Las Vegas Caucus Dinner Highlights Differences Between Hillary and Bernie

I just watched a YouTube video of Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders giving speeches at the Nevada Caucus Dinner in Las Vegas on Jan. 6.

Seeing the two speeches so closely juxtaposed left me with some very definite impressions of each candidate, and especially the deep and dramatic differences between their messages.

Style: Polished Pol vs. Old School Lecturer

It was obvious that Hillary was giving a very polished speech, pivoting from one teleprompter to the other in the manner for which Obama has been so often criticised. She spoke in dramatic if generalised terms, using very choreographed gestures, relying heavily on the clenched fist with the thumb pressed down and forward to emphasize specific points -— yes, that same gesture that her husband introduced back in the 90’s and which has been mimicked by all establishment politicians ever since.

Bernie, on the other hand, relied on notes printed (or even handwritten?) on sheets of paper. Very old school. But effective — because when he was not glancing down at those notes, he was looking out at the audience direct and with meaning, holding his gaze steady as he delivered his message.

Substance: General Goals vs. Concrete Proposals

Hillary covered a lot of ground, but in the traditional established political way: namely to mouth platitudes, name check talking points and generally pay lip service to a shopping list of progressive goals, without going into any details. This was very different from Bernie’s listing of actual steps that he is taking, has taken or will take.

For example:

Hillary says: “we need to raise the minimum wage” — Bernie says: “we will raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour”

Hillary says: “we need to make college more affordable” — Bernie says: “we will make public colleges and universities tuition free.”

And so on.

Thematic Tone: Fear vs. Hope

The contrast in thematic tone was what really struck me. Hillary’s message was one of FEAR. She warned of “losing ground” to the Republicans. She thanked God that Obama was in the White House to veto the repeal of ACA. Hillary’s message was clear: the country and its middle class are under attack by the GOP, and we need to have a Democratic President in 2017 to “stop” the GOP; to “protect” Social Security and Medicare; to “defend” abortion rights — in short, she described the next President’s job as one of defending against what would presumably still be a Republican-led Legislature.

Hillary’s vision of the future was one full of danger, a world beset with threats from within and without, and one requiring a President that will “stand up” to the forces of evil. She repeatedly said that she has “stood her ground” against such malefactors as Putin and the GOP in the past, and that as POTUS she would “stand her ground” against all the forces of doom and destruction that will be arrayed against her. She positioned herself as a Joan of Arc, ready to defend us all against the onslaught of far Right wing extremism that — as far as she is concerned — is and will remain a constant force in our body politic and a persistent and indomitable threat to human dignity and the welfare of the American middle class. Protect; defend; stand up to; fight back against … these were the words and phrases that dominated Clinton’s speech.

Bernie’s tone, by contrast, was one of purposeful optimism, of aspirational yet practical idealism. We have many problems, he said, but these problems are all man-made and are all solvable. Bernie sees the world as it might be, and believes that we the people have the power to undo all that has been done. He did not portray the Republicans as the Enemy as Hillary did. He did not inveigh against the ridiculous machinations and statements of the Right. He literally accentuated the positive.

Bernie does not accept for one minute that the far Right will remain a major force in the US political arena. He believes that it is possible to “transform” America and the American political system. He does not foresee a nation in 2017 that needs a President to “protect” us the forces of the Right. He sees a country wherein the forces of the Right are overridden and defeated by the People.

I vs. We

Indeed, Bernie once more intimated his usual “inconvenient truth” — namely that no President can take on the “powers that be” and bring about needed change alone. He repeatedly insisted that the key to victory was for all of us to “come together” and that when we “stand together” there is nothing we cannot accomplish.

Hillary, on the other hand, talked about herself: what she would do to protect us, what she would do to take on the moneyed interests, what she would do on our behalf. She again repeated her standard line, which is more or less: “if you elect me, you will have a friend in the White House, a friend who is on your side, and fighting for you.”

I find this line of argument to be exceedingly lame, laced as it is with hubris and narcissism. We should elect Hillary and then all will be well. She will fix everything, she will fight the GOP, she will again tell Wall Street to “cut it out” if needed. She will, by sheer force of personality and her own will and determination, make the country and the world a better place.

Bernie often says that he has but one criticism of Barack Obama, and that was that once the election was over, Obama basically said, “thanks, I can take it from here” and tried to do it alone. This goes back to Bernie’s “inconvenient truth” that no President can make a difference acting alone. “I need you to be with me the day after the election,” he says.

Closing Arguments: Scare Tactics vs. A Call to Action

When it came time to ask for our vote, the two candidates again took very different paths. Hillary adopted what has become her standard closing argument in all her stump speeches: Be afraid. Be very afraid. Building on all the fear she had engendered through her previous remarks, she outlined a doomsday scenario should a Republican win the White House next year. Again assuming that the Congress would remain in Republican hands, she outlined all the horrible things that would happen on that Republican President’s very first day in office. Her message was clear: we need to nominate the most electable candidate possible. She put herself forward as the most qualified, the most battle-tested, and the one most likely to win in a general election. As usual, she gave no specifics, she just relied on the establishment message and the given narrative that she is the strongest candidate to take on the GOP. Vote for me, she seemed to say, or else all hell will break loose.

Bernie also closed with remarks that followed the thread of the overall speech. He again called for people to come together, he called on people to join his Political Revolution, he reiterated his fervent belief that when we all stand together we can do anything.

To Sum it Up

The messages of the two candidates can be summed up as follows:

Hillary: “Elect me and you will have a powerful friend in the Oval Office; I will fight for you and I will protect and defend you from all the dangerous forces that are facing us on all sides.”

Bernie: “Stand with me, we must all come together and form a Political Revolution, and when we all stand together we can transform our government, our country and the world into a better place.”

I don’t know about you, but I find Bernie’s message much more compelling and realistic, and his overall message — unlike other candidates — is reflected in his campaign slogan. 

Bernie Sanders really is offering “A future to believe in.”