Sanders's integrity and honesty worth more than Clinton's billions

[Divernan]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/247140-sanderss-integrity-and-honesty-worth-more-than

While CNN published an article headlined "Poll: Clinton's honesty and trustworthy problem extends to swing states," the former secretary of State's main challenger for the Democratic nomination doesn't have a trust problem with voters. The Boston Globe writes that during a campaign visit to Iowa, a former Marine drove six hours to hear Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speak and another Iraq War veteran stated, "He's the first politician that I've believed in my life." Sanders is down by only 8 points in New Hampshire, primarily because he's championed progressive causes long before they were popular. The man once stated that he's a "democratic socialist" (very different from the Fox News meaning of socialism), so Americans know that Vermont's junior senator doesn't have a public relations machine vetting his every word.

As a result of his refusal to take a poll-driven and centrist viewpoint on major issues like foreign policy and the economy, Sanders must wage a grass-roots campaign for the White House. NPR reports that his recent total of $15 million came from "250,000 donors making nearly 400,000 contributions of $250 or less." However, Sanders has the trust of the average American, and while Hillary Clinton has amassed $329 million in her career (three of her top five donors are Citigroup, Goldman and JP Morgan), some things can't be purchased with money. The integrity, honesty and bold stances of Sanders might make him a real threat to Clinton’s campaign and he's earned something that billions in campaign fundraising can't buy: the trust of the average American.

In contrast, Clinton has similar positions to Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush on war and Wall Street; previously expressed support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership; previously said she was "inclined" toward the Keystone XL pipeline; and up until 2013, opposed gay marriage, yet is expected to raise $2.5 billion from Democratic supporters. As for her rapport with the average American, Clinton's campaign is running more like a corporation than anything that could be described as "grass-roots." In Orwellian irony, the Clinton campaign recently held business round tables with "everyday" Iowans who also happened to be "selected to attend her events." In addition, her recent Twitter campaign proudly asks, "If you won a dinner with Hillary, what would you ask her?" but doesn't elaborate if Clinton would answer questions about her Iraq War vote, evolution on gay marriage or any other controversial topic. Nonetheless, Clinton is raising hundreds of millions, even though Vice News, the Associated Press and others have sued the State Department for access to her emails as secretary of State (31,830 of which she unilaterally deleted from a private home server without the oversight of a third party).

Sanders is showing that it's possible to run on an unapologetic belief in progressive values, not simply carefully crafted rhetoric that jettisons core principles. Sanders never had to cater to any interests other than his belief system; something that frightens Wall Street while at the same time endears him to working Americans.

[Divernan]

1. "Wall Street Republicans' dark secret: Hillary Clinton 2016."

More from OP link:

His competition, however, is so close to Wall Street that Politico ran a piece last year headlined "Wall Street Republicans' dark secret: Hillary Clinton 2016." It says something about American democracy when Clinton can vote for the Iraq War, oppose gay marriage up until 2013, push for the Trans-Pacific Partnership 45 times (calling it "the gold standard in trade agreements&quot , oppose even the decriminalization of marijuana and yet still be viewed as a "progressive" candidate for president. In terms of being a champion for women's rights, the Clinton Foundation received between $10 million to $25 million from Saudi Arabia, a country that doesn't allow women to drive a car or travel without a male chaperone. Regarding the environment, Clinton was "inclined" toward the Keystone XL pipeline as secretary of State and one leading environmental group believes, "If the pipeline goes through, she'll shoulder part of the blame." As secretary of State, she lobbied to arm the Syrian rebels (half of the Syrian rebels are aligned with jihadists or "hardline Islamist" groups), presided over a Libyan civil war exacerbated by her bombing campaign and stored government emails on a personal server.

[Divernan]

2. In debates, "Sanders will display attributes money can't buy."

More from OP link:

The differences between both candidates will be evident during the televised Democratic debates (just ask President Nixon about televised debates), when Bernie Sanders will display attributes that money can't buy, and Hillary Clinton won't have the luxury of an expensive campaign apparatus calculating every word. As for precedent, Clinton spent $229.4 million in a losing campaign in 2008, so money still might not be enough in 2016 for her to win the White House. According to OpenSecrets.org, this precedent also left Clinton with $22.5 million in debt, and "at least $11.4 million of which came from her own pocket." Judging by 2016 fundraising estimates, a Clinton loss next year could lead to even more debt, and an even greater amount of money spent on a losing candidate.

[Fred Sanders]

3. There is a massive false equivalency in Clinton/Obama attacks that some refuse to see.

And the only ones pushing this logical fallacy, supported by questionable evidence, and followed swiftly by ad hominem fallacies...are Democrats...the Republicans love it, even though of course they can not express it.

Even had a comment posted comparing Gov. Walker's attempted and foiled authoritarian coup to make all lawmaking in the dark - as equivalent to Clinton's "email scandal", by a poster with thousands of posts and a Bernie sticker! True!

That is an extreme, though true, example, granted, but you get my point?

[Divernan]

4. Your point sounds like argle bargle to me, Fred. Jiggery-pokery, eh what?

Seriously! Governor Walker? Lawmaking in the dark? You're on the wrong thread, kiddo.

[Fred Sanders]

7. As I thought....a comment at the level of the linked OP. Making my point without even trying.

[kenfrequed]

5. I prefer to stick to the issues myself

It is way too easy to characterize a candidate by their most absurd supporters. If anyone chooses a candidate based on that I question their critical thinking skills.

For me the differences are in foreign policy and who supports them.

I have trouble believing that someone who cashes the checks from Wallstreet and the big banks on Monday is going to choose to stand up to them on Thursday,

[hootinholler]

8. What the fuck are you talking about?

Even if I give you your point that Obama/Clinton equivalence is false, I don't understand the relevance to the post you replied to, or the relevance to the OP.

So no I don't get your point. At all.

[Fred Sanders]

9. Perhaps you need to read the off site linked post...again...and comment again...without the gratuitous profanity?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. You are getting bullied hard in this thread.

eom

[LWolf]

10. Clinton/Obama?

This article, and the point it's making, has nothing to do with Obama.

You are the one who apparently doesn't get the point.

[fredamae]

6. The days of politicians

manufactured façade of populist support are Over.

You cannot possibly Fake OR BUY what Bernie has Earned and Demonstrated his Entire Life!
It's Priceless.
Can't be done!

[George II]

11. Another Clinton hit piece. How do you "measure" integrity and honesty?

[Victor_c3]

13. I would say that her past in most cases should match her rhetoric

I get your point that it is hard to measure and substantiate. I can't argue with that.

I'll give her a pass on some things, I've evolved myself quite a bit on various issues. As a preteen kid I was very homophobic in the mid 90's. However I grew out of that as I began to meet people who were openly gay and realized that their sexuality doesn't impact me in any way when I was 16 or so years old (about 1996).

As just one example, Hillary "Goldman Sachs" Clinton has a major problem trying to prove to me that she believes in the supporting of livable wages and in supporting workers' rights when she served on the board of directors for Walmart from 1986 to 1992. I could be wrong on this, but I doubt they kept her on the board because they liked her ideas of workers rights and curbing the excessive growth of corporations over profits.