Hillary & Bernie's campaigns twitter-feud over who is more progressive

[calinewarkwc69]

It all started with one little question to Bernie: Do you think Hillary is a progressive?

Q. Do you think @HillaryClinton is a progressive?
A. Some days, yes. Other days she announces she is a moderate.https://t.co/kIdhjzXZDs
- Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) February 3, 2016

Hillary responded.

. @BernieSanders says Hillary’s been a progressive “

Comments

[meadowphoenix]

I see we are getting down to America's political beginnings of calling other political figures traitors to (the right kind of) democracy in the media!

I really appreciate the Hillary's goal-post shifting "Well it's about results, not the actual definition of progressivism!" K, Hil. That said, Obama and the Clintons tend to be what I call practical progressives. They are only as progressive as their support will allow; they abandon the value of the overall forest for a small bush if they think that's all they can get. But given room, they'd FDR the shit out of stuff. There's quite a bit of short-sightedness in that, and it's so heavily dependent on circumstances as to not be reliable in a way I'm completely uncomfortable with. But I can understand why that's attractive to a lot of people.

For America, I think it's undeniable that Bernie's progressive on most issues.

And yet, the Republicans can't even get to this level of discourse.

[calinewarkwc69]

I agree with all of this-- I mean, in this particular instance, I think the party war is really showing where it's trouble lies-- should Hillary be ashamed or shamed for being more of a centrist? No, not really. Not in my opinion. Calling out bad policy is one thing, but a lot of people are too quick to ignore that you can't get from right to left without crossing the center. Alternately, the centrist/moderate's calling out progressives for being "too idealistic" and not practical at all are missing the point of what they have in the fight-- it's not really about believing we'll build Rome in day, but that we set our goalposts further out and we can't build Rome until more Romans get involved--- meaning that we need to encourage more progressive candidates and the only way to do that is to make them believe they can win, so attacking that they can't is kinda a vicious cycle... you know?

That last line though--- on point, Republican's couldn't even decipher this level of discourse.

[fishphile]

Hillary is not a progressive. That is what it is. But she's simply not.

[calinewarkwc69]

Nope, not at all according to political compass:

[cuzimblackbitch]

I like what Bernie stands for, but Hillary is more deserving of the nomination (and lbr, she is going to get it). Although there's a few points of contention, she is definitely the more sensible choice for president overall. I wish they could run on the same ticket tbh, and do enough to change the mess the senate is in.

[fishphile]

May I ask what makes her more deserving of the nomination to you?

[redstar826]

And then, if she wins the nomination, she will try to move back to the center.

Bernie has been pretty consistent about what his positions are, long before he was running for president.

"A 40 year record of progressive results"?

Did she consider herself a progressive back when she was on Walmart's board and was pretty much silent on labor issues?

[calinewarkwc69]

Well shit, WalMart is one of the biggest recipients of welfare in the country-- so her progressivism clearly worked for them!

[fishphile]

Or that 2008 campaign? What was progressive about that?

[rainbows_]

Start here regarding the whole "moderate/progressive" debate between Sanders and Clinton, and read until the end. https://t.co/gxG8TKXqhi
- Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) February 4, 2016

[redstar826]

I'm old enough to remember Paul Wellstone. And Hillary Clinton is no Paul Wellstone.

Yes, people grow overtime. And yes, there is a bit of wiggle room with these terms. But, she is claiming a 40 year progressive record. a lot of her actions just don't live up to that claim. I've been active with a variety of self-identified progressive groups since 2000, when she first ran for Senate, and I don't know many people who considered her to be with us.

And, as recently as a few months ago, she was saying that she was "moderate and center." Now, it is suddenly wrong for other people to say that about her? If she wasn't facing a strong challenge coming from her left, I doubt we'd be seeing these claims about how progressive she is.

Edit: this was meant to be a reply to the comment above me, but lj is being an ass and not letting me reply directly...

[fishphile]

It's particularly bad because she claims a 40 year record. I'd have really focused on the last maybe ten years, if she really wanted to try to make a case. Even then, we know this is untrue, but I think she could have tried to frame those years easier.