Journeyman candidate Hillary Clinton expects to win the Democratic nomination for president, something she failed to do in 2008. In order to do that, she will have to overcome a challenge from Bernie Sanders, the preferred candidate of principled liberals. According to an in-depth comparative analysis by the Free Beacon, the two candidates are very different. Here's how they stack up:
AGE
Clinton: 67
Sanders: 73
Advantage: Sanders. Age equals wisdom, and wisdom equals high-quality leadership. That explains why Ronald Reagan was the one of the greatest presidents of all time. Is Bernie Sanders the next Reagan? Maybe. But either way, his advanced age gives him the edge over Hillary.
GENDER
Clinton: Cis Female
Sanders: Cis Male
Advantage: Sanders. Hillary would be the first cis female president in history, but as the New York Times wrote in 2008, this is "not a reason" to select a candidate. In fact, the Times argued that Hillary's obsessive focus on "firstness" in 2008 had "tarnished the campaign." Historically, most presidents have been male. The edge goes to Bernie.
RACE
Clinton: White
Sanders: White, Jewish
Advantage: Sanders. His Jewishness brings some much-needed diversity to the Democratic field. If elected, he would become the first Jewish president in history. This is an important factor for voters to consider when casting their vote. Do they want to make history or not?
EDUCATION
Clinton: Wellesley College, Yale Law
Sanders: Brooklyn College, University of Chicago
Advantage: Sanders. Do we really need another Ivy League president? The last four commanders in chief attended either Harvard or Yale. Bernie would represent a welcome break from this elitist trend. During his time at the University of Chicago, Sanders was active in the Civil Rights Movement. Hillary, on the other hand, served as president of the Wellesley Young Republicans after volunteering on the Barry Goldwater campaign.
WEALTH
Clinton: MA$$IVE. The Clintons have earned more than $30 million since 2014, which is less than some Fortune 500 CEOs. Her nine-month-old granddaughter wears Oscar de la Renta.
Sanders: Not very massive, compared to most senators. He reported a net worth of $330,000 in 2013. Hillary made more than that in one hour for a speech sponsored by Qualcomm in October 2014. To the best of our knowledge, he's never flown on a private jet with Arab royalty.
Advantage: Sanders. As one of the poorest members of the Senate, he can actually relate to the struggle of the less fortunate. Unlike Hillary, he would never be invited to give a paid speech to a group of Goldman Sachs executives. He can't be bought, and that's one of the reasons why principled liberal voters are rallying behind him.
TOP DONORS
Clinton: Mostly Wall Street banks and lobbying firms.
Sanders: Unions, and that's about it.
Advantage: Sanders. Democratic voters are looking for a candidate who stands up for the working man, not someone who takes money from Wall Street and their D.C. lobbyists.
SCANDALS
Clinton: Myriad. She may have, for example, exposed sensitive material to foreign intelligence agencies by using a private email server. Many questions remains about her relationships with unsavory oligarchs.
Sanders: Few. He once wrote a controversial essay about sex.
Advantage: Sanders. Because he isn't obsessed with money, he has managed to avoid associating with sketchy individuals who might want to influence U.S. policy. He isn't obsessed with power, either, and is unwilling to do whatever it takes to achieve it, such as deleting a bunch of emails that might complicate a presidential run. Hillary can't help herself.
PRESS STRATEGY
Clinton: Literally rope them off like cattle, refuse to answer questions. According to her aides, Hillary "hates" the press.
Sanders: Isn't afraid of the press, because he has nothing to hide.
Advantage: Sanders. Reporters are more than welcome to report on his massive rallies, which is a good thing. Americans deserve to hear his message.
WHERE THEY STAND ON THE ISSUES:
TRADE (TPP)
Clinton: For (but she's not allowed to say). As Secretary of State, she repeatedly praised the Trasn-Pacific Partnership agreement as "the gold standard" of trade agreements. Now, she won't take a position beyond saying that "the question that were raised are ones that have to be answered," whatever that means.
Sanders: Against. Because he is a tireless champion for hard-working Americans, Bernie Sanders has led the fight to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement.
Advantage: Sanders. Democratic voters are looking for someone who stands up and fights for the issues they care about, not someone who refuses to take a position out of political expediency and/or deference to her corporate donors.
GREECE
Clinton: ??????? She wants to see a "resolution" to the crisis.
Sanders: Firmly opposed to "more austerity for the poor, the children, the sick and the elderly."
Advantage: Sanders. He's taken a firm position and he's not afraid to lead. He understands that our commitment to economic justice should not end at our borders.
TAXES
Clinton: ?????? In an interview with CNN earlier this week, she refused to say if raising taxes was "on the table."
Sanders: Wants to raise the top tax rate above 50 percent.
Advantage: Sanders. The American people know where Sanders stands, and they agree that millionaires and billionaire should be forced to pay their fair share, and then some, even if they summer with the Clintons in the Hamptons.
GOVERNMENT
Clinton: Doesn't trust the government to handle even minor tasks, such as providing a secure email server.
Sanders: Believes in government's ability to do pretty much everything, such as limit the number of deodorant options.
Advantage: Sanders. Government is just the word we use for the things we choose to do together. Changing the world is more important than smelling nice.
WALL STREET
Clinton: Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein is a personal friend.
Sanders: Firmly anti-greed.
Advantage: Sanders. The American people are tired of bailing out Wall Street, and would prefer to vote for someone whose campaign isn't funded by Wall Street executives.
IRAQ WAR
Clinton: Voted for it, then changed her mind once it was politically convenient.
Sanders: Voted against.
Advantage: Sanders. As noted scholar Paul Krugman recently argued, when it comes to the Iraq War:
[Y]ou can understand why many political and media figures would prefer not to talk about any of this. Some of them, I suppose, may have been duped: may have fallen for the obvious lies, which doesn’t say much about their judgment. More, I suspect, were complicit: they realized that the official case for war was a pretext, but had their own reasons for wanting a war, or, alternatively, allowed themselves to be intimidated into going along. For there was a definite climate of fear among politicians and pundits in 2002 and 2003, one in which criticizing the push for war looked very much like a career killer.
In other words, Sanders was on the right side of history, whereas Hillary either A) has terribly judgement, B) love war, or C) doesn't love war, but pretended to in order to advance her political career.
FINAL ASSESSMENT:
Only one candidate has the wisdom, leadership, and fearlessness to fight for everyday Americans.
