51吃瓜

The Democratic presidential candidates could not be more diametrically opposed to each other.

We have all known Hillary Clinton since her husband Bill ran for president in 1992 against George H.W. Bush. After becoming a public figure, she carved out her own political career that saw her go from first lady to听, winning the New York seat in the Senate in 2000.

Eight years later, Clinton announced her candidacy for the 2008 presidential campaign, but was defeated in the Democratic primaries by then-Illinois Senator Barack Obama. The latter appointed her听, a position she held from 2009 to 2013 in one of the most critical periods of history.

Clinton is widely thought of as the pragmatic candidate for the Democratic Party whose听听on certain topics draws her closer to some in the Republican Party. She supported the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, and actively endorsed the NATO-led intervention in Libya in 2011.

Many of her critics disparagingly argue that she has always been part of the听. Of course, she has. At the beginning, she was clearly facilitated by President Bill Clinton鈥檚 role and capitalized on his office as a springboard for听. But听Hillary succeeded thanks to听鈥擯resident Obama once called her 鈥渨icked smart鈥濃�攔einventing herself from time to time.

Think about听, which led to prison overcrowding and disproportionately affected African Americans, who face the highest rate of incarceration in the US. Now, she positions herself as a champion for black rights and听. Or consider her lobbying hard in favor of her husband鈥檚 1996听 that gutted social services and had听, especially women and children. Now, she is an听.

A Step to the Left

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders made his way through the US political , until turning to the Democratic Party in 2015. At the beginning of his political career, he was elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont鈥檚 most populous city, three consecutive times. After that, he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1991, where he served for 16 years, followed by election to the Senate in 2006.

During his career, Sanders has stood out to be a strong advocate of听听like income inequality, LGBT rights, racial discrimination and bank accountability. He was also an outspoken opponent of US wars in Iraq听补苍诲听voted against the use of force in that country in both 1991 and 2003.

Bernie Sanders 漏 Shutterstock

Sanders has brought a breath of fresh air to the US presidential primaries. He is positioning himself as the anti-establishment candidate that Clinton represents. He threw down the gauntlet against the foreign policy听. By the same token, he is refocusing US foreign policy into a domestic issue. More than once, Sanders has advocated cutting down on defense spending in order to divert money to the public sector. His politics has always been driven by interest in economic inequality and wealth redistribution, as well as corporations and Wall Street鈥檚 stranglehold on politics in the United States. To Sanders, foreign policy is听.

However, the claims that Sanders espouses a socialist foreign policy are not supported by facts. For instance, even though he spoke out against deploying American troops on the ground in Iraq and arming Syrian rebels, Sanders supports the US bombing campaign against the Islamic State (IS). Even so, he is depicted by mainstream as pacifist and isolationist. If opposing regime change is enough to be called isolationist, then Sanders is one.

He can听also be seen as an isolationist if this听means insisting that America stops being the world鈥檚 policeman. Yet it is worth pointing out that Sanders,听, voted for a resolution supporting the air campaign in former Yugoslavia. Sanders actively supported the bombing of Afghanistan in 2001 and the Obama administration鈥檚 drone strikes policy. Bernie 鈥渢he socialist鈥� has not veered far from the Democratic听听during his tenure,听displaying a deep streak of realism.

Sanders鈥� attitude on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict bears more of a听resemblance with听. He supports a two-state solution, while being an advocate of Israel and its security concerns and actively calls on the Palestinians to听听to end terrorism against Israel and recognize its right to exist. Sanders鈥� posture over the Israel-Palestine question, despite added grievances toward him from the left of the Democratic Party, seems likely to tilt him more toward Tel Aviv than Obama.

During the 2014 Gaza War, Sanders excused Israeli actions鈥攖hough calling them heavy-handed. Nevertheless, in 2015, Sanders decided to听听in the US Congress, which was orchestrated in an attempt to derail the nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran.

Overall, we could try to frame Sanders鈥� position within a political realism attitude of restraining American forces abroad. The distinction between interests and vital interests, and the need to align the instruments of power with the intensity of those interests, led Sanders to vote against the invasion of Iraq in 2002, while judiciously supporting the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and the intervention in the Balkans in the 1990s.

Sanders advocates more commitment to diplomacy in order to avoid war and military action, and he endorses a great power cooperation within global institutions and international law. He is closer to the post-hegemonic vision of several scholars: He听听that the US should forgo its dominant role, as the world has changed from the 1990, and share powers with responsible rising hegemons.

Setting Foreign Policy Aside

However, despite the fact that Sanders was able to lay down the line on domestic issues, turning the debate to topics such economic inequality and the shrinking of the middle-class, he abandoned鈥攁t least at the beginning鈥攁 likely and听, namely her hawkish posture on US foreign policy.

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders is much more similar to Obama. He did not support the catastrophic war in Iraq, and he is highly skeptical over the use of military force 鈥渨henever and wherever鈥� American interests are at stake.

Sanders has put himself in an awkward position more than once. When asked about IS, he听听the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan as a moderate Muslim country and then labeled King Abdullah (firstly听听him) as a hero for having called upon a regional Muslim coalition to defeat the Islamic State.

That was a huge gaffe. First, in terms of coalition airstrikes against IS, the role of Jordan was听. The kingdom escalated airstrikes in response to the execution of one of its pilots by IS, but a few months later, US Secretary of Defense Ash Carter听. Also, hearing a self-declared socialist call a ruler of an absolute monarchy with limited tolerance for dissent and restricted freedom of expression a hero was an awkward step.

This is just one example, but it is paradigmatic of Sanders鈥� starting听: He broadly let Clinton handle the topic and has played along with his rival鈥檚 narrative thus far.

On US foreign policy, Clinton has been considered overwhelmingly superior in comparison to Sanders. As former secretary of state, she is a safe bet. Unlike Clinton, whose campaign team is filled with several hundred foreign policy advisers,听鈥攗ntil recently. Hiring several experienced foreign policy advisers is a must.

In the most recent Democrat debates, Sanders appeared more comfortable and unabashed in handling foreign policy issues. Bernie fired back criticism about his alleged inexperience and attacked Hillary. In fact, although he was depicted as a lightweight in US foreign policy and was frequently labeled a beginner, he has had a long tenure in the House of Representatives and Senate, which gives him more foreign policy experience than听听by the time they ran for office.

When Clinton went on the attack against Sanders,听, he听struck back at her continuous approval of Henry Kissinger鈥斺�渙ne of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country,鈥� according to Bernie. When Clinton came out criticizing Sanders for his words about Iran (鈥渁 huge step forward for warming ties with a powerful country鈥�), he criticized her support for regime change and hawkish posturing. (Throughout her time in office, Clinton actively backed the United Nations resolution that led to airstrikes听,听and she supported the 听Iraq War but later.)

Clinton is a听听of the use of military force whenever and wherever American interests are at stake. With Hillary in office, US foreign policy is likely to be similar to that of the听Obama administration, but more hawkish. She is on the Democrat鈥檚 right-wing and believes in a government approach to world affairs that is committed to the听,听where the US is听entitled to global leadership and is听vital to maintaining the stability of order.

Having听served in the Obama administration for four years, she听harshly criticized听鈥溾�澨齠oreign policy approach, arguing that the US should strike a better balance between overreaching overseas and being so restrained that conflict can spiral out of control.

Hillary Clinton 漏 Shutterstock

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders is much more similar to Obama. He did not support the catastrophic war in Iraq, and he is highly skeptical over the use of military force 鈥渨henever and wherever鈥� American interests are at stake. This position reflects the main concern of Sanders: that the real threats to the US are at home.

Indeed, without concerted efforts within international law to address the problems of the world properly, America will never be able to rebuild its strength at home鈥攏amely a growing economy and the resilience of its听founding values. As emphasized, Sanders is not a pacifist, nor an isolationist. He is a听听whose rejection of deploying听US troops across the globe听is well-grounded in history and logic.

Sober Realism

First, US foreign policy is not going to take center stage. Despite a year of turmoil and new threats abroad, Americans are overwhelmingly focused on domestic policy issues. Clinton and Sanders follow suit. They are more concerned about state of the economy and unemployment, as well as the health care system and college tuition.

This could play in Sanders鈥� favor, considering his听听as honest and less embedded with the establishment, while Clinton is often associated with untrustworthiness of the听听补苍诲听.

Second, it is time for Hillary Clinton to take seriously the threat posed by Bernie Sanders. She should stop her 鈥溾�� tactics, which already proved unsuccessful in 2008 against Obama. Her 鈥渨arlike鈥� posture is carefully thought out for drawing support from undecided voters, especially from white Anglo-Saxon Protestants and dithering Republicans.

But America has changed, and so have the听.听听and the impact of black and Hispanic voters tilt the balance of power toward the more democratic candidate. For now, Clinton has more support among African American and Hispanic communities than Sanders, but she must not this take for granted.

Clinton should do more than keep on insisting听that she is used to the nitty-gritty of politics or that she has a long story of support for women and children鈥檚 empowerment. The distrust of Hillary Clinton is due to her double-faced attitude over the years. On the one hand, she earned听, while on the other she asserts听听on the financial sector.听听have raised money for her campaign, while she positions herself as the

An obvious discrepancy between words and deeds can be costly. What sets Bernie Sanders apart in this political contest is that he seems to have stuck to his principled stance throughout his political career. Whether this will be enough to win him the Democratic Party nomination remains to be seen. With Hillary Clinton, we know fully well that she is capable of听changing her colors any time听it suits her.

The views expressed in this article are the author鈥檚 own and do not necessarily reflect 51吃瓜鈥檚 editorial policy.

Photo Credit:听听/ / /听听

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your听donation听is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a听sponsor.