is the title of this story by Patrick Healey for tomorrow’s print edition of The New York TImes. It is written in the context of what has happened recently in the Democratic primary contest, and it looks back at how Sanders has run in the past.
Relatively early in the piece, Healey lays down the rationale for this article:
Mr. Sanders has long presented himself as an issues-oriented, plain-speaking politician from rural New England, now seeking the presidency with promise of a political revolution. But his combative side has now emerged as the Democratic race has tightened and Hillary Clinton has sharpened her own rhetoric.
The result is a far harsher tone in the Democratic campaign and a transformed Senator Sanders, who is now making the kinds of sharper-edged attacks that some of his advisers regretted he did not deploy sooner. But his aggressiveness also worries some supporters who were powerfully drawn to his positive persona that forswore politics as usual.
There are quotes from a number of people, including of course his top campaign advisor Tad Devine.
And it connects this campaign with previous campaigns in this paragraph
More than anything, the recent Sanders broadsides reflect a political strategy he has carried out in previous campaigns: the use of blunt criticisms, sarcastic asides and a thundering style against his opponents.
which is followed up by specific examples from a number of campaigns.
I am a Clinton supporter.
I have no trouble with someone playing the political game hard.
I do have some trouble with someone who claims to be different but is still very much in the normal political campaign.
There is also one part of the story that raises a potentially troubling issue, and that goes back to Sanders’ unsuccessful run as an independent for Governor against Madeline Kunin, then the incumbent. He accused her of being an empty suit, claimed he would be better for women than she was because he would address income inequality, and at one point, when challenged by a moderator at the debate about words he had said about her and her Republican opponent, and, well, let me just quote from the article:
Governor, how does it feel to be the lesser of two evils?” he asked. “I think that really is what this campaign is about.”
Kunin, who is a supporter of Clinton, says she sees similarities in how Sanders is approaching this campaign with how he approached his campaign against her:
“He’s not going to say, ‘She’s a woman, she’s not qualified,’” said Ms. Kunin, who was re-elected with 47 percent of the vote after Mr. Sanders siphoned off some support. “But he can paint a very subtle illusion talking about qualifications and judgment.”
I have few illusions about politicians. I can find flaws with all of them, and candidates I might support on one occasion I might find reason to oppose on another. Thus I eagerly supported Jim Webb in 2006 in his Senate race first in the primary against Harris Miller and then in the general against incumbent George Allen. I did NOT support him in his brief run for the presidency this cycle.
I can find things I admire in politicians even when I support an opponent, and I can find things to criticize in politicians I support. Thus I can admire the passion Sanders brings and the bright light he has succeeded in shining on some issues, even as I believe Clinton is better able to address those issue. And I think Clinton, knowing she was almost certainly going to run for President, showed poor judgment in making speeches at Wall Street Firms, even if much of the money was directed towards charitable purposes of one sort or another.
Sanders is going to complete vigorously, as long as he thinks either that he has a path to the nomination (which I am on record as saying he does not) and so long as he can make a case for the issues in which he believes. That’s fine.
Sanders is willing to use a certain amount of negativity and sarcasm in an attempt to do better in the primary contest. That is normal for a politician. I hope that Kunin's implication that he is doing so because Clinton is female is not true. Given how he has run against male opponents, I suspect it is not gender based.
I think Clinton might very well like to be able to run a campaign that did not depend on the current distorted financing system we have, but she is not about to disarm unilaterally in the area of finance when she knows how much money there could be against her in the general.
Candidates will, within whatever limits are acceptable to them, push the envelope in order to be successful.
I think Bernie Sanders is a smart enough and experienced politician that it is almost second nature to him. He might be restrained in being directly negative in paid campaign advertising, but he has NEVER had any hesitation of implying or even stating things that are negative about his opponents. Had he not been willing to do so to some degree, he would not have had as long a political career as he has had.
Bernie is no saint. Neither is Hillary.
Both are a damn site better than anyone on the other side, currently in the race or among the 14 or so who already dropped out.
Reasonable people can disagree about who would be the better candidate in the general.
Reasonable people can disagree on whose policies make more sense.
Reasonable people will admit that their champion has weaknesses, mistakes in the past, errors of judgment, just as they can such in the person their champion opposes.
I share this article because it is in a major newspaper, and as such is likely to become part of the political discussion in the few days remaining before the New York Primary, and maybe even beyond.
I do suggest you read the entire article, particularly the end, with words about how he ran against Peter Smith for the House, and what Smith has to say about it.
Bernie Sander is a politician. He has a long record which demonstrates he knows how to play political hardball. This article explores some of it. We have seen it in the campaign.
And there is nothing wrong with playing hardball. Just don’t pretend that somehow you are not when you are.