The Democratic National Committee needs to dump Hillary Clinton and #feelthebern.
Democrats must firmly reject the candidate who has not dedicated her career to the party’s progressive values. Bernie Sanders’ campaign reflects a desire for Democrats to leave the past behind and march towards the future.
Sanders’ surge in popularity has come as a surprise to Democrats and Republicans alike, but it has surprised Clinton the most. The Vermont senator’s sudden rise to national prominence echoes Barack Obama’s unexpected rise and eventual defeat of Clinton in 2008 primary. However, as the New York Times calculates, this year’s primary race between Sanders and Clinton is much closer than 2008’s.
While Clinton won Iowa by a coin toss, New Hampshire gave her a solid thrashing a week later. Sanders was able to maintain a relatively close margin in the Nevada primary, but if the 2008 primary results indicate anything about voters in the Palmetto State, it’s that Clinton won’t do well in South Carolina.
But why couldn’t 2016 be Clinton’s year? Eight additional years in the public eye ought to have buttressed Clinton’s reputation and experience. Nevertheless, her campaign seems more harried than ever. Last fall, House Republicans hounded her on whether she broke federal law with the creation of a private email server, and last week, the Washington Times reported that the State Department deemed 15 percent of her last batch of emails too classified to be released.
Because these scandals continue to follow Clinton’s presidential run, Sanders provides Democrats with the opportunity to maintain their own party’s integrity and dignity.
Throughout the 2016 election cycle, publications have called Clinton’s presidential credibility into question over her tenure as Secretary of State and her conflicting political statements. Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that even though the Clinton Foundation “swore off donations from foreign governments when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State,” the foundation still received “millions of dollars from foreigners with connections to their home governments.” In the same month, Politico reported that Clinton rescinded her support for the Iraq war, calling it a “mistake.” In June of 2015, PolitiFact gave Clinton “a full flop” when they reviewed her past 20 years of statements on same-sex marriage.
Clinton’s tenure reveals an untrustworthy politician motivated by political expedience — and the polls continue to show it.
People don’t trust her.
For example, the Washington Post’s article “Hillary Clinton’s honesty problem just keeps getting worse,” documented how Clinton’s perceived trustworthiness has continued to poll below other presidential candidates. After the New Hampshire primary, Fox News reported that New Hampshire voters overwhelmingly perceived Sanders as more trustworthy than his opponent.
“[They] are most likely to want a nominee who is honest and trustworthy . . . Sanders is favored among voters who pick each of these traits.”
Last October in Foreign Affairs Review, Daisy Fleming examined how Clinton as the Secretary of State defended her diplomacy and posed this question: Is Clinton a defender of human rights or a political opportunist? Fleming notes: “She has stressed her role as a ‘fighter’ and a ‘champion’ above all else, emphasizing her earlier activism above her work as a senator or as Secretary of State,” but “Her administration was responsible for relaxing the sanctions against Burma . . . this engagement has helped paved the way for further human rights abuses.”
The Democratic Party suffers because of her public life.
On the other hand, Sanders has a demonstrable record that avoids the political pitfalls that Clinton faces because of her record. PolitiFact reported last September that Sanders’ statement that he has supported same-sex marriage for 30 years is true. He voted against the Clinton administration’s Defense of Marriage Act. He can successfully counter the accusation that his values are formed by political expedience. In September, the Huffington Post recalled that Sanders voted against the Iraq war, which may have been Clinton’s poison pill in the 2008 election.
Sanders’ campaign offers the Democratic Party more than a nifty hashtag. He offers voters political integrity, something which Clinton has shown herself to lack. The Democratic Party needs to recognize the political value of a Sanders presidency and be comfortable without a Clinton in the White House.