Why Won't Hillary State the Difference Between a Socialist and a Democrat?

January 06, 2016

Editor

Hillary Clinton refused to explain the difference between a socialist and a Democrat to Chris Matthews in an interview on MSNBC Tuesday.

Clinton, who called herself a "progressive Democrat," sidestepped the question at first, saying this was really a better question for Bernie Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist.

When pressed, Clinton simply replied "I'm not one" before talking about how much she wants to get people to work together.

Glenn shared his reaction on radio Wednesday, saying it fascinated him that she couldn't answer the question---even though it was set up as a "softball question."

"She won't answer that at least for political reasons because the left falls apart," Glenn said.

Listen to the segment or read the transcript below.

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors.

GLENN: CNN asked me if there were any questions that I would ask the Democratic candidates during their first debate. And I said, "Yes. What's the difference between a Democrat and a socialist?" I think that's really important to know. What's the difference? Bernie Sanders is an avowed socialist. Hillary Clinton says she's a progressive Democrat. What's the difference between a progressive Democrat and a socialist?

A fascinating piece of audio. I mean, this is really, truly fascinating. Chris Matthews asked this of Hillary Clinton, and he is asking her in a way to help her. He's not coming to her and saying, "You're a socialist." He's actually trying to get her to say what the difference is. In his mind, there is a real difference between a socialist and a Democrat. I'd love to hear him answer this question.

But he sets Hillary Clinton up with what he believes is a softball question, and she cannot answer it. Listen.

CHRIS: What's the difference between a socialist and a Democrat? Is that a question you want to answer, or would you rather not?

PAT: And how about that too -- how about that qualifier, is that a question you would like to answer, or would you rather not? Because I can let that go if that's too hard.

GLENN: There was a real setup when he was talking about -- you know, before he got to that.

PAT: Yeah. Because he said, I want to help you out.

GLENN: That were his words. I want to help you out. Okay? Then, what is the difference? Do you want to answer that or not?

HILLARY: You know, you would have to ask --

CHRIS: Well, see, I'm asking you. You're a Democrat. He's a socialist. Would you like somebody to call you a socialist? I wouldn't like somebody calling me a socialist.

HILLARY: No, but I'm not one. I'm not one.

CHRIS: Okay. What's the difference between a socialist and a Democrat? That's the question.

HILLARY: Well, I can tell you what I am. I'm a progressive Democrat.

CHRIS: How is that different than a socialist?

HILLARY: Who likes to get things done. And who believes that we're better off in this country when we're trying to solve problems together. Getting people to work together. There will always be strong feelings, and I respect that, you know, from the far right, the far left, Libertarians. But whoever it might be, we need to get people working together. We got to get the economy fixed. We've got to get --

PAT: What a crap answer.

STU: There will always be strong feelings.

CHRIS: I think the difference is -- and Debbie Wasserman Schultz wouldn't answer the question either. I asked her. Because I know politically you have to keep together -- the center left and the left has to work together. I know all that.

GLENN: Stop. Stop. Do you hear that?

PAT: Yeah.

GLENN: I know you don't want to answer this because you have to keep all of you together. But he started with, "I wouldn't want to be called a socialist." So here's what's happening here, in this, he's talking about -- he is saying, "I wouldn't want to be called that. I would want to be called a socialist. What's the difference between the two?"

PAT: She can't.

GLENN: Then he realizes she can't answer that or she won't answer that at least for political reasons because the left falls apart. They're trying to tell us that we shouldn't listen to people like Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz, he is crazy! He's crazy. And they've got to get Ted Cruz out of that party.

However, the leading candidate and one of the leading voices on the left from MSNBC, they're having a discussion that you probably don't even want to say that because you have to keep all of the crazies together. Isn't that interesting? They admit it!

PAT: Uh-huh.

GLENN: While they are telling us we have to separate ourselves from each other.

PAT: Yeah. And her bogus, BS, totally garbage answer on what a progressive Democrat answer is. It's not about people getting together and working together. That's about the government doing things for people. If it -- it's conservatives who are about people doing things together. That's conservatism. We all help one another. We keep the government out of it. And we want them at arm's length. Her deal is she wants the government to do it.

STU: She said that she understands that people have strong feelings, though.

GLENN: She could be saying, bringing people together in groups. For instance, we want the labor unions -- I'm being sincere. We want the labor unions and the Department of Labor to work together.

PAT: Or it could be, we like to bring people to groups and put them behind barbed wire, like they did in World War II. You know, it could be that.

GLENN: Right. Right. The progressives did that. She continues to say, she's an early 20th century American progressive. But really from the roots of the progressive -- they were all socialists. All of them were socialists. The only reason why they weren't communists is because the progressives, those socialists didn't believe in a violent overthrow of the United States government. They thought, "We'll just do it slowly. We'll progress into socialism." So there is no difference between a progressive and a socialist. Anybody who tells you differently is lying to you.

PAT: Communist with patience.

GLENN: Communists with patience. That's all they are.

STU: Yeah. And it's speed of delivery, right?

GLENN: Yes. It's why Barack Obama signed in a -- in gun control yesterday in his executive order because he knows, if Hillary Clinton gets in, she'll leave that in and build on top of it even more gun control. It's progressive. Little, teeny steps to get you where you want to go.

STU: Uh-huh. What is the endgame of Chris Matthews in this clip? What's he doing? Is he trying to say -- well, it's obvious there's a difference between socialists and Democrats. But you can't say it because you have a little political group to keep together. Is there any more to that clip where he explains what the difference is? Does he even say it?

PAT: No. No.

STU: Because I can't detect it anymore. There was a time where I guess you could.

GLENN: Let me say this. Here's good news from the Democratic front. And I can't remember the numbers exactly, but I think 54 percent -- let me just -- let me be crazy wrong in the other direction.

30 percent -- I believe it's 54 percent, but 30 percent of the Trump supporters are Reagan Democrats. So they're Democrats.

That tells me that there are Democrats out there that want an FDR-style Democrat in office. Now, I don't want an FDR-style. That's a progressive. And I don't want an FDR. But there are those Democrats that want an FDR-style president. And they don't buy into this Marxism that is so blatantly obvious with Barack Obama. And they don't like Hillary Clinton.

So a very bad number is 30 percent of the support coming for Donald Trump is -- is from a Democrat. So maybe there's a difference there.

STU: I don't know. I mean, it's funny because you see this --

GLENN: It's an America first -- the difference I think is --

STU: Big government control.

GLENN: Big government control, but America first.

STU: Right. Which is kind of like that old-school union. What the unions used to be back in the day.

GLENN: Yes. Yes. More of a, I hate to say it, national socialist.

STU: Hmm. The question about whether socialists and Democrats are the same is being answered by the market, right?

GLENN: Yes, they are the same.

STU: Right now, Bernie Sanders who is an admitted socialist has 35 percent of the vote. Which you might recognize is about roughly what Donald Trump has out of Republicans. Now, that's about the same percentage. He's sitting here running -- he's in second place in the primary. And he's saying he's a socialist.

Now, she has almost identical policies to him up and down the line, which is why she can't make the distinction. She just doesn't want the branding. But the Democrats themselves are accepting the branding. They don't mind it. They're coming out and saying, "You know what -- and this is a prediction you made long ago, that people would come out and just start saying it. Well, is there a clear example of people coming out and saying it when you're saying -- a guy who has admitted he's a socialist, has a third of the vote from the Democratic Party. So you could say, "Well, there might be a slight difference here or there." But the vast -- the general vibe of the party is we accept these values.

GLENN: And here's the other thing, if you don't think America is a progressive nation, you have to look at 35 percent is going for socialist. Then what is it? 35 percent is going for -- or 40 percent is going for Hillary Clinton. What is her number?

STU: No, she's higher than that. She's in the 50s.

GLENN: She's in the 50s. Okay. So that's one side. 30 percent of the other side is going for Donald Trump. He is a progressive. He is a national progressive. And that's -- that's who he is. So, you know, you've got, what? 50 percent of this country saying, I'm cool with that. I am cool with at least an FDR-style presidency.

PAT: Except I don't think Trump supporters don't think that's what Trump is. At least the Republicans ones.

STU: Right.

PAT: They don't believe that he's the progressive that he is. They don't understand it. They don't get it. They don't care.

GLENN: How? How? How?

PAT: All they care about is his brashness. That's all they care about.

JEFFY: Well, and his management.

GLENN: No, come on. Don't be sarcastic on this. I'm really trying to understand --

JEFFY: They are.

GLENN: I don't think there's a way if you're intelligent at all, that if you're honest at all, if you look at his record of what he's done and said in the past and see him as anything, but a progressive. He said in the Republican debate, nationalized health care works.

JEFFY: Right. Right.

PAT: So you said it in your disclaimer. If you're intelligent at all --

GLENN: Or honest.

PAT: Or honest.

GLENN: I think there's a lot of intelligent people who are hoping that he is what they want him to be.

JEFFY: Right. The guy that will get things done. The management.

GLENN: Right. It's the same thing -- you know, reasonable people who voted for Barack Obama because he was about hope and change. And you talk to them, "No, listen. What is he saying about Jeremiah Wright?" That doesn't matter. He wants to change things this way. And they refuse to listen to it. So that's not intelligence. That's intellectual honesty.

Featured Image: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks to guests gathered for a town hall meeting at the Orpheum Theater on January 5, 2016 in Sioux City, Iowa. Clinton, who is leading the race for the Democratic presidential nomination in Iowa, had three campaign stops scheduled in Iowa today. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

Does France's latest move PROVE lawfare is on the rise?

Sam Tarling / Stringer | Getty Images

An all-too-familiar story unfolded in France this week: the is law being weaponized against a "far-right" candidate. Does that ring a bell?

Glenn was taken aback earlier this week when he learned that Marine Le Pen, a popular French conservative, had been banned from the 2027 election following a controversial conviction. The ruling shocked French conservatives and foreign politicians alike, many of whom saw Le Pen as France’s best conservative hope. President Trump called it a "very big deal," a view shared by French commentators who fear this marks the end of Le Pen’s political career.

But this isn’t just about France—it’s a symptom of a larger threat looming over the West.

A double standard?

Fmr. President Sarkozy (left) and Fmr. Prime Minister Fillon (right)

BERTRAND GUAY / Contributor, Chesnot / Contributor | Getty Images

As of Sunday, March 30, 2025, Marine Le Pen led the polls with a commanding edge over her rivals, offering French conservatives their strongest shot at the presidency in years. Hours later, that hope crumbled. Found guilty of embezzling EU funds, Le Pen was sentenced to two years of house arrest, fined €100,000 ($108,200), and banned from public office for five years, effective immediately.

Glenn quickly highlighted an apparent double standard. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy and former Prime Minister François Fillon faced similar—or worse—corruption charges, yet neither was barred from office during their political runs. So why Le Pen, and why now? Similar to Trump’s "hush money" trial, legal troubles this late in the election cycle reek of interference. The decision should belong to voters—France’s largest jury—not a courtroom. This appears to be a grave injustice to the French electorate and another crack in democracy’s foundation.

This is NOT about France

Andrei Pungovschi / Stringer | Getty Images

This pattern stretches far beyond France; it’s a tactic we’ve seen before.

In early 2025, Bucharest’s streets erupted in protest after Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the first round of its presidential election. Călin Georgescu, a rising conservative, had clinched an unexpected victory, only to have it stripped away amid baseless claims of Russian interference. His supporters raged against the decision, seeing it as a theft of their voice.

Both Georgescu and Le Pen echo the legal barrage President Trump endured before his 2024 win. The Left hurled every weapon imaginable at him, unleashing unprecedented lawfare. In America, the Constitution held, and the people’s will prevailed.

Now, with Tesla vandalism targeting Elon Musk’s free-speech stance, a coordinated pushback against freedom is clear—spanning France, Romania, the U.S., and beyond.

The war on free will

Chip Somodevilla / Staff | Getty Images

Trump’s 2024 victory doesn’t mean lawfare is dead; Europe shows it’s thriving.

France and Romania prove its effectiveness, sidelining candidates through courts rather than ballots. Glenn warned us about this years ago—when the powerful can’t win at the polls, they turn to the gavel. It’s a chilling trend of stripping voters of their choice and silencing dissent, all the while pawning it off as justice. The playbook is polished and ready, and America’s turn could come sooner than we think.

Melania Trump's fashion influence inspires the next generation

Aaron P. Bernstein / Stringer | Getty Images

First Lady Melania Trump’s impeccable style has long captivated admirers across the globe, but for one young woman, it sparked a creative revolution.

Lorelai, a young Glenn Beck fan who requested a degree of anonymity, first met Glenn while attending America Fest 2024 in Phoenix, Arizona with her grandmother. An aspiring fashion designer and illustrator, Lorelai shared with Glenn some of her sketches of characters from Glenn’s latest book, Chasing Embers. She also explained how Melania Trump became the cornerstone of her artistic journey, inspiring her to craft modest yet beautiful clothing that redefines modern fashion.

Melania Trump’s elegance—stunning, powerful, and undeniably feminine—first captured Lorelai’s attention during the First Lady’s time in the White House. Unlike the casual, often immodest trends dominating her peers’ wardrobes, Melania’s wardrobe exuded grace and sophistication. From tailored coats to flowing gowns, her choices were a masterclass in balancing boldness with dignity, a philosophy that resonated deeply with Lorelai. This admiration grew into inspiration as Lorelai began designing apparel specifically with Melania in mind, aspiring to design pieces that could match the First Lady’s grace. She strove to reflect Melania’s breathtaking style in her sketches in an effort to demonstrate how modesty can be beautiful.

The First Lady’s poised and graceful presence has redefined modesty for the modern era. To Lorelai, the First Lady’s style proves that more fabric offers boundless room for imagination, allowing personality to shine without sacrificing dignity. Melania embodies this perfectly—her fashion commands attention with stunning, memorable elegance. Inspired by this, Lorelai’s mission is to craft clothing for her generation that mirrors Melania’s influence, blending contemporary flair with classic beauty.

After her meeting with Glenn at America Fest, Lorelai’s passion and resolve have only deepened. Through fashion and art, Lorelai hopes to inspire others with the same grace that Melania Trump exemplifies. Below are some of Lorelai's sketches she was eager to share with Glenn.

Melania Trump: First Lady

I really adore First Lady Melania Trump’s grace and timeless beauty. She is extremely intelligent and brave but also strong and poised. Her fashion style displays these traits. I was inspired to create these outfits for our First Lady in hopes that she would see these drawings. -Lorelai

Melania Trump: Lady Liberty

We, as a country, will be celebrating next year our 250th anniversary of independence. The designs that inspired this patriotic gown came from Lady Liberty and Lady Columbia art. I also love our American flag, and this design is a combination of all three. -Lorelai

Chasing Embers Character Art (Ember)

I chose to draw the characters Sky, Azaz and Ember from Glenn Beck and Mikayla G. Hedrick’s Chasing Embers series. -Lorelai

Chasing Embers Concept Art (Ember)

I was inspired to draw a younger and teen version for Sky and Ember. -Lorelai

Chasing Embers Character Art (Sky)

Chasing Embers Concept Art (Azaz)

I also gave multiple outfits designs for Sky and Azaz. I loved that their personalities and character development meant in my mind a wardrobe development too. -Lorelai

Glenn: Government workers bought luxury cars with YOUR tax dollars

Andrew Harnik / Staff | Getty Images

The deep state isn’t a conspiracy theory — it’s a reality. And the corrupt, free-spending Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service is just one example of how Washington insiders enrich themselves.

A little-known agency in Washington perfectly encapsulates everything wrong with our bloated, corrupt government: the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. It should be the poster child of everything that Elon Musk is exposing.

The agency was established in 1947 under the Labor Management Relations Act to serve as an independent agency mediating disputes between unions and businesses — a noble mission, perhaps. But like so many government institutions, it has rotted into something far removed from its original purpose.

The FMCS goes beyond mismanagement into blatant corruption and theft.

What was once a mechanism for labor stability has morphed into an unchecked slush fund — an exclusive playground for bureaucrats living high on taxpayer dollars.

The FMCS is a textbook case of government waste, an agency that no one was watching, where employees didn’t even bother showing up for work — some hadn’t for years. And yet they still collected paychecks and spent government money — our money — on their personal luxuries.

Luxury cars and cell phone bills

The Department of Government Efficiency discovered how FMCS employees used government credit cards — intended for official business — to lease luxury cars, cover personal cell phone bills, and even subscribe to USA Today. The agency’s information technology director, James Donnan, apparently billed taxpayers his wife’s cell phone bill, cable TV subscriptions in multiple homes, and personal subscriptions.

FMCS officials commissioned portraits of themselves and hung them in their offices, and you footed the bill. They took exotic vacations and hired their friends and relatives to keep the gravy train rolling.

The FMCS goes beyond mismanagement into blatant corruption and theft — and it went on for decades, unnoticed and unchallenged.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order to abolish the FMCS — a necessary and long-overdue move. But the FMCS is just one of many agencies within the federal government burning through billions of taxpayer dollars. How many more slush funds exist in the shadows, funneling money into the pockets of bureaucrats who produce nothing? How many government-funded NGOs operate in direct opposition to American interests?

Perhaps the most disturbing question is why Americans tolerate such corruption. Why do so many Americans tolerate this? Why is the left — supposedly the party of the people — defending the very institutions that rob working-class Americans blind?

Corruption beyond bureaucracy

The recent rallies led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), and their socialist acolytes claim to be a grassroots uprising against corruption and greed. But GPS data from these rallies tells a different story. The majority of attendees aren’t ordinary citizens fed up with the status quo. They’re professional activists — serial agitators who bounce from protest to protest.

Roughly 84% of devices tracked at these rallies were present at multiple Kamala Harris events. A staggering 31% appeared at over 20 separate demonstrations, tied to Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and pro-Palestinian causes.

Many of these organizations receive federal grant money — our tax dollars — and they’re using those funds to protest the very policies that threaten to cut off their financial lifeline.

This isn’t democracy in action. This is political theater — astroturfing perfected. And the American taxpayer is funding it.

Rooting out corruption

Trump was a battering ram against this corrupt system. Elon Musk is a surgeon, meticulously exposing the infection that has festered for decades — and that’s why the leftists hate him even more than they hate Trump. Musk threatens to dismantle the financial web that sustains their entire operation.

When we allow the government to grow unchecked and our leaders to prioritize their own wealth and power over the good of the nation, figures like Trump and Musk are necessary. Rome didn’t fall because of an external invasion but rather due to internal decay that looked an awful lot like what we see today.

We must demand better. We must refuse to tolerate this corruption any longer. The FMCS may be gone, but the fight to root out this deep-seated corruption is far from over.

Editor's Note: This article was originally published on TheBlaze.com.

Did the CIA hide the real truth behind JFK's assassination?

Bettmann / Contributor, NurPhoto / Contributor | Getty Images

Many were disappointed by the recent release of the JFK files, frustrated by the apparent lack of answers to decades-old questions. The problem? They’re asking the wrong question.

Everyone wants a "who"—a smoking gun, someone to blame. It’s understandable; Americans crave justice for a slain president, to hold the culprits of one of the 20th century’s greatest crimes accountable. But the real answer isn’t a "who"—it’s a "what." That "what" is the CIA and proof of their nefarious dealings since the 1960s.

In his most recent TV special, Glenn delves into the JFK files, where he found the crucial information that everyone else seemed to miss. Be sure to watch the TV special here.

The CIA's Dirty Fingerprints

Did Oswald act alone? I tested the Warren Commission's "lone gunman" narrative and discovered something SHOCKING.

Watch the full experiment TONIGHT at 9PM ET only on https://t.co/Ki1CX633fq pic.twitter.com/DwNSUFXJ1r
— Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) March 26, 2025

While the recent JFK files don’t explicitly pin the assassination on the CIA, the evidence between the lines is compelling.

If you follow Glenn on X, you’ve seen his newest artifact: an exact replica of Lee Harvey Oswald’s rifle. Glenn tested it at the range, attempting to replicate the notoriously difficult shot Oswald allegedly made that fateful day in Dallas. While Glenn shares more takeaways in his TV special, one thing stood out immediately: the rifle’s abysmal quality, its shoddy scope, and the odd caliber of ammunition it uses.

Oswald’s rifle, a Mannlicher-Carcano, is chambered in 6.5mm—an unusual caliber. Much like today, the average gun store in the ‘60s didn’t stock 6.5mm rounds. The largest known supply was owned by the CIA, who had shipped the ammo from Greece after World War II. Suspiciously, there’s no record of where Oswald got his ammunition, but the JFK files confirm that the gun store where he bought the Mannlicher-Carcano had CIA connections.

It’s well-known that Oswald defected to the USSR and lived there before returning to the U.S. The JFK files reveal that from the moment he touched down stateside, the CIA tracked him like a hawk. They followed him across the country and even to Mexico City—but, conveniently, seemed to lose him in Dallas just as President Kennedy arrived. What a coincidence.

Whether by design or gross incompetence, the CIA greased Oswald’s path, letting him slip unhindered into that sixth-floor Book Depository window.

The Cover-Up

SAUL LOEB / Staff | Getty Images

If the JFK files aren’t the smoking gun many hoped for, why did the CIA fight so hard to keep them buried?

The answer is trust. Hard as it may be to imagine today, Americans in the ‘60s trusted their government—at least more than they do now. This cover-up preserved that trust longer than it might have lasted, allowing the CIA to pull off more scandals before the public caught on. From Benghaziand 9/11 to COVID-19 and January 6, the same dirty marks found in the JFK files stain these events. It’s about saving face. The files make the CIA look incompetent at best, complicit at worst.

This might feel like common knowledge today—especially to Glenn’s audience—but 40 or 50 years ago, saying such things could land you in the loony bin. It’s taken 60 years of growing suspicion to reach this point. Imagine if the JFK files had been available back then. Could we have stopped six decades of CIA shenanigans in their tracks?

The thought is chilling.

What Now?

Fotosearch / Stringer | Getty Images

The files don’t name a mastermind or explicitly confirm the darkest JFK assassination conspiracies that have swirled for decades—but they’re far from empty. They expose a disturbing truth: the CIA’s unchecked power in the ‘60s echoes into today.

In one of his most exciting TV specials yet, Glenn delves deep into the files, proving why we can’t ignore these revelations. Stop chasing a "who" and start demanding accountability for the "what." Only by confronting this can we hope to rein in the agency that’s dodged scrutiny for too long.

Glenn's Show Prep