Supporters of Bernie Sanders like to say that their candidate is a true progressive, while Hillary Clinton is not. Some have even gone so far as to label her as a corporate dupe (and no different from Republicans). To back up their position, they like to point out that Clinton even referred to herself as a moderate recently.
She did refer to herself as a moderate -- and that was smart politics. I know that many on both the left and the right like to think that the majority of Americans agree with them -- but that simply isn't true. Being on the far left myself, I wish it was true. But the fact is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have enough members to swing a presidential election. They must appeal to Independents to get elected -- and most of those Independents are moderates, and they prefer to vote for a moderate. They almost always vote for the candidate they perceive as being closest to the center.
Is she really a moderate? Is she someone progressives have nothing in common with? I say the answer to both of those questions is NO. She's a lot closer to the center than any of the Republicans, but she is a true progressive -- and her values and issue stands are ones that a progressive could be happy with.
Just yesterday, she announced a plan to take on Wall Street. Note this from CNN:
"The bottom line is that we can never allow what happened in 2008 to happen again," Clinton wrote, referencing the market crash that led to the Great Recession. "Just as important, we have to encourage Wall Street to live up to its proper role in our economy -- helping Main Street grow and prosper." Clinton proposes a four-pronged approach to tackling Wall Street: Increasing accountability by punishing criminal behavior, instituting a fee on excessive leverage and short-term borrowing, more oversight on hedge funds and investment banks and a tax on short-term trading. "People who commit serious financial crimes should face serious consequences, including big fines, disbarment from working in the industry and the prospect of imprisonment," Clinton wrote, responding to liberals who question why no Wall Street executives went to jail for seemingly criminal behavior during the 2008 crash. And the day before that, she announced that she does not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Add to that her opposition to drilling in the Arctic, her endorsement of equal rights for all Americans (minority rights, women's rights, LGBT rights), her strong support of voting rights, her support for raising the minimum wage, her opposition to any kind of cuts in Social Security and Medicare, her plan to make college affordable for all who want to go, her support for measures to curb global climate change, and her opposition to tax cuts for the rich and corporations.
There is more, but that should be enough to prove my point. If Clinton could get something done (after being elected) in just a few of those areas, she would have a good (and progressive) presidency. And any person who refuses to vote for Clinton in a general election because they believe she's not a progressive (or not as progressive as Bernie) would be cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Bernie Sanders is a progressive candidate. Hillary Clinton is a progressive candidate. And Joe Biden is also a progressive candidate (should he choose to run). Democrats are lucky this time, because they will be nominating a candidate who believes in progressive values and policies (regardless of who wins the nomination).
Sanders supporters like to think they are backing the only true progressive in the race. They are wrong. Hillary Clinton is a true progressive -- and only die-hard Hillary-haters can deny that.