The two main democratic nominees have their differences, but which one is more important?

As the democratic primary season pushes forward and we learn more about what each candidate brings to the table, it is inevitable that we start concentrating on their differences, rather than what they have in common. It is the nature of any campaign season. Vive la difference!

Both of the main Democratic primary contenders, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, are revered politicians, debaters and public servants. Both are fierce fighters for respected social causes. Combined, they share more than half a century of political experience and both would likely become a great president, albeit for different reasons.

Bernie Sanders’ positions have been known for decades. He’s hard on banks and income inequality and has always been a champion of social justice, but at the same time, he’s soft on gun control.

On the other hand, having a move centrist husband has forced Hillary Clinton into evolving on certain issues like gay marriage. That being said, her strong stand on gun control hasn’t changed much over the years, it is still widely popular, but unfortunately her history with Wall Street is not.

If only someone could clone some kind of Bernie/Hillary hybrid, that would solve all our progressive problems, right? Probably not, but it would be interesting to see what a “Bernillary” hybrid looks like…

Back to reality… If things stay the way they are and Democrats actually vote for policy over looks, sex and personality, Democrats will have some tough choices to make next year.

As stated above, it’s fair to say that Sanders’ only real weakness when compared to Hillary is on gun control. Not surprising as Sanders is a Senator from Vermont, a rural state that loves its guns. Not out of fear of a rogue American Government mind you, they just love to hunt.

Similarly, it’s fair to say that Clinton’s only real weakness when compared to Bernie is on money control, Wall Street in particular. Again, it’s no surprise when you consider Hillary was a Senator from New York and represented Wall Street in congress.

Clearly the line of differences have been drawn early in this campaign and it seems to boil down to geography. But the questions remain, who will evolve more on the other candidate’s weakness and in the end, which issue is more important? Guns or money?

As far back as I can remember, Bernie has been a bank busting bad ass. The self-described democratic socialist wants to reduce income inequality, see the too big to fail banks broken up, the Glass-Steagall Act reintroduced, and wants money out of politics

If Bernie wins the Democratic Nomination, it’s not unthinkable to believe that he will be forced to evolve on gun control. After all, he would then be representing the whole country and not just his rural state. Would he go as far as Clinton is willing to go to reduce gun violence? I would have to be honest and say probably not.

Hillary Clinton’s strong stance against guns has increased since she realized she can make it a wedge issue between her and Bernie. More power to her. This is one election promise, that in my mind, she is sure to keep.

For her part, Hillary has also come out against Wall Street these last few months, but has not vowed to break up the banks or resurrect Glass-Steagall, preferring to get tough in other ways. It’s no wonder that most progressives don’t believe her when she says she’s against income inequality and big banks.

It’s been said that if Bernie is elected, and he manages to somehow get money out of federal politics, that the NRA would lose much of its power, thereby easing the passage of common sense gun control bills. That would be true if the NRA’s true power came from financing, but its influence comes more from false perception than money.

I’ve also heard arguments stating that if Bernie tackles income inequality, it will reduce crime and therefore gun violence. But I’ve also heard the opposite argument that if Hillary reduces the amount of guns, it will lead to less violence and therefore less inequality.

Speaking as an outside observer, I’m of the opinion that the redistribution of wealth and preventing the next bank collapse and subsequent depression is more important than reducing the 30,000+ gun deaths that America experiences every year. But that’s just me…

Where do you stand? Gun Control or Money Control?


  1. Throughout his many years in Congress, Sanders has done nothing to solve the money issue , nothing. He rendered himself ineffective. No conspiracies, sorry, but the man has reached the level of his competency and isn’t fit for higher office. When you complain about G-S and big banks you show a profound ignorance. G-S did not cover most of the sly ways the sharks have developed to make money. Neither did D-F. We need new, more comprehensive legislation. Small banks evolve into large banks because of funding requirements. Simply breaking big banks into smaller banks won’t change this evolution. Those are the facts of the case. HRC understands this, and more, which is why she gets my vote.

  2. I don’t think I am alone in this opinion- that the difference is in the type of politician, the actual power of majority v money, and how far apathy and cynicism will reach.

    Clinton reminds too many of a ‘career politician’ who will pander and promise but ultimately sell us out. Sanders reminds us of a consistent and honest Quixotic activist who we (progressives) agree with but is ineffective due to the entrenched power of the (insert corrupt whatever here).

    While Sanders has technically “achieved more”, he has been in legislature longer and Clinton, for whatever reason, was ‘held back’ in her SoS role. In “ability to get things done” Sanders has the populace, which is unpredictable, while Clinton has the money and political class, which are at the root of people’s dissatisfaction. This is a debate of hope v. hedging. Do we want change or crumbs?

    On guns v money? While there are a tragic number of deaths and gun-related crimes, there are vastly more money related crimes. These money crimes also affect how we can deal with both situations. Gun crimes are inherently more dramatic and noticeable, so can more easily fan motivations to resolve. Personally, I’ve never faced a gun, but I don’t have Single Payer which has forced me into debt.

  3. Gun violence is my #1 issue and the reason I will support Hillary in the primary. I also believe Bernie has commendable intentions about getting money out of politics but it is all smoke and mirrors with ZERO chance that he can do so! I have to go with the candidate I believe has proven to be more effective throughout her career and that is Hillary. To me Bernie’s primary contribution to the primary campaign has been to nudge Hillary a bit to the left.

  4. There certainly is no easy answer to this question, and as much as I find the amount of damage guns do to our society, with seemly a child being killed or injured or a mass shooting happening at nearly any location, on any day, I still favor your stance that the big money that is (or maybe already has) attempting to take over our democracy and turn it into some form of oligarchy, with theological and fascist overtones is the thing that needs the most attentiion. Long sentence, I know…..Thanks.

Leave a Comment