Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has sought to portray her as a qualified, steady hand with decades of experience relevant for the nation’s highest office. Her CV lends credence to this narrative, as it is replete with important positions, diplomatic initiatives, and policy proposals. Yet Bernie Sanders is beginning to call into question Clinton’s seemingly sterling record. At a recently rally in Philadelphia, Sanders catalogued all the ways in which he felt the former Secretary was unqualified to be president: “I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is, through her Super-PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars of special interest money. I don’t think that you are qualified if you get 15 million dollars from Wall Street through your Super PAC.” Bernie Sanders’ dissent, shared by many of his supporters, changes the meaning of “qualified” to signify ethically ambiguous affiliations rather than prior experiences. While Sanders’ maneuvers might make for good politics, they distract voters from the arguably most important issue for Democrats in 2016: which candidate can execute their promises.
Pivoting the conversation away from Clinton’s record makes sense politically for Sanders, since his own congressional record pales in comparison. Professor of Political Science Jeffrey Lazarus recently analyzed both Clinton and Sander’s records during their congressional tenures. After discounting commemorative bills, resolutions, and bills co-sponsored by both candidates, Hillary Clinton sponsored ten passing bills her eight years in the Senate, while Bernie Sanders has sponsored only one during his nine years in the senate. This gap exists despite the fact that Sanders has sponsored more bills than Clinton and co-sponsored almost twice as many. In terms of amendments, Clinton managed to pass 33 percent more amendments each year than Sanders. Based on these figures, Bernie Sanders seems like an embarrassingly ineffective political operator, an assessment that becomes even starker when considering the impressive substance of Clinton’s record. She spearheaded the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the PROTECT Our Children Act of 2008, the KIDS Act of 2008, and Veterans’ Mental Health Act of 2008, just to name a few. Moreover, when 20 senators and public servants were recently asked about Clinton’s biggest accomplishments, they recounted Clinton’s behind-the-scenes contributions on a wide variety of matters — much of which is not explicitly reflected in her legislative record.
While Clinton’s claim to the presidency rests on her political achievements, Sanders’ claim comes from his political positions. As a senator, he has received exceptional voting scores from organizations like the NAACP and the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda. He’s also made no secret about marching alongside MLK and voting against the Iraq War. Although Sanders has achieved some victories on Senate Committees, like securing funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, he overwhelmingly remains an idealist. Yet his ability to execute on his intentions has been less than impressive — a critical flaw for any would-be Chief Executive.
The president’s ability to carry plans to fruition has grown even more important in the current political climate. Political polarization has escalated to a point where the President cannot even get hearings for his Supreme Court nominee — an honor that every past president has been granted. Everything that comes from the White House meets immediate resistance. However, President Obama has enjoyed remarkable success in executing his presidential promises despite facing this unprecedented Congressional resistance. Accordingly, anyone who can navigate this increasingly acrimonious climate is a rare commodity for the Democrats.
None of this is to say that Sanders’ goals aren’t laudable or don’t align with the Democratic Party’s objective. Rather, the point is that Sanders’ anti-Clinton qualms over her experience and qualifications seem foolish in light of his own sparse legislative achievements. When one considers the dubious political viability of his agenda going forward, he is the one whose qualifications are questionable. Of course, it is Bernie Sanders’ intentions that draw voters, not his record, but intentions mean nothing without execution. By reshaping the conversation of experience into an ethical — rather than pragmatic — issue, Sanders conceals his own inexperience and leads Democrats astray. Sound political judgment indicates that he is the wrong candidate to combat the partisan climate of 2016.
