The legislation outlined by Sanders Monday, which Democrats are calling College for All, would make public colleges and universities tuition-free to students with family income up to $125,000; make community colleges tuition-free; cut student loan interest rates in half; and triple funding for the Federal Work-Study program.Emphasis mine. That was the biggest distinction between Clinton's and Sanders' plans: Clinton did not believe that students whose families could afford college tuition needed to have their education subsidized. Sanders resoundingly dismissed out of hand that qualification throughout the Democratic primary.
The outline of the bill announced Monday hews closely to that final Clinton plan, including the promise that colleges and universities would be tuition-free for students from households earning less than $125,000."Hews closely." Indeed!
Clinton is, naturally, not being given credit for the plan. Because of course she isn't.
Haha remember when I said people preferred to listen to men who told them what they wanted to hear than a woman who told them the truth?— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) April 4, 2017
I also said:
Trump (and Sanders) got lots of credit and gushing admiration for "telling it like it is," but when it was a woman who was legitimately telling it like it is, and crafting policy to address those realities instead of making promises that no president could possibly keep, the response was FUCK YOU, LADY.This is a perfect, terrible example of the dynamic I was addressing. Sanders would shout about how Clinton's proposal wasn't progressive enough, implying (though never outright saying) that Clinton just didn't want to provide free college to everyone, because she was the cold-hearted, insufficiently progressive establishment candidate who didn't know how to dream big enough.
Really, it just comes down to the fact that Hillary Clinton was the only one running for president rather than dictator. She knew she'd have to work with Congress and a divided public, not just wave a scepter and command the defense budget be reallocated to the Department of Free Shit.
That was her fatal flaw: Running for the presidency as though she wanted to actually be a president.
But the reality was that Clinton was determined to introduce and advocate workable policy, as opposed to endorsing fantasies that she knew could never be properly funded. It wasn't insufficient progressivism; it was evidence of the preparedness and pragmatism that would have made her an effective leader of this nation.
Now that Sanders is actually expected to make good on his promises, he has to rely on the groundwork laid by the pragmatic progressive Hillary Clinton to get shit done. Not that you'd know it if you waited for him to admit it.
Y'all don't need to wonder "what is Hillary even doing?" anymore. The answer is: Providing the framework for workable progressive policy.— Melissa McEwan (@Shakestweetz) April 4, 2017
This is a good policy. I hope the Republicans agree (and expect that they won't). The thing is, it was a good policy back when it was Hillary Clinton's idea, too.