind her. That’s a fact. I don’t deny it. I’m pretty proud that we have over a million people who have contributed to our campaign averaging 27 bucks a piece.”
Clinton: “I’ve got to just jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who would characterize me as a woman running to be the first woman president as exemplifying the establishment.”
While I certainly understand her point and that women remain underrepresented in politics, it is also true that many of the most powerful folks in Washington are women. Indeed around the world, women are the increasingly prominent like Angela Merkel, Melinda Gates, Janet Yellen, Mary Barra, Christine Lagarde, Dilma Rousseff, Sheryl Sandberg, Susan Wojcicki, Park Geun-hye, Oprah Winfrey, Ginni Rometty, Meg Whitman, Indra Nooyi, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Irene Rosenfeld, Ana Patricia Botín, Abigail Johnson, Marillyn Hewson and others. In Congress, there were ranked by CQ:
PARTY POWER
Rep. Diane Black (R-Tenn.)
Rep. Kay Granger (R-Tex.)
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif)
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.)
MEDIA SAVVY
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)
DEBATE SHAPERS AND SWING VOTES
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.)
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.)
POLICY DEALMAKERS
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-Was.)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.)
POLICY WORKHORSES
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.)
Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.)
Rep. Cynthia M. Lummis (R-Wyo.)
BREAKING OUT
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.V.)
Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.)
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii)
Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.)
FRESHMEN ON THE RISE
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Ia.)
Rep. Gwen Graham (D-Fla.)
Rep. Mia Love (R-Utah)
Rep. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.)
Rep. Kathleen Rice (D-N.Y.)
Again, none of this means that women are adequately represented. Moreover, I think that there remains sexism in how some people view women in power, particularly in seeking the highest office in the land. However, is it still fair game to say that Clinton cannot be the symbol of the establishment because she is a woman? It may turn on the meaning of what the “establishment” is in politics.
What do you think?
Nick,
I like the honesty from Sanders and Cruz. I trust that they will both attempt to do what they have said they want to do. I would like to know from the Sanders supporters how they believe he can honor his constitutional oath AND fulfill his campaign promises?
Clinton: “I’ve got to just jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who would characterize me as a woman running to be the first woman president as exemplifying the establishment.”
~+~
Where did Mr. Sanders mention anything about gender? She injected the first woman as president to obviously dodge the issue and it worked enough to deflect the truth in the matter, that is that she is the embodiment of political machines in modern America.
Bernie Sanders is on record saying a 90% tax rate is not too high.
Taking 90 cents out of every dollar someone makes is unfair and usurious. Sanders is unqualified, too, if he plans to do that to the people he will represent.
The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people’s money. Only a meritocracy is fair.
There are plenty of socialist countries you can emigrate to if you dislike capitalism. That is, if you are not a refugee and you can get through their Draconian immigration requirements. Don’t make America into just another socialist country. People vote with their feet, and by far America attracts the most immigration.
Karen S:
If Sanders said that a 90% tax rate is not too high, it must have been a progressive tax rate for the highest incomes (and I’d bet passive and earned income). I don’t have a problem with it either.
Here are two statistics that might shake your tree a bit:
1) The wealthiest 62 persons in the world own more wealth than 50% of the world’s population, and the majority of those 62 are from the US (the source of this statistic I don’t know but I can get it); and,
2) The wealthiest one percent (1%) of the world’s population owns more wealth than the other 99% of the world’s population for the first time ever (the source of this statistic is Oxfam)..
I’d guess the financial services industry, trade agreements and foreign outsourcing, union destruction, and gutting the middle-class has created this issue.
What did Hillary accomplish as SOS? I saw her asked that question and she seemed stumped.
What we do know for a fact about her job performance is that she illegally sent and received classified information, including HUMINT, over an unsecured email account, wiped the server clean in an effort to cover her crime, lied and then changed her story about it (it went from I did not send or receive classified info, to it wasn’t marked classified at the time, to this is all about a NYT article), she illegally directed an employee to cut the classified heading off a doc to send via fax, and she lied about Benghazi being about a video. She also denied additional security to our embassador Stevens. That is just the latest in a decades long well documented history of lying and cronyism.
Frankly, her resume isn’t just a failure. It’s illegal. She may be pardoned for her time spent in office, but call it what it is-a crime.
Secure computers and insecure computers don’t even talk to each other at State. In order to get that information into a private email one would have to type it in or use a thumb drive. Obviously, anyone engaging in such a criminal act or criminal neglect regarding classified information would not label it “classified.”
I do not think plausible deniability means what she thinks it does.
It is obvious that while Clinton is part of the establishment, when she ran against Obama, her positions on most things were to the left of his program. That is why I supported her then against Obama. He is more of a centrist, and Hillary is now part of that wing of Democrats through her service and inclination. Her taking money from Wall Street is nothing out of the ordinary for any politician, as are her positions on most issues. That is why I support Sanders this time around.
Her whole political life has been geared to winning and holding political office and advancing her career and using any means to get there. Again, that is true of ANY politician, except for Sanders, He did not go into politics to gain and keep office as his prime goal. That alone qualifies him in my view, and his positions are what he sees as the needs of the people of the USA. I could support either one of them given the low quality of the opposition.
Karen, The MSM is indeed in the tank for Hillary. However, to date, being the Establishment and/or MSM darling is poison. I’ll keep saying, if this trend continues, it should be Cruz v Sanders. The most distinctive choices since Reagan v Carter in 1980.
Nick, I think we’ll see more of the citizenship issue with Cruz or at least we should. And not because of vindication against the birthers.
Moreover, the Supreme Court, not the Speaker of the House, should decide the issue as the final arbiter of that constitutional provision. Under the Law of Nations, to which Congress referred in 1787 according to many of the participants, “natural born” means not only do both parents have to be citizens, but the candidate must be born here.
And, yes, if Obama’s father wasn’t a US citizen, then the birthers were indirectly right under the Law of Nations.
McCain might or might not have gotten a pass if he was born on a US military base (considered US soil?) in the Canal Zone.
But I don’t think naturalization of a person born in Canada quite gets the job done under the Law of Nations.
Sorry for the digression.
Paul Schulte
re ‘juicy dirt’, Both are vulnerable in their own ways. Clinton is in the cross hairs of the GOP so Sanders can sit back and let them to the dirty work and not appear like a scumbag. He would still retain relations with the Democratic Party, Clinton should she be elected, and perhaps more. The GOP would rather see Sanders elected and if they do the ‘job’ on Clinton he may be or may be the only one left. Republicans know they can stop him even if he gets elected President. Sanders would be lucky to last one term and then the Republicans might have a chance at the White House in 2020, or not seeing the doofuses they seem to surface.
Now the silver lining answer is that perhaps Sanders wants to be Vice President if Clinton gets the nomination. Or perhaps Clinton would want to be Vice President if Sanders gets the nomination. Neither one of them would make it through another run. That would be a dynamic duo. That could be the best overall solution to this quagmire that is the US political process. A Clinton/Sanders ticket would get increased voting for the Democratic Party from the young and yet maintain their base. Sanders might infuse some energy to change stuff. On another note, if Sanders was nominated then Clinton would be a valuable resource. Clinton could support Sanders in helping him maneuver his radical programs The Republican circus has nothing that would be better for the country than that.
I am waiting, if you have anything other than a innocuous remark, then let’s hear it.
Hillary and Sanders are both part of the establishment. The question is which do you want with the nuclear codes.
“we came, we saw, he died.”
Yes bettykath, I keep coming back to that very statement. The mindset behind that is awe-inspiring in the most negative of ways. It reeks of entitlement, and makes the case for the many folks around the world who associate that course of reasoning with our entire country. Truly horrible.
Let alone a usurpation of the President’s authority under Article II. Hillary attended Yale law and knows this fact, so we shouldn’t expect anything less out of her administration.
Hillary has been at the pinnacle of political power and a consumate insider for over 20 years. She not only is an establishment candidate she owns most of the partisan establishment by virtue of favor trading, past support and so on. Hillary Clinton denying she is part of the establishment because she is a woman simply has no credibility at all. She inaccurately said during the debate she was the first woman running for President but that was Shirley Chisolm over 40 years ago and several others have put their hat in the ring since. It is true to say she is the first woman who might actually become President. But that is only because she is part of the Democratic power elite, aka: the estabslihment in Washington. And while that is the foundation of her political power it is also her greatest weakness. The idea that being a woman means she’s an outsider or deserves the votes of woman simply due to her gender doesn’t seem to be working well given her sliding position in the polls. Yesterday’s NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that in NH, Sanders leads Clinton among woman overall by 4%. Clinton has a ten point lead among older woman and Sanders has an overwhelming lead among younger women of something in the neighborhood of 30 or 40 points.
Horuss – historically younger voters don’t vote unless you have a candidate like JFK to get them out. They might poll better, but will they walk the walk. Can Bernie get them to the polls.
Never, ever put someone that has PROVEN untrustworthy in a position of power that can destroy your life, liberty and property. If none of them can be trusted then which one will least likely abuse the power of the office to accomplish an agenda?
Tin
1, February 5, 2016 at 10:12 am
Well certainly there are women in the Congress, but a female president would be a huge step forward, breaking the final political glass sealing. An obvious analogy can be made with the African-American experience. Despite representation in the Congress and various levels of the government, including the U.S. Supreme Court, all of that pales in comparison to the symbolism of America electing its first black president.
I have to respond. I voted for Obama for the symbolism. I thought it was important. I rue the day and regularly wear a hair shirt and engage in penitential acts regularly. He is an unmitigated disaster for the Republic. I think Hillary is so unqualified and so undeserving to be President that it scares me that people support her with such fervor.
I never want to hear another word about race or gender. MLK who suggested that he wanted to be judged by the content of his character and not the color of his skin is probably spinning in his grave at the hijacking by hucksters of his Dream.
I’m Hillary The 8th I am!
— I heard this on this blog.
I would love for a woman to be president. But not Hillary. From a resume point of view she is well qualified, but from the point of view of the perception of being “bought”, she isn’t qualified. There are two instances that disqualify her for me:
1. Elizabeth Warren recounted in an interview with Bill Moyers of a meeting she had with then FLOTUS Hillary, just the two of them. Elizabeth explained the problems with a pending bankruptcy bill, one that excluded college loans from qualifying. She said “Hillary got it”. Apparently Hillary convinced the President and the bill was not made law. Second entry, Hillary is in the Senate and votes FOR that same bill. It seems that the banks, etc. were her constituents. My question: what about the millions of New Yorkers adversely affected by that law? It sure looks like the banks bought her. Her current contributors suggest that we can expect more of the same from her.
2. During an unknown-to-her “open mike” she was asked about Khadaffi. Her response, “we came, we saw, he died.” I find this callousness about the murder of a head of state by our government (and in my name %&^%* ^$) to be completely unacceptable. I’d much rather have as President a man with the compassion to stop his stump speech to aid someone on the stage with him who collapses and one who goes to the aid of a reporter who is being trampled by other reporters. Bernie does need to improve his foreign policy expertise, but I think his judgement and the advise of good foreign policy advisers is better than the hawkish Hillary who thinks it’s ok to kill heads of state.
Why does no one mention the fact she told Egyptian ambassador and her daughter the attack on Benghazi had nothing to do w/ video and then proceeded to lie about it–even to relatives of victims? And she & Obama sent Susan Rice out to lie on Sunday talk shows. They knew this was false narrative.
Emory – that is not showing up on MSM but it is showing up in the British papers, Fox and conservative blogs.
Karen S writes, “steveg – one of Sanders’ advantages is that he can remain above the fray regarding citing Hillary’s severe character flaws, past mistakes, and legal issues. It’s all over the news, so the information can get out there without him appearing caustic.”
That may very well be true, Karen, and it may have been a winning tactic within Bernie’s organization, but I have a feeling even greater boldness (running as a Socialist in this country is pretty bold per se) is needed in the face of the Machine.
I did like the reality-like sparring though. Fresh air. I felt like we were getting something from the UK’s lower house.
stevegroen – we won’t have a real debate until someone throws a punch.
I’m a woman and I believe she is part of the establishment or what I call the establishment. It isn’t about minorities but about the powerful elitism that govern or rules this country. In this case, she is in bed with just about all of them money wise. Therefore, I think she is a part of the establishment that is what this whole election is about. It is what Bernie Sanders entire campaign is built around and she is trying to deflect the issue. I do hope we won’t let mainstream media assist her in this.
Nancy Parris – if they just make an attack ad of the “donations (read pay-offs)” to the Clinton Foundation and just scroll the donors, it will sink her ship.
Paul writes, “stevegroen – I keep thinking Hillary has some juicy dirt on Sanders that she has promised not to release. Sometimes it is like he is only half-trying to win. God knows there is enough to run attack ads on Hillary for a lifetime. Even with Democrats it is going to start to work. She has lost men, she has lost Millenials, she is losing women.”
That crossed my mind, too, last night. Spot on, and although I’m hesitant to say that this dynamic duo was largely choreographed to suck in the Left to the Democratic Party’s belly, why Bernie didn’t attack has to be considered.
we saw major foreign policy disasters under 2 sec of state, albright and clinton. mrs clinton should not claim anything special about womanhood and politics.
Pelosi has been a disaster for CA, where her genitalia was irrelevant. When she said, “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it” was it OK because she had lady parts? I think Hillary and her supporters are making a grave error making her gender relevant at all.
Nick – it’s already making the rounds on Facebook and other social media sites. If you make a comment against Sanders, it’s because he’s a Jew. Why do you think the media have not focused on his being the possible first Jewish president? Do you think they are still firmly in Hillary’s corner? I watched part of an interview with Hillary on CNN, I believe it was, in which Hillary claimed that the confidential emails all pertained to a NYT article she was forwarded. Absurd. Not only did they let her get away with this outrageous claim, but they asked her if they thought it was a conspiracy. Was that a fed line from her “Republican conspiracy” lie about Monica Lewinsky et al?
I foresee the typical Liberal MO grassroots attempt to paint any critic of either Dem candidate as morally deficient. However, I do give Sanders credit for not trying to run on his religion as a platform the way that Hillary is trying to make an issue of her gender. It should be about policy and character, rather than the temptation to vote for a “first” of anything. That will only be exciting for the first couple of days, and then you have to live with the policies.
steveg – one of Sanders’ advantages is that he can remain above the fray regarding citing Hillary’s severe character flaws, past mistakes, and legal issues. It’s all over the news, so the information can get out there without him appearing caustic.
isaac – what has Obama wanted that he didn’t get? GOP and Libertarians were ineffective at preventing any of his policies from going through. If he’s going to run on stopping the oceans from rising and fixing all the problems in black neighborhoods, and saving everyone $2500/year on health insurance, those should have been promises he intended to keep. Instead, African Americans have suffered the worst of all. That’s what happens when you vote for someone on skin color alone, and not the content of their character.