I Get Sanders’ Appeal. But He’s Not a Credible President.

[Beacool]

Democrats have a choice between a symbolic candidacy and a real one. They should choose the real one.

By Paul Starr
1/25/2016

I have a strange idea about presidential primaries and elections: The purpose is to elect a president.

And I have a strange thought about primary voters: They have a choice between sending the country a message and sending it a president. That is a choice Democratic voters in Iowa and New Hampshire ought especially to be weighing with the first caucuses and primary only days away.

The desire of many Democrats to send a message is understandable. As the co-editor of a liberal magazine, The American Prospect, I know that impulse. There’s a lot of anger and frustration among Democrats about entrenched institutions resistant to change. The bankers and other financiers responsible for the 2008 crisis have largely gone unpunished, and the big banks are now bigger than they were then. Although the economy has substantially recovered from the crisis, the gains in income and wealth continue to go mainly to people at the top. Despite the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the prices of drugs and health-care services are exorbitant, and even many of the insured are not well protected against those costs.

Racism, climate change, the campaign-finance system—it’s easy to come up with a list of problems that do not seem amenable to incremental reform. So when Bernie Sanders calls for mobilizing millions of people to bring about a revolution, a lot of progressives cheer him on.

But as appealing as Sanders may be, he is not credible as president. Elizabeth Warren would have been a credible candidate, but Sanders isn’t. The campaign he has been waging is a symbolic one. For example, the proposals he has made for free college tuition and free, single-payer health care suggest what might be done if the United States underwent radical change. Those ideas would be excellent grist for a seminar. But they are not the proposals of a candidate who is serious about getting things done as president—or one who is serious about getting elected in the country we actually live in.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-2016-213560#ixzz3yI1WtzMc

[Motown_Johnny]

1. I feel the same way about the candidate who was advocating a no fly zone in Syria.

Not a credible Commander In Chief.

[questionseverything]

5. wasn't that moment in the debate terrifying?

ww3 here we come

[Motown_Johnny]

12. What is really terrifying is that she now gets a pass on it.

How the hell is this not even discussed anymore?


Terrifying.

[roguevalley]

53. not to mention planting questions in her meet ups

[Motown_Johnny]

54. Less scary than a military conflict with Russia in Eastern Europe. n/t

[polly7]

84. and check this out too ...... we don't hear much about Yemen at all.

Saudi Arabia Is Killing Civilians with US Bombs

January 25, 2016

Saudi Arabia has engaged in war crimes, and the United States is aiding and abetting them by providing the Saudis with military assistance. In September 2015, Saudi aircraft killed 135 wedding celebrants in Yemen. The air strikes have killed 2,800 civilians, including 500 children. Human Rights Watch charges that these bombings “have indiscriminately killed and injured civilians.”

This conflict is part of a regional power struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis are bombing Yemen in order to defeat the Houthi rebels, who have been resisting government repression for a long time. Iran has been accused of supporting the Houthis, although Iran denies this. Yemen is strategically located on a narrow waterway that links the Gulf of Aden with the Red Sea. Much of the world’s oil passes through this waterway.

A United Nations panel of experts concluded in October 2015 that the Saudi-led coalition had committed “grave violations” of civilians’ human rights. They include indiscriminate attacks; targeting markets, a camp for displaced Yemenis, and humanitarian aid warehouses; and intentionally preventing the delivery of humanitarian assistance. The panel was also concerned that the coalition considered civilian neighborhoods, including Marra and Sadah, as legitimate strike zones. The International Committee of the Red Cross documented 100 attacks on hospitals.

snip ~

In an interesting twist, the Saudis contributed $10 million to the Clinton Foundation before Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State. In 2011, the year after the State Department had documented myriad serious human rights violations by Saudi Arabia, Hillary oversaw a $29 billion sale of advanced fighter jets to the Saudis, declaring it was in our national interest. The deal was “a top priority” for Hillary, according to Andrew Shapiro, an assistant secretary of state. Two months before the deal was clinched, Boeing, manufacturer of one of the fighter jets the Saudis sought to acquire, contributed $900,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

Hillary now says the U.S should pursue “closer strategic cooperation” with Saudi Arabia.

Full article: http://marjoriecohn.com/saudi-arabia-is-killing-civilians-with-us-bombs/

[reformist2]

89. Hillary sounded just like a neocon in that debate.... maybe because she is one!

[restorefreedom]

2. he is wrong.

the message IS the candidate, and the presidency

bernie is the message

we have had enough

more unicorns and ponies.....

nice try, paul starr, we are not buying your establishment tripe...

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Haven't we already heard from Sensible Woodchuck?

[Iliyah]

4. The real one . . . .

[sadoldgirl]

6. Well, perhaps he will become the most

incredibly loved president.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. Bernie is very credible

we are suffering a recession on main street while Wall Street thrives. There is a job that needs to be done. FDR was chastised but he got things changed.

[LexVegas]

8. Amen. nt

[DCBob]

9. Precisely how I feel.

[John Poet]

10. "Not credible"--- because he's not a Neocon warhawk like Hillary?

What do we have now, TWO Neocon parties
and none for people who support a peaceful foreign policy?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511061623

[Beacool]

23. No, not credible because he won't be able to enact his agenda.

How many progressive economists, journalists, etc. will it take before it sinks in that the utopia that Sanders promises won't happen?

[John Poet]

28. "NO WE CAN'T", eh?

Whether "the utopia" could actually happen or not, I'll support Sanders just for trying.

Forget "credible president".

Hilllary Clinton can not be a credible Democratic nominee for President,
because NO foreign policy neo-conservative can be a credible Democratic nominee.

It is totally unacceptable. We've already had two Bushes,
we don't need another.

[Empowerer]

37. How about reparations, Sen. Sanders? "NO." Why Not? "BECAUSE WE CAN'T!"

So much for Sanders "trying."

He is as pragmatic as the next politician. The difference is, he has you all convinced that he's different than all the others.

[John Poet]

51. I have every confidence that Hillary will also be trying,

trying to get us into another war,
if her neocon foreign policy ideology so dictates.

It doesn't help to know that she'd probably have Jeb and George W. whispering in her ear, since they consider themselves to be "like family".

[asuhornets]

98. Really??

I wonder what on earth Jeb and GW have to say to Hillary and why are they whispering?

[LondonReign2]

31. What part of Hillary's agenda is she going to be able to enact?

Tell me, what part of her agenda is she going to persuade the Republicans to vote with her on?

[Broward]

47. She'll work with the Repubs to screw over the 99%.

The Repubs will also support more war. So, there is plenty of common ground and that's just one more reason to vote for Bernie.

[LondonReign2]

56. It is a claim the hillisthebestest.com crowd likes to use against Bernie

yet they can never answer what Hillary will get passed

[Fawke Em]

36. As long as it takes Camp Weathervane to understand that we're ready to work for what we want.

[Goblinmonger]

48. Other than the warhawk parts, what will Hillary be able to do?

Or are we pretending that a Republican Congress will rally behind her sheer awesomeness and do what she wishes.

But, seriously, what things that she wants to do have a hope of passing into law?

[Arugula Latte]

59. So Hillary's agenda is rightwing enough that the Republican Congress will love it and pass it?

[Jarqui]

11. Since when is a candidate who spent much of her political life

lying to me more "credible" than one who hasn't lied to me at all (so far) ?

[rurallib]

13. this is not satire, right?

sometimes I feel like Sheldon Cooper anymore cause I just can't tell if it's satire or not.

[jonno99]

17. +1 yep...nt

[Gothmog]

50. No, this is not from HA Goodman

[beam me up scottie]

14. Ah, I see Monday's talking point has been issued. The buzzword is "credible" pass it on!

Do you ever post about Hillary?

Come to think of it I can't remember the last time I saw a positive thread about Hillary from her supporters.

I guess posting endless streams of anti-Bernie propaganda is better than discussing issues.

[Iliyah]

24. AWE, only creditable when its positive towards BS

Got it. In other words, propaganda and anti-HRC is ok.

As to positive HRC thread they are there and guess what they are attack and trashed but that ok too.

Kicking this thread again!

[beam me up scottie]

26. Another strawman, I hope you guys bought the field, otherwise it will get expensive.

Like I said, anything to avoid discussing your candidate's stance on the issues.

It's sad when you don't have someone you can be excited about.

Good luck catapulting the propaganda, it's worked out so well for y'all up to now.

[Iliyah]

34. LOL

Mirrors

[Beacool]

25. Why bother?

Any and every positive Hillary post gets trashed by Sanders' supporters. People go to other sites to converse intelligently about Hillary.

[beam me up scottie]

27. That happens to positive threads about Bernie too but people keep posting them anyway.

Maybe the problem is a lack of positive articles about Hillary?

[Iliyah]

38. Nah, but keep the illusion up tho

[LondonReign2]

35. They also go to other sites to call Sanders supporters

"ignorant white trailer trash idiots", then come back here and claim Sanders supporters are all meanies.

[Fawke Em]

39. Don't forget the anti-Semitism!

[beam me up scottie]

41. The anti-Semitic posts at other sites are despicable.

They know they can't post them here.

[notadmblnd]

62. What? Did they take your echo chamber away from you?

Even in your "safe place" all the posts are about Senator Sanders and not HRC.

[beam me up scottie]

64. Word.

[John Poet]

40. I'm POSITIVE that Hillary's a neo-conservative....

and therefore cannot be a credible Democratic nominee for President.

(Just thought I'd help out here! You're already been to this link)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511061623


With Jeb just about out of the GOP race,
I guess that frees up the Bushes to support the other neocon member of their "like family" seeking the presidency.... Hillary W. Bush


Like my new look?
I finally got sick enough of looking at Jeb Bush's face in my sig-line to do something about it. LOL

[beam me up scottie]

44. That thread was a real eye opener.

And another reason why Bernie supporters want a progressive alternative.

Nice look! Very chic!

[Gothmog]

81. Hillary Clinton is the most qualified candidate in the field

I like Sanders but I am not convinced that he is viable in a general election contest where the Kochs will be spending $887 million and the RNC candidate may be spending another billion dollars

[beam me up scottie]

83. Qualification is a matter of opinion.

Hillary's record disqualifies her, imo.

The Republicans will show up en masse to vote against her in the general.

But I respect your right to your opinion and your reasons for supporting her.

[cali]

15. Ugh. Figures Hillary fans would slurp this up.

Democrats have a choice between an ethical candidate with integrity, with years of experience or someone who is far from honest or ethical, who has years of experience.

[ViseGrip]

16. is this satire?

[closeupready]

18. Politico? REALLY?

[Broward]

19. This piece is nothing short of incredible.

Bernie's out of depth on foreign policy? He's not credible as commander-in-chief? Best we support the candidate that got the Iraq War terribly wrong? What a joke.

[cherokeeprogressive]

20. He's not. You're right. Because... he's NOT, the President.

[cali]

21. Paul Starr, former senior advisor to presidential clinton

Why are these folks, never upfront about their ties to the Clintons?

[m-lekktor]

42. LOL! what a shocker!!

[beam me up scottie]

49. He's another Clinton shill?

Quelle surprise!

[DefenseLawyer]

22. Hillary Clinton is the candidate "who is serious about getting elected"

I can't disagree with that. That's her vision: get elected.

[guillaumeb]

29. Was Obama's Presidency more symbolic than credible?

And if so, why?

Never underestimate the value of symbolism, whether the first black President, or the first female President.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

30. There are no facts, only interpretations. Friedrich Nietzsche

My interpretation differs markedly from Paul Starr's interpretation.

[Fawke Em]

32. Paul Starr hasn't been listening.

What Bernie wants IS a radical change - and so does nearly everyone who isn't in the top 1 percent and who hasn't been brainwashed by the current system.

Duh.

[immoderate]

33. Bernie will be an INCREDIBLE president.

It will be just in time. I love word games.

--imm

[farleftlib]

43. Well opinions are like a**holes

and this guy's stinks.

I'm feeling the Bern even more than usual.

[Truprogressive85]

45. Disclosure :

Starr was the senior advisor for President Bill Clinton's proposed health care reform plan.

[Avalux]

46. It's funny - they can't attack Bernie in a substantive way, so they say he's not presidential.

Who is defining exactly what presidential, or credible is?

This is just another hit piece arguing for limitations. These people can't possibly conceive of big change, so they cling to the status quo, and try to kick the teeth in of anyone who challenges it.

[Vincardog]

52. I am not interested in electing a president for "the country we actually live in". I want a

President for the country we want to live in.

Promoting HRC is promoting the

Status Quo.

[Nanjeanne]

55. Methinks Paul Starr doth protest too much

[Warren DeMontague]

57. Obviously, Hillary cannot run on the issues.

[arcane1]

58. The candidate who repeated every single one of Bush's lies about Iraq IS credible?

[TheBlackAdder]

60. "...he will not be credible as president..." He's not president yet. nt

[enid602]

61. just feel the burn

" Elizabeth Warren would have been a credible candidate, but Sanders isn’t." That's a lot of burn!!!

[EndElectoral]

63. This article isn't credible. Sanders has never advocated "free" single payer health care.

He's advocated Medicare for All, which any medicare recipient will tell you costs, and as to the tuition costs, he's limited free college tutition to public colleges, not private institutions which have some of the most expensive charges in the country.

He also says how he'd pay for the college tuition with a tax on Wall Street. This is a group that has benefitted the greatest in our economy and is now being asked to actually give back some of that benefit to those people trying to better themselves and become productive citizens.

Sanders is credible. The article is not because it distorts rather than informs.

[SunSeeker]

82. So under his plan, poor people would be screwed?

So my brother, who gets FREE coverage under the ACA right now, will be forced to pay under Sanders?

Don't bother answering. I know you don't know. Sanders has offered no specifics on his new plan as to how exactly it will be administered. I don't think even he knows. He appears to have abandoned his old state-administered plan after Hillary pointed out how problematic that was.

[Health Wagon]

86. Free coverage?

Chances are he's on Medicaid.

[SunSeeker]

100. He gets free coverage under the ACA.

He has never had health coverage his entire adult life. He could never afford it, then he got a pre-existing condition and couldn't get it at any price. But after the ACA was passed, his income was low enough under the new rules under the ACA to get free coverage here in California. It saved his life. I assume the money is coming from the ACA's Medicaid expansion.

Bernie does not make clear what will happen to Medicaid. It appears it will disappear, along with the ACA, under his new "nationally administered single payer plan" that he intends to "create," to replace the ACA with. He offers no other details about the administration of this new system. He calls it Medicare for All, but it is not Medicare for All. Medicare would be replaced by this new system too.

[EndElectoral]

102. Bernie helped write the ACA. Hr's not going to ignore the needs of the poor.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/chelsea-clinton/chelsea-clinton-mischaracterizes-bernie-sanders-he/

[SunSeeker]

104. Bernie didn't write the ACA. He opposed the ACA. I don't trust him to protect the ACA.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/18/bernie-s/fact-checking-bernie-sanders-claim-he-helped-write/

He opposed the ACA. He was pretty late to hop on the ACA train. I remember. It made me nervous as hell since the vote was so close. And he continued to bash it. As recently as two years ago, he called it a "good Republican program." http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/24/bernie-sanders-obamacare-is-a-good-republican-program/

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. Whereas, Hillary symbolizes politics-as-usual and the lesser of two evils politically.

No Sale.

[Armstead]

66. Newsflash -- if Warren had run they'd be be smirching her "credibility" too

I can just hear it now from Clinton, her surrogates and the conventional wisdom crowd.

"A Radical Senator from Massachusetts. Hasn't even served one term. What was she before that? A bureaucrat and a college professor. And she used to be A Republican! Oh and her claim to be a native American."

The worst sin of anyone who runs against Clinton and the establishment is running against Clinton and the establishment.

[Thinkingabout]

67. I have watched Sanders on several talk shows, he skips out

On questions on foreign policy, responds like he was just ask a question on bailing out the banks or whatever response he has programmed himself to respond. A candidate running for the president needs to have knowledge of foreign affairs so I dont see where he is an interested candidate. He must know he is not going to win or even close to winning for by now he would have a foreign policy plan or knowledge of world affairs.

[NurseJackie]

71. That had crossed my mind as well. If he was truly serious, or if he believed he had a shot ...

... he'd be hitting-the-books and memorizing some generic talking-points that would at least give the impression that he's trying. What I see is "pivot-and-swerve" "dodge-and-deflect" ... always avoiding direct answers and changing the subject to the ONE thing he's passionate about and comfortable with.

[Thinkingabout]

72. It is his style.

[Armstead]

78. Same crap they said about Obama in 2008

.Have you ever heard of recruiting and hiring experts and advisors? No president ever does that.

[Thinkingabout]

92. Who knows what Sanders is even thinking about foreign policy,

If we are going to rely on someone else then let the person be the candidate and we can vet that person.

[Armstead]

94. Oh I don't know. You might listen to what he says, has said, voted for and look at his website

[Thinkingabout]

95. That is the problem, Sunday he was ask a foreign policy and immediately

He responded with his financial reply. This was not the first time he ignored the question and right to his financial statement.

[pinebox]

68. Anybody who voted for Iraq isn't a credible president

End of discussion.

[Matariki]

74. +1

Exactly.

[polly7]

85. or who pushed for the destruction of Libya using CIA trained 'rebels' and lies. nt.

[GeorgeGist]

69. He got the memo.

[saltpoint]

70. Horseshit. He's at least as

credible as his detractors.

Quite a bit more, in fact.

What a cheapass line of attack.

[Matariki]

73. And if Elizabeth Warren were running she would be the "symbolic" candidate

Paul Starr fails to give a single reason to support his featherbrained theory.

[Bill USA]

75. OH my god Doesn't he know, GOPers 4 BS have declared the race all overwith (cuzz it's tied).!!

[hrmjustin]

76. Nice guy but never going to be president.

He is too ideological for the electorate. His high poll numbers will not last.

[mhatrw]

77. Another establishment Pundon't

Don't dream. Don't hope. Don't try.

[grntuscarora]

79. One word.

bullshit.

They said that about his mayoral campaign. Then about his re-elections. Then about his congressional race. And his re-elections. Then about his Senate race. And his re-elections.

Give me a frickin' break.

This guy is credible, and then some.

[SunSeeker]

80. Nailed it. I couldn't agree more. nt

[whatchamacallit]

87. Pantload Supreme n/t

[Karma13612]

88. ^^^ this!!! ^^^^^^

[Bill USA]

90. Mr. Starr they are preparing your stake. Do you prefer an accelerant on your fire?

[FONT SIZE="5"] HERESY WILL NOT BE TOLERATED HERE IN SANDERSLAND!!!!!!!!!![/FONT]

[Attorney in Texas]

91. I Don't Get Clinton’s Appeal. And "Credible" Isn't a Word She Ought Invite Discussion About.

[Odin2005]

93. Clinton isn't a credible president.

[Ferd Berfel]

96. And THIS is credible?

[Fearless]

97. Character assassination much?

[ancianita]

99. Can't you remember that people were saying the same thing about Obama nine years ago?

The grist of politics is vision. It's not been easy to come up with the economic solution to his vision of equal pay, ending Citizens United, steering the current health care system to Medicare For All. But he does have a budget plan that redistributes spending and, like California, which temporarily raised taxes, furloughed state employees for three days month; no one abandoned California and it showed a surplus a couple of years later with the help of a legislative supermajority. Bernie has more experience with both sides of the aisle and can get a budget the reprioritizes the payees of taxes over the usual corporate recipients.

The grist is the organization and money source of a credible, serious presidential candidate. Obama set Internet standards, climbed polls, ran a tight, well stewarded national campaign budget with a top notch ground game back in the day. Bernie's team is even better, and we'll see what his ground game is like.

It's voters like you who are not serious. I'm serious about going with him all the way to the Democratic Convention.

I'm sure that your forced choice is a false choice: serious voters will send this country both a president and a message.

[Autumn Colors]

101. Thanks for the laugh, but I'll vote for Bernie. (nt)

[HassleCat]

103. Yes, let's be realistic

We can't have health insurance for everyone, but we can invade whatever country we wish. We can't provide free college tuition, but we can produce the F-35 fighter. And so on. We need to be realistic.

[RedCappedBandit]

105. LOL. Keep trying. nt

[rock]

106. Well put!

[Bernblu]

107. Here's a radical idea: Why not let the voters decide who is a credible president.