Did Bernie Sanders Just Go Negative on Hillary Clinton?

Andrew Harnik/AP


With the Democratic presidential race neck and neck in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, the volleys between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are heating up. Clinton has been slamming Sanders for his positions on gun control and health care. And now Sanders is firing back—in a way—and coming close to breaking his career-long vow to eschew negative ads. 

In his latest ad, called “Two Visions,” Sanders contrasts his approach to Wall Street reform with another “Democratic view”—though he does not mention Clinton by name. In the ad, the Vermont senator gazes into the camera and says, “There are two Democratic visions for regulating Wall Street. One says it’s okay to take millions from big banks and then tell them what to do.” That certainly could be interpreted as a dig at Clinton for collecting donations from Wall Street over the years. Sanders continues: “My plan: Break up the big banks, close the tax loopholes, and make them pay their fair share.”

This wouldn’t be the first time that Sanders has highlighted Clinton’s ties to Wall Street. (Remember the second debate?) But this ad is the closest the Sanders campaign has come to going back on its promise not to hit Clinton with negative ads. In June, Tad Devine, a top Sanders strategist, told Mother Jones that the campaign wouldn’t even engage in comparison ads.

So, Devine notes, [Sanders] will not directly criticize or poke at Clinton. For sure, no personal attacks or cheap shots. “That won’t help him,” Devine says. “He rejects the status quo of politics.” Sanders won’t even do a straight-up contrast ad—as in, Bernie Sanders believes X about subject Y, but Hillary Clinton believes Z. “If we do that, we’re done,” Devine says. “If we do a classic comparative ad, it’s over. We’ll have to be smarter.”

This new ad is not a true comparative ad—given that it doesn’t name Clinton—but it’s getting close. And there are still two weeks to the Iowa caucuses.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.