Sanders must bring it: Between GOP obfuscation and Hillary’s evasions, someone needs to be serious

[cali]

<snip>

Republicans hate all of Sanders’ ideas. Clinton hasn’t endorsed any of them. A few years ago they’d have sparked a big debate. Not today. America needs a big debate but it can’t seem to mount one anywhere. Three issues of grave constitutional as well as practical concern are before Congress: The Trans Pacific Partnership, the president’s request for authorization to wage war against ISIS, and extension of the Patriot Act. Its dereliction of duty as to all three is tragic and profound.

<snip>

The Constitution also grants Congress the sole power and sacred duty to decide whether America wages war against another people. Yet we are now in a war against ISIS Congress never authorized. Obama brought it under color of a 13-year-old Iraq war authorization. He now asks Congress, very belatedly, for post facto authorization. He even implies he does so for appearance’s sake. The language he proposes fails to restrict the cost, duration or geographical extent of the conflict. Due to an unholy combination of cowardice and calculation Congress may not even take up his request. If it fails to act he’ll go right on waging war without it. The public barely knows of the resolution’s existence, let alone its contents or the veiled machinations that will determine its fate and ours.

The right to privacy is so basic to our freedom it may be said to precede as much as flow from our Constitution. Modern information technology threatens it as nothing short of absolute dictatorship ever has. In the battle over renewing the Patriot Act specious claims of national security shroud the facts. In a ploy reminiscent of the ‘mushroom cloud’ Condi Rice imagined rising from Iraq’s nonexistent WMDs, a “senior administration official” this week accused critics of “playing national security Russian roulette.” Yet last week FBI Inspector General Michael Horowitz said an investigation by his office turned up no evidence the program had deterred a single terrorist plot, but it did find that managers took seven years to provide basic safeguards to protect the privacy of all the millions of Americans it surveils.

<snip>

The Democratic race is where a real debate may happen. It won’t happen on its own. One reason is that Clinton doesn’t want one. I’m amazed she’s managed to maintain radio silence on an issue as big as the TPP. I blame the press as much as her. Her bland evasions should have sparked a revolt by now. Instead we get more stories on her encounters with ‘everyday Americans’ and the conflicts of the Clinton Foundations. The latter may be important but the conflicts between her and Sanders are the ones the nation needs to resolve. They pertain to the fundamental relationship between commerce and democracy and the just distribution of power and wealth. If Sanders can engage Clinton in a real discussion of such issues, their debate will be one for the ages.

<snip>

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/03/bernie_sanders_must_bring_it_between_gop_obfuscation_and_hillarys_evasions_someone_needs_to_be_serious/

Bill Curry was White House counselor to President Clinton and a two-time Democratic nominee for governor of Connecticut. He is at work on a book on President Obama and the politics of populism.

[daleanime]

1. K&R.....

I love Bernie's debate proposals. If he has to go rogue to make them happen, it needs to be seriously considered.

[vi5]

2. Exactly...

Let's get Hillary on record talking about these things she wants to avoid. As we've seen with Obama it won't matter what she says and if she's president and contradicts herself well....it will just be the rest of us not understanding how politics works or wanting a pony or whatever else. But still I'd like to see her commit to a position on some of these issues.

[pampango]

3. You seem like an exception but many who want Hillary to speak more directly on the issues will, when

she does, either use her words as a) proof that she is not a 'real Democrat' or b) that she is lying and her words are 'just words' and don't mean anything. She will get the same response from republicans - only "a" will be "proof that she is an out-of-touch liberal" who is corrupt and power-hungry. (b) response will stay essentially the same from republicans.

I too wish she would speak more directly on the issues and do it sooner rather than later. I am under no illusion that any republican or many on DU will be accepting of what she says. She needs to do it anyway.

[vi5]

4. It depends on what the subject is...

If the subject is something like reproductive rights or gay rights or something of that nature then there would be no reason for anyone to doubt her on those issues.

But if someone doubts a left leaning answer from her on say foreign policy then that's because her history of actions and words and votes would indicate otherwise not because doubters would be projecting or making things up entirely.

And if someone perceives Hillary as someone who is always looking towards the next step in her political career and willing to make her positions flexible in order to get there, and thus doubts her sincerity on particular issues, then she's as much to blame as anyone else for that perception.