I saw an article today that reminded me strongly why I support Bernie Sanders and not Hillary Clinton.
Back in July, “Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign will go carbon neutral, a campaign aide said Tuesday in response to a video from a Republican opposition research firm that showed the Democratic frontrunner boarding a private plane after outlining part of her climate change platform in Iowa.
"This campaign will be carbon neutral," the aide said Tuesday morning. "We'll be offsetting the carbon footprint of the campaign and that includes travel."
But then this month “Hillary Clinton left New Hampshire campaign Tuesday night after receiving a powerful environmental group's endorsement, boarding a private plane that emits more than two tons of carbon for every hour it’s in the air.
Video footage . . . shows the Democratic front-runner climbing aboard a Learjet model 60 aircraft at the Lebanon, New Hampshire municipal airport around 6:00 p.m.
Even when she doesn't fly in a private jet, Hillary stays completely isolated from the public on a public airliner.
A day earlier, she appeared with League of Conservation Voters president Gene Karpinsky to receive the organization's formal endorsement.
The league says on its website that its 'top priority is addressing climate change.'
Even when she doesn't fly in a private jet, Hillary stays completely isolated from the public on a public airliner. On the other hand, it is well known that Bernie Sanders not only flies on commercial airlines, but he flies coach with the rest of the population.
It's the stark contrast between Bernie Sanders, who “walks the walk” in everything that he does, even in his private life, and Hillary Clinton, who does not travel in public, whose campaign pledges to reduce its own carbon emissions, and who then breaks the pledge, flying in a heavily carbon producing plane, and does so just after accepting the support of an environmental group – just as she did in July.
We know that Hillary Clinton is changing her campaign rhetoric to move left and try to neutralize Bernie Sanders. She came out for gay marriage when previously she did not support it. She came out against the Trans Pacific Partnership when previously she supported it. “This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field,” she said in 2012. She flip flops on other issues, too. Immigration, the Keystone Pipeline, and the Iraq war. She defends herself thus:
“Well, actually, I have been very consistent,” arguing her unyielding fealty to “the same values and principles” over her entire life. “But like most human beings—including those of us who run for office—I do absorb new information. I do look at what’s happening in the world.” It is the information that changes, she led her questioner to understand, and when that new information surfaces, she folds it into her existing “values and principles.”
Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is remarkably consistent. Even when attacked on some of his positions (like gun control, where he is more centrist than some left-wingers would like), he points out his own consistency and argues that his position can help the dialogue to achieve consensus. “We have been yelling and screaming at each other about guns for decades, with very little success. I come from a state that has virtually no gun control. But the people of my state understand, I think, pretty clearly, that guns in Vermont are not the same thing as guns in Chicago or guns in Los Angeles. In our state, guns are used for hunting. In Chicago, they're used for kids in gangs killing other kids or people shooting at police officers, shooting down innocent people. We need a sensible debate about gun control which overcomes the cultural divide that exists in this country. And I think I can play an important role in this.”
In other words, he doesn't change his position but shows why his stance can help achieve progress. Hillary, on the other hand, changes her previous position when attacked on it.
I still look at the vote regarding the war in Iraq as being very important. Bernie voted against it. Hillary voted for it but now says that she would have voted differently with the information we now have. But others voted against it, disbelieving the information presented even then. Senators like Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and even Lincoln Chaffee, the only Republican Senator to buck his own president. How did these people know so much more than Hillary?
If I were coming late to the debate between Bernie and Hillary, I might well think that their positions are nearly identical. That's because she has adopted so many of his positions. A satirical piece in the New Yorker said in April that this would happen, and it has in many different ways.
All of this comes down to trust. If Hillary is willing to change his positions in order to defeat her opponent, how can one rely on what she says? The answer is simple: you can't. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, is completely consistent – and that makes him virtually unique in this campaign. So even if Hillary adopted all of Bernie's positions, I could not vote for her when there is a genuine leader, espousing those positions as he has for many years.
Michael T. Hertz