One of the Sanders supporters said something really good (I’m probably not getting the quote quite right): “It’s better to ask for a loaf and get a slice than to ask for a slice and get crumbs.”
Take the negative things that the Clinton camp says about Sanders. About Sanders it’s mostly, unqualified/can’t do the things he says he’ll do. So is that a tacit agreement that he’s right to want to do those things? And what do they say that’s good about Clinton: experienced, tough, smart. Character traits that would be useful if her agenda was going to make things better. I never hear people talk about the great things she’ll do as president, only great things about her.
It’s like they’ve given up on the idea that a president can even do anything and want everyone else to give up on it too.
Sanders is accused of not having a plan to deal with big banks, what’s Clinton’s plan:
Prosecuting individuals when they break the law. Hillary would extend the statute of limitations for prosecuting major financial frauds, enhance whistleblower rewards, and provide the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission more resources to prosecute wrongdoing.
Holding executives accountable when they are responsible for their subordinates’ misconduct. Hillary believes that when corporations pay large fines to the government for violating the law, those fines should cut into the bonuses of the executives who were responsible for or should have caught the problem. And when egregious misconduct happens on an executive’s watch, that executive should lose his or her job.
Holding corporations accountable when they break the law. As she enhances individual accountability, Hillary will make sure that corporations don’t treat penalties for breaking the law as merely a cost of doing business, so that we can put an end to the patterns of corporate wrongdoing that we see too often today.
Extending the statute of limitations, prosecuting criminal conduct, holding executives responsible for their subordinates… all of that sounds a lot like she’s going to instruct the AG to prosecute some of the fraudsters at Goldman Sachs. Sanders says he’s going to do that. Clinton isn’t saying she’s going to do that. Is she going to do that?
This kind of analysis could go on. When I glance back and forth from platform to platform they seem actually very similar, except Sanders has a plan and Clinton doesn’t. She talks about changes to rules and laws but doesn’t talk about doing something.
Edit to add: And let’s remember, the president can’t change laws, but can appoint an Attorney General. Sanders’ ideas for big banks are using the powers of the executive branch. Clinton’s appear to require cooperation from the legislature. Presidents don’t change laws, they do things.
