Home | About | Donate

As Sanders Soars, Clinton Goes Negative — A Bad Move


As Sanders Soars, Clinton Goes Negative — A Bad Move

Brent Budowsky

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) may be poised to win both the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary, and as Sanders soars, rival Hillary Clinton is making the worst possible move of launching an all-out attack against him, which is the same mistake she made when she attacked Barack Obama in 2008.

For some time, I have strongly advised people close to the Clintons to not go negative against Sanders. Clinton needs to inspire voters about why she should be president, not become a negative candidate who reminds voters of the kind of politics they want to end.


The writer states: "Even worse for Clinton, the problem is that she has never articulated an uplifting and exciting reason for voters to back her, and her negative attack against Sanders will drown out any positive message she may have, if she has one."

Yes, what is her vision? We can't afford Obama II.


I'm old enough to have heard folks use a term in referring to what I sense Clinton wants to be, or at least wants to consider herself: A Benevolent Dictator. Now that's all fine and good insofar as she wants to be the captain of her own business 'ship'. Actually it's OK only as long as that ship is being thoroughly regulated by an appropriately staffed governmental agency with clear legal guidelines so the business is compelled to be a good neighbor regardless of where it is. Clinton doesn't support that amount of regulation. And as far as being the Benevolent Dictator of our United States of America, under your idea to help make us little guys' life a little better while you still enable the corporate raiding of our democracy. Surely toward the same end as Rome. My only question: Which President ultimately plays Nero? On that subject, and regarding my facilitating your continuation of faithfully doing the bidding of your plutocrat owners, Mrs Clinton, I wish to inform you now. I'll take a PASS!

Give me more of that good old Rooseveltian Democratic Socialism!
Give me President Bernard Sanders!
She is sorely Feeling The Bern!


Since Clinton was leading in five of the last six polls in Iowa including the Loras College poll where she led by 29 points it is very unlikely Sanders will win Iowa, particularly since a much smaller percentage of his voters have ever gone to a caucus. In New Hampshire Sanders appears to be ahead and probably has good chance of winning. Since Clinton was in the Obama administration it is not surprising that she is trying to argue that she will extend what Obama has done. Obama promised hope and change so he doesn't present the status quo. But his experience shows that making change is a lot more difficult than making great speeches about change. Once you get into the trenches the soaring rhetoric doesn't do much good. Basically the choice is between a candidate who offers moderate change versus a candidate who offers radical change and if either becomes president the result will most likely be much less change than expected.


I am not sure why the author is upset at Hilary "going negative". it exposes her for what she is that a tool of the one percent.

Would it be better if she remained positive and HID her real intentions from the Public? As far as the progressive cause goes in the USA this is a good thing.

She is what she is.Putting lipstick on a pig does not change that.


I remember Hillary, in 2008, suggesting that John McCain would be more qualified to be President than Barack Obama -- which gave me a huge case of Democratic road rage. At some point you have to say that the proclivity to keep accepting bad advice (and going negative) in itself represents bad judgement -- it's no longer an excuse to blame the advice givers ...


There is a moral, tactical, and logistical problem when a candidate must raise funds from the same group said candidate must condemn IN ORDER to present a compelling vision of those genuine shifts in policy that the majority of voters would like to see occur:

"What a presidential candidate should do is offer a panoramic vision of how America can become better, mobilize support for that vision, seek an election victory with a mandate, and then negotiate with Congress from strength and make the compromises that must ultimately be made to win the most dramatic possible reforms."

Short of bi-location or clinical schizophrenia, a candidate tied to Big Money cannot honestly present that vision.

THAT is the problem, and lots of people know it.

After all, if people have genuine cause to be fed up with politics as usual, why would they still vote for one of the typical American Dynasty Brands?

Mr. Budowsky sees attack. I think the more apt frame is that people see insincerity!


There have been times when a particular screen name known for pushing particular memes suddenly says something real and compelling, and manages to do so without making typos and spelling errors.

Presuming that this post comes from "the usual John Ellis," I must say... it's a good one.

On the other hand, if one of the Tag Team is just using this particular screen name handle, it makes more sense. And I still commend the post.


I wonder if posters would like to see the continuity of your Pro-Hillary (or perhaps, anyone BUT Sanders) posts and your constant put-downs of Mr. Sanders?

I have cut and paste about 8 of those and have them at the ready.... to prove the point that you are a PAID plant.


You revert to frames like halves and quarters and are INURED to the actual statistics and what they mean.

I will try once again to break through your parrot-like Talking points since they are UNHINGED from reality:

"Sam Pizzigati knows how it happens. He’s been watching the process for years from his perch as editor of the monthly newsletter Too Much! Reminding us in a recent report that “America’s 20 richest people — a group that could fit nicely in a Gulfstream luxury private jet — now own more wealth than the bottom half of the American population combined, a total of 152 million people,”

TWENTY people own HALF.

"Can you hear me now?"

Now, THIS post sounds like the usual John Ellis down to not recognizing the difference between the term fourth and forth.