While Hillary Clinton seems like the most qualified candidate, she is also the least challenging to the wealthy on the Democratic side and only comes out with progressive stances when it is safe to and when the majority already supports her proposal. Clinton was a no-marriage-equality pioneer, and while LGBTQ+ issues go beyond marriage, it’s difficult to forget anti-marriage stances.
In contrast, Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has a solid record of maintaining progressive stances. Sanders hasn’t been afraid to break away from the party, even when it is inconvenient. While Clinton would contend she is simply realistic and that her failure to back Black Lives Matter was about policy, she serves her own interests.
Sanders has been rather mellow for most of this campaign. Instead of going after Clinton’s many contradictions, he attempts conversation on the issues. Although being aggressive would probably increase votes, those aren’t the kinds of votes he is interested in. Sanders has made this clear after distancing himself from the so-called “Bernie Bros.”
Many commentators, then, when comparing experience, give Clinton the win. Hardly anyone can claim to have as much experience as Clinton when it comes to working in the different branches of government. She knows how it works. But should that be the only thing taken into consideration? What if establishment-backing is what gives her qualifications in the first place?
Much of her recent experience comes from backing the Democratic Party. After leaving the White House, Clinton served in the senate for 1.5 terms and then became secretary of state. She didn’t accomplish any of that by being different or bringing change — it was all about being safe and doing what the establishment wanted. Clinton tries to separate herself from “natural politicians” like Bill Clinton and President Barack Obama, but whenever she does, her efforts ring hollow. She is trying to have it both ways — clearly she has experience as a politician, yet it’s not “natural” to her.
Clinton is not the average American, and I doubt she knows the average gas price from personal experience or remembers the last time she bought her own gallon of milk. She assumes whatever positions will gain her more votes and takes advantage of every break the Democratic National Committee gives her.
In fact, she is more a natural politician than Sanders. Pouncing on every opportunity to criticize and undermine, she often forgets a simple fact check to make sure her jabs are accurate. She often forgets where Sanders stood on the issues when it mattered, whether it’s marriage equality or, even more currently, Black Lives Matter. Rather than give protestors a voice, Clinton and her husband have attempted to silence the movement. Recently, Bill Clinton even insinuated the black community wanted his crime bill that led to the imprisonment of mostly black people. He said to a Black Lives Matter activist at a campaign rally, “You are defending the people who kill the lives you say matter. Tell the truth!”
Sanders, in an attempt to even the playing field, questioned whether Clinton’s policy positions, like voting for the Iraq War for “disastrous trade agreements,” qualified her to be president. That was a big mistake, according to the establishment media. While it’s OK for Clinton to criticize Sanders’ qualification, the reverse is unacceptable. But qualifications have to come from somewhere.
Nicole Dan is a UF political science sophomore. Her column appears on Mondays.
