In 1992, Americans were introduced to a pragmatic fighter from the South — Bill Clinton. One of the few Presidents to come from a small state: Hope, Arkansas.
For better or worse, the Clintons shifted public perception of the Democratic Party. Bill Clinton did this by positioning himself as a “New Democrat.” He was a highly successful Southern Democratic Governor from the conservative state of Arkansas.
The fact the Clintons were successful in the deep South gave them credibility with conservative America, allowing the Democratic Party to ascend to the Presidency and regain control of all three branches of government for the first time in decades:
CLINTON: 370 | BUSH: 168
It took the pragmatic Clintons to successfully counter the “Reagan Revolution.” Democrats finally regained control of all three branches of government:
Just as Obama controlled Congress for his first two years, so did President Clinton. However, both of them also lost Congress for the remaining years of their Presidencies. This led to significant GOP obstructionism, something the Clintons warned Obama about in 2008. Unfortunately, Obama didn’t listen to the Clintons, and wound up wasting the Democratic super majorities he had amassed. The Republicans loved a naive President Obama.
As President Clinton noted the other day, a revolution is 60 votes in the Senate. If Obama wasn’t able to bring a lasting revolution with his record-high levels of voter turnout [much higher levels than Bernie currently has], forgive me if I don’t buy into a “revolution” that has even less votes than Hillary Clinton. As it currently stands, Hillary is the only candidate with more votes than Donald Trump.
Sadly, Bernie and far-left progressives spend most of their time criticizing both Democratic Presidents for caving on certain issues. For compromising. For not achieving “progressive purity.” What they miss is that this happened because many liberals don’t vote in non-Presidential years and we consistently lose control of Congress.
This makes it hard to form the coalitions needed to pass 100% progressive legislation, which goes to the core flaw with Bernie Sanders: he has achieved virtually zero success regarding his lifetime cause of income inequality. Bernie often sits in the background diagnosing the problem, rarely able to turn his words into action:
If it doesn’t pass Bernie’s “progressive purity test,” he will forfeit all progress. That’s not the type of leader I want. And thankfully, it’s not the leader we got during the 1990s when we elected President Clinton, or the type of leader we got when we elected President Obama.
And how about George W. Bush? Why does Bernie spend so much time criticizing Democratic Presidents, when if we had kept going with Al Gore, we would have achieved *REAL* and *LASTING* progress?
For the second time in recent history, we have the chance to elect a 3rd consecutive Democratic President. Unfortunately, back in 2000, too many fell into the Nader trap and turned their backs on President Bill Clinton’s Vice President — Al Gore. If only a fraction of Nader voters had been for Gore, Florida wouldn’t have been a toss-up. That’s a fact.
I guess after 8 years of a Democrat in office, progressives feel safe enough to vote for a protest candidate, destroying any chance of *REAL* and *LASTING* progress — just like they do when they don't vote in non-Presidential years and give us an obstructionist Republican Congress. The current obstructionist GOP Congress won’t even let Obama nominate a Supreme Court Justice! These same progressive critics whine when Democrats are then forced to compromise or position ourselves as moderate to win. They have plenty of blame for Democrats “abandoning progressive causes,” but little blame for the obstructionist GOP Congress that tied the hands of both President Clinton and President Obama.
Don’t think there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans? Just think how far along we would already be on climate change if we had continued the Clintons progress with Al Gore. Let’s not make the same mistake again. Let’s build on Obama’s progress with the Clintons. Let’s finally have a 3rd consecutive Democratic President. Bernie or bust is a spoiler, just like Nader was in the year 2000 — halting *REAL* and *LASTING* progress.
Despite the flaws of the 1990s, I’m forever grateful the Clintons were able to revive the Democratic Party in a nation that had just gone through the conservative “Reagan Revolution.” Reclaiming control of all three branches of government was no small feat, which is why when Bernie minimizes Hillary’s victories in the South, it proves how little he knows about successfully passing an agenda. Though many of the Southern states are likely to turn red for the Presidential race, down-ticket Democrats have a chance of winning which would help us take back Congress. Progressives should never write off places such as the South if they actually want to form the coalitions necessary for *REAL* and *LASTING* change.
President Bill Clinton hit the nail on the head when he mocked Bernie for bashing Southern voters:
“About the only thing that disappointed me about that debate last night was the sneering reference that her opponent made to the mammoth victories she won in the South.
‘Oh that’s just the South. We know how conservative they are.’
Well, excuse me, but Democrats need to win Florida and North Carolina to get elected, but they are states of the future — highly diverse. And she won a big victory there.”
We need to take back Congress to pass a truly progressive agenda. We only do this by helping Democrats win in the South. Bernie just doesn’t get it, which is why he has raised virtually nothing for down-ticket Democrats:
Bernie has always been a protester and is currently a protest candidate for hipsters. But he’s fundamentally a changetalker. Hillary is fundamentally a changemaker. The difference between these two candidates is exemplified in issue after issue:
Minimum Wage:
Hillary supports legislation to raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour. Bernie uses this against Hillary, saying he is in favor of a $15 dollar minimum wage. Basically, Bernie is using the argument of, “my number is higher than yours so I win!” But what Bernie is doing is exactly what a typical politician does: promise what will win you votes rather than tell the truth about what you can actually achieve. Hillary is being honest with voters in supporting the $12 legislation, while simultaneously supporting states such as California and New York that want to raise it to $15 on a state-by-state basis.
Th minimum wage is the perfect embodiment of the fundamental difference between Hillary and Bernie: Hillary is pragmatic about what can actually make a *REAL* difference in people’s lives. Meanwhile, Bernie seems as though he is “$15 or bust.” But the core point is Hillary has *ALWAYS* supported a $15 dollar minimum wage for certain places such as New York City. However, she simultaneously supports what Democratic women are trying to accomplish in Congress by submitting legislation to raise the minimum wage to $12 an hour.
Bernie and his supporters don’t realize we have an obstructionist GOP Congress, and that many Southern voters would punish Democrats from conservative states if they voted for a $15 dollar national minimum wage. $12 is still a huge step forward, and will help 40+ million Americans get a raise. And if we amass a Democratic Congress from winning elections in places such as the South, we could likely get a $15 dollar minimum wage in the near future. Unfortunately, Bernie doesn’t think Southern states matter in taking back control of our government. Maybe that’s why he has been ineffective at passing any of his progressive goals over the last 30 years. Bernie is a changetalker. Hillary is a changemaker.
And for anyone that doubt Hillary’s authenticity and commitment to raising the minimum wage, here is Hillary supporting a minimum wage increase in the year 1992:
Healthcare:
What has changed since Hillary first advocated for single-payer healthcare? The Affordable Care Act. Given the new circumstances, I'm glad Hillary will defend Obama's legacy instead of going back to square one. In the current political landscape, the last thing we need to be doing is going backwards instead of forwards with regards to healthcare.
For those too young to remember, Obama’s signature achievement is the Affordable Care Act, something the Democratic Party has been fighting for since Harry Truman. As evidenced by the Bernie campaign posting a vintage photo of Hillary fighting for universal healthcare in 1993, Hillary has the scars to show for this battle. Hillary Clinton knows firsthand that the Democratic nominee should be defending the Affordable Care Act, not going back to square one.
Remember: we barely passed the Affordable Care Act with majorities in both chambers of Congress. Let's build on the Affordable Care Act instead of relitigating healthcare, a battle that isn't wise to do in the current political environment.
NANCY CORDES: “Secretary Clinton, back in 1994, you said that momentum for a single-payer system would sweep the country. That sounds Sandersesque. But you don't feel that way anymore. Why not...“
HILLARY CLINTON: “Well, the revolution never came. And I waited and I've got the scars to show for it.”
As Hillary noted, pandering to young voters with empty promises on issues such as healthcare will only further erode trust in our government:
“In my case, whether it's healthcare, or getting us to debt-free tuition, or moving us toward paid family leave, I have been very specific about where I would raise the money, how much it would cost, and how I would move this agenda forward.
I've tried to be as specific to answer questions so that my proposals can be vetted, because I feel like we have to level with people for the very reason, Gwen, that you are mentioning.
There is a great deal of skepticism about the federal government. I'm aware of that. It comes from the right, from the left, from people on all sides of the political spectrum.
So we have a special obligation to make clear what we stand for, which is why I think we should not make promises we can't keep, because that will further alienate Americans from understanding and believing we can together make some real changes in people's lives.”
~Hillary Rodham Clinton
On the topic of healthcare, Hillary proves she possesses the political skill to take on the Tea Party whack-jobs, while also having the best plans to continue Obama's progress. Meanwhile, Bernie's over there talking about starting over from square-one, ignoring that we barely passed Obamacare with a Democratic majority.
Both Hillary [Hillarycare] and Obama [Obamacare] have the scars from fighting for universal healthcare. Maybe because Bernie doesn’t have the same scars, he doesn’t t understand the political realities of a GOP obstructionist Congress — a Congress progressives created by not helping down-ticket Democrats get elected, and by writing off places as the South as “too conservative to matter.” Luckily, the Clintons hail from Arkansas and know how instrumental the South is to creating the coalitions needed for the success of a progressive agenda in Congress.
The environment and fracking:
As Secretary of State, Hillary supported fracking as a transitional method to cleaner energy. Fracking is a temporary ‘bridge fuel’ that allows poorer nations to transition away from even worse pollutants. Yet again, Bernie doesn’t understand the big picture — the actual ways in which progress is actually made.
For instance, Obama and Hillary put together the strongest international agreement on climate change that has *EVER* been created: the Paris Agreement. Bernie is quick to criticize the agreement for not going far enough — an agreement which includes over 120 countries and took many years to put together. Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was instrumental in laying the groundwork for the Paris Agreement during the Obama Administration’s first term.
Recently, Vice President Al Gore said this of the Paris Agreement:
"No agreement is perfect, and this one must be strengthened over time, but groups across every sector of society will now begin to reduce dangerous carbon pollution through the framework of this agreement."~Vice President Al Gore
For those that voted for Nader, just think of how much further along we would be on climate change [Al Gore’s signature cause] if he had become President in the year 2000 — if we had elected a 3rd consecutive Democratic President. But after 8 successful years of a Democrat in the White House, progressives felt comfortable enough in thumbing their nose at Al Gore, ultimately giving us George W. Bush. This progressive betrayal of the Clinton Administration destroyed any chance of *REAL* and *LASTING* progress in regards to climate change.
Furthermore, what about Bernie dumping Vermont’s toxic nuclear waste on a poor, latino Texas town?
Obama and Hillary put together the strongest international agreement on environmental protection ever: the Paris Agreement. 120 countries joined this agreement, yet Bernie loves to criticize the accomplishments of others for not being 100% progressive, for not going far enough — yet he has little accomplishments of his own to speak of. It’s easy to diagnose a problem, it’s even harder to fix a problem. It is also worth noting Bernie’s hands are far from clean when you take into account dumping Vermont’s nuclear waste on Sierra Blana, a poor Latino town in Texas.
Israelis vs. Palestinians:
Many love to criticize Hillary when she defends Israel, but the closest we were to achieving peace in the Middle East was under the Clinton Administration:
If we are going to launch a liberal war against the 1990s, let’s remember *EVERYTHING* that happened during the 1990s.
Personally, the photo of President Clinton with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat speaks a thousand words. I remember seeing it in elementary school and thinking if only President Clinton could have remained in office and continued working towards peace and prosperity around the globe. Instead, however, we ended up with George Bush [rather than electing a 3rd consecutive Democratic President and continuing the progress of the Clinton Administration]. I guess progressives just got too comfortable after 8 years of a Democrat in the White House — 8 years of peace and prosperity.
1994 Crime Bill:
Ironically, Bernie cites his pragmatism when trying to explain away his 1994 crime bill vote. He says the Violence Against Women Act is one of the reasons he voted for the ‘94 crime bill. But if Bernie is able to use the Violence Against Women Act as a pragmatic excuse for why he voted for the bill, President Clinton also gets to use the same excuse for why he signed the bill.
At the end of the day, Bernie is the only 2016 candidate that actually *VOTED* for the 1994 crime bill. Hillary supported her husband but then gets vilified as if she voted for it or something? Talk about a sexist double standard if there ever was one: Bernie, a man, votes for the actual bill that did the damage to African American communities. But Hillary, a woman, gets vilified for using one word she has since apologized for? Time and time again, there is one standard for Hillary Clinton, and another standard for Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders voted for the ‘94 crime bill and needs to take ownership of that. And if he is going to cite pragmatism for why he voted for the crime bill, he is by definition endorsing the very same philosophy he says “let progressives down.”
You can’t have it both ways, Bernie.
Iraq War:
If Bernie thought the Iraq war was such a mistake on Hillary’s part, why did he confirm her as Secretary of State?
It appears as though Bernie blamed Bush’s war on Bush when he confirmed Hillary as Secretary of State. However, like a typical politician, he is now blaming Bush’s war on Hillary for political gain. Fact is — Hillary gave Bush the authorization to go to war as a *last* resort. Bush went to war as a *first* resort. Bush did not allow the U.N. inspectors finish their job, something he said he would allow them to do.
Hillary already said she regrets giving Bush the authorization for war. But as New York Senator, she trusted him in the aftermath of 9/11, something most Americans regrettably did. Patriotism and trust was at an all-time high after 9/11/2001, and no one thought Bush would go into Iraq before the inspectors were finished. The authorization vote was being portrayed as nothing more than a tool of leverage against Iraq.
It is also important to look at Hillary’s full record, which includes being one of the few to advocate for the successful raid against Osama Bin Laden. It also includes imposing the toughest sanctions on Iran by convincing the Chinese and Russians to agree to them. Both are things the Bush Administration couldn’t get done. Furthermore, Hillary’s START treaty with Russia still exists and she improved U.S. favorability worldwide by over 20 points. Without Hillary, the Iran nuclear deal would not be in existence today, something that is *PREVENTING* war.
At the end of the day, Hillary didn’t vote for the Iraq war. She gave Bush the authorization to go to war as a *LAST* resort, and only after the U.N. inspectors finished their job. The authorization vote was simply meant to be used as leverage against Iraq.
Given that Bernie confirmed Hillary as Secretary of State, it is obvious he is using the Iraq war for political gain. Anyone who closely followed history after 9/11 knows that Bush lied and people died. Period.Stop placing Bush’s war on Hillary for political gain.
Furthermore, invading Iraq wouldn’t have even been on the table if Al Gore had won in 2000. And let us remember the Clinton Administration warned the Bush Administration of a Bin Laden air strike. Shortly after, George Bush ignored a memo titled “Bin Laden determined to strike inside U.S.”
Trade Agreements:
Though Hillary supported her husbands trade agreements, as Senator of New York, the only trade agreement Hillary ever had the opportunity to vote on was CAFTA [Central American Trade Agreement]. Hillary voted *AGAINST* CAFTA. This important fact is often overlooked by the media and I’m not sure why.
But like I said before — if we are going to have a liberal war on the 1990s, let’s us also remember what President Clinton did for American workers overall — the full record:
~23 million new jobs ~Incomes rising at every income level ~A balanced budget and surplus ~More Americans lifted out of poverty than at any time in U.S. history
Democrats always have to clean up Republican recessions:
Reagan/Bush Senior —> Clinton
Bush Jr. —> Obama
Bernie has lots of blame for Democratic Presidents, yet Republicans are the ones that cause recessions and then halt recovery through obstructionism.
Wall Street and speeches:
On numerous occasions, Bernie has mockingly said he would release the transcripts of his paid speeches. He then proceeds to flail his arms in the air, proud of the fact he has never been offered money for his thoughts [probably because he is rather ineffective at achieving progress]. Point is — those that are in Congress are not legally allowed to give paid speeches due to conflict of interest. Hillary Clinton never gave a single paid speech while she served as New York Senator or Secretary of State.
Ironically, Bernie was unable to give even oneconcrete example of how these speeches corrupted Hillary Clinton, proving this Wall Street attack is nothing more than an artful smear, designed to raise questions where there are none. Innuendo at its finest.
However, some Bernie supporters use Hillary’s bankruptcy vote as an example of her supposed “corruption.”
"My experience has been that whenever you closely examine the attacks on Hillary, whether they come from the left or the right, they break apart under scrutiny."
~Zachary Leven
Hillary voted for a version of the bankruptcy bill after working with Congress to include amendments directly addressing Elizabeth Warren’s concerns, specifically those regarding women and children. The bill then went to the Republican-controlled Congress, which subsequently removed the amendments protecting women and children. When the bill was later sent back to the Senate, Democrats [including Hillary] filibustered the bill. Later, a finalized version of the bill passed without Hillary’s support.
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are misrepresenting Hillary’s bankruptcy vote:
CLINTON: When I got to the Senate in 2001, one of the first big votes there was on a version of the bankruptcy bill and I was deluged by women’s groups and children’s advocates groups to do everything I could to make sure that child support and women’s precarious financial situation in case of divorce or not being able to get the kind of funding they needed from a partner or a spouse in bankruptcy would not be endangered. And it was. The current — that bill was making it a very low priority. So I did go to work on behalf of all these women’s groups and children’s groups because they needed a champion. And I got that bill changed. And in return, it had nothing to do with any money whatsoever — and I resent deeply any effort by the Sanders campaign to so imply. It had to do with trying to get a deal that would protect women.
And so then three years later, part of Senator Warren said, you played. You didn’t play the whole thing, because we’ve been allies. I faced a tough decision and I stood up for women and children.
I went to the Senate floor, said that was exactly what I was doing. Then the bill did not pass. It never became law. And then when the next bill came up, 2005, women’s issues were taken care of because I had made that a point back in 2001. And so then I was against that bill. I didn’t get a chance to actually vote against it because Bill was in the hospital having a heart procedure. But I put a statement out. I was against it. So I’m happy to set this record straight. And I really want to, once again, call out the Sanders campaign, which claims they like to run a positive campaign. But they have been quite artful in raising questions and trying to cast doubts about my record.
And I really am not going to sit and take it anymore.
I have a public record. I have never, ever been influenced in a view or a vote by anyone who has given me any kind of money. So I’m just going to keep setting the record straight.
Bernie doesn’t believe you can take money and not be bought, which is why he has consistently mocked Hillary Clinton for forcefully telling Wall Street [prior to the crash] that their behavior regarding mortgages and derivatives needed to change:
“I urge Wall Street and the mortgage industry to voluntarily agree to the following three steps: First, we need a moratorium of at least 90 days on foreclosures of subprime, owner-occupied homes. The moratorium will stop foreclosures until lenders and services have contacted borrowers and frozen mortgage rates. It will also give financial counselors time to work with families. Second, we need to freeze the monthly rate on subprime adjustable rate mortgages, with the freeze lasting at least five years until the mortgages have been converted into affordable, fixed-rate loans. A rate freeze is critical. An average of $30 billion in loans will reset each month next year, and the average reset will increase monthly payments by 30 to 40 percent. These rate resets are the major driver of the foreclosure costs. The long rate-freeze will give the housing market time to stabilize. It will give families an opportunity to rebuild equity in their homes. It will also give the mortgage industry the time —and incentive— to convert mortgages that were designed to fail into loans that actually can be repaid. Third, the mortgage industry must provide status reports on the number of mortgages it is modifying. Accountability is essential. Despite all the media coverage, despite all the hearings, despite the Secretary of the Treasury, despite all that has gone on in the last 30 to 60 days, the mortgage industry has only modified about 1 percent of at-risk mortgages this year. That’ is simply not enough. Now, I hope everyone will voluntarily agree to these steps, because we cannot fail at this. The costs are just too high.”
Isn’t it the height of irony and hypocrisy that Hillary is criticized for only “talking” to Wall Street about their risky behavior? “Talking” is about all Bernie Sanders has done during his entire career with regards to income inequality and corporate greed.
Point is — when Hillary was New York Senator or Secretary of State, she never gave paid speeches. After she left public office, however, she *DID* give paid speeches — just as other successful people have done. Hillary should wear these speaking fees as a badge of honor — her brilliant career should be given the same worth as successful men who charge similar amounts.
But guess what? The Clintons paid a 35.7% tax rate [40 million in total taxes] over the last 7 years. They built their success from the ground up, dating back to their days together at Yale Law School. Both Clintons embody the American dream of using their own talents to achieve success — but they have both never forgotten their roots and they both pay their fair share to a country that has given them so much. The Clintons want to pay their success forward to the next generation of Americans.
Mitt Romney, a man who was born with a silver-spoon in his mouth, paid a 14.1% tax rate. The Clintons, who came from humble beginnings [Bill came from a widowed single Mother and Hillary's Father was a small business owner] paid a 35.7% tax rate [40 million in total taxes] over the last 7 years.
Why wouldn't the Clintons hold Wall Street and others to the same standard they hold themselves to?
At the end of the day, Hillary’s plans have been deemed by experts to be tougher and more comprehensive than Bernie’s. Hillary’s plans go right after the root causes of the 2008 economic collapse: shadow baking and *DERIVATIVES*, something Hillary drew attention to back in 2007.
Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders, saw the writing on the wall in regards to the 2008 economic collapse — especially with regards to derivatives, something Bernie voted to deregulate in 2000:
Bernie voted to deregulate derivatives in the year 2000, one of the direct causes of the 2008 financial crash. Hillary Clinton, on the contrary, addressed derivatives prior to the crash:
Clinton said she "called for addressing risks of derivatives, cracking down on subprime mortgages and improving financial oversight" early on in the financial crisis.
The crisis hit a peak in summer 2008, though it started to gain traction in 2007. Clinton began addressing the subprime mortgage issue in her appearances in March 2007. Later that year, she took on derivatives. She also proposed specific plans for solving these problems and increasing oversight of financial institutions.
Hillary Clinton has since called for the “Buffet Rule” and ending the “Romney Loophole.” I sincerely hope Bernie Sanders endorses both of those ideas. We also know Hillary fought for unions and a higher minimum wage as New York Senator despite corporate contributions, similar to when President Obama passed Dodd Frank despite corporate contributions. Personally, I have no doubt in Hillary’s commitment to take on corporate America just as President Barack Obama did.
The big-picture is that Bernie’s philosophy of being an ideological purist has led to no accomplishments regarding his lifetime causes. Meanwhile, the Clintons and Obama have both accomplished a great deal despite having to work with an obstructionist Republican Congress — a hostile Congress that will be waiting for any future Democratic President. Given Bernie’s record vs. Obama’s and the Clintons record, I trust the judgement of the latter when it comes to how best to navigate Washington and accomplish *REAL* and *LASTING* change that will actually make a difference in my life.
As we can see in issue after issue, Hillary is the clear choice if you want someone who has a chance of actually achieving a progressive agenda. Just as Trump’s imaginary wall is a way to pander to his base, many of Bernie’s proposals are a way to pander to his base. Bernie’s promises and “no-starter” legislation will further erode trust in what government can do for you. Promises you can’t keep won’t build trust. It will only further build cynicism. The same cynicism that led to Bernie Sanders endorsing a book “How Obama Let Progressives Down.”Unfortunately, Bernie doesn’t realize how difficult it is to work within the system as President, something Obama has since discovered. Obama now endorses exactly what Hillary warned him about in 2008.
“Democrats will have unusual say over the party’s nominee. They have in Clinton a superprepared warrior realist...
By choosing Clinton, Empire State Dems would powerfully signal that the party has gotten real about achieving long-sought goals.”
~New York Daily News
The very reason the GOP is propping up Bernie is because he would require on-the-job training. The Clintons record of accomplishments prove they are best equipped to fight in a highly polarized world, something Obama now agrees with after being in Washington as President. A real revolution is 60 votes in the Senate; not lower voter turn-out than what occurred in 2008 and $0 raised for down-ticket Democrats in a post Citizens United world.
Rarely does a political party have the chance to reclaim the White House after 8 years. The Democratic Party finally has a chance to build on our progress with two consecutive Democratic Presidents: Obama and Clinton. The last time we attempted this was in 2000 with Al Gore. Unfortunately, Al Gore rebuked the Clinton legacy and progressives turned their backs on President Bill Clinton. Nader proved to be an effective enough spoiler in Florida, triggering such a close contest that Governor Jeb Bush was ultimately able to decide the 2000 election in favor of his brother. What a disaster. Progressives gave us George Bush and consistently give us a GOP Congress by writing off places such as the South. Then they complain Democrats betray the progressive movement when we are forced to compromise in order to be pragmatic ::sigh:: — It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Those that say there is no difference between the two political parties are not living in reality, and it seems progressives get too comfortable after 8 years of a Democrat in the White House. One needs to look no further than George Bush to see there is a real and radical difference between a Democratic Administration and a Republican Administration. Al Gore would have never launched war against Iraq, and he would have made the United States the world leader on climate change. Gore would have also built on President Clinton’s budget surplus and the 23 million new jobs already created.
I’d take President Obama’s Presidency or President Clinton’s Presidency over George Bush’s any day of the week.
“The economy does better with a Democrat in the White House.”
~Hillary Rodham Clinton
Trump agrees that historically the economy does better under Democratic Presidents:
It took a Clinton to clean up after the first Bush, and I think it will finally take a Clinton to build on Obama’s progress and get us back to where the Clintons left us in the year 2000: 23 million new jobs, a balanced-budget, surplus, and wages rising at all income levels.
"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."
With support from the South, we can hopefully elect Democrats up-and-down the ticket, shifting Congress to a place where we can finally pass a true progressive agenda. Don’t let Bernie become the Nader of the 2016 election and rip away our historic opportunity to have a 3rd consecutive Democratic President: the first African American President and the first female President. Two historic achievements. A chance at *REAL* and *LASTING* progress.
“These 5 charts prove that the economy does better under Democratic presidents”
“Hillary Clinton was right: The economy has done better under Democrats”
