Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., says the debate over whether Hillary Clinton is progressive or not is “silly,” and said there’s plenty in Clinton’s background to show she’s a good candidate for progressive voters.
“She’s been fighting for human rights, equal rights, opportunities for everybody to have a fair shot her whole life,” Stabenow told the Washington Examiner. “I met her when he was with the Children’s Defense Fund working to protect children. So this is just kind of a silly debate.”
Stabenow said she met the former first lady while she was a lawyer for the Children’s Defense Fund during her post-graduate study.
Still, the surging candidacy of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., has put pressure on Clinton to show she can appeal to the left. Sanders has repeatedly questioned Clinton’s progressive credentials, and Clinton has fought back, accusing her opponent of an “artful smear” in suggesting she could be bought by donations from big banks and $675,000 in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs.
But Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., says that just because Clinton represented Wall Street as a New York senator doesn’t mean she’s beholden to big banking special interests now. In fact, Klobuchar said, she may simply know more about the banking world form her experience, and that shouldn’t be viewed negatively.
“She’s someone who does understand business who also is a progressive,” Klobuchar said. “You can be both.”
A group of Democratic senators will hit the campaign trail this weekend to campaign for Clinton in New Hampshire, where Sanders is a far ahead in the polls.
The only women senator who isn’t publicly backing Clinton is Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a fiercely independent voice whose loyal supporters pressed her to challenge Clinton for the nomination early in the race.
Other women senators have urged her to formally endorse Clinton, but Warren has so far kept her powder dry and stayed publicly neutral in the race.
