I know I will be celebrating the election of President Clinton – as such, and not just the dodging of a bullet named Trump. But Sanders would have been better still.
Thank you–that’s very helpful! Note that none of that is in the OP’s link; indeed, I followed the OP’s link three deep (OP, OP’s link, link from OP’s link, video embedded in link from OP’s link) and none of that was there. The second exchange is the one where he mentions “demands.” And the interviewer is asking a very leading question, suggesting a quid pro quo is standard, and Sanders STILL refuses to say he wants a quid pro quo; instead, he circles back to the issues he thinks are important (and which DSeid so dismissively refers to as a “stump speech”–yeah, if you insist always on talking about issues when it’s time to give a speech, it IS going to sound like your stump speech when you discuss issues, and that’s a good thing).
As jsgoddess says, it’s a tempest in a teapot.
Look, I clearly support Sanders. I clearly have some issues with Clinton. But you know what I don’t do? I don’t keep making threads that attack Clinton as some Pernicious Threat To Democracy. I don’t keep demonizing Clinton as a terrible human being. I don’t keep blowing shit way out of proportion.
Why not? Two reasons. First, I try to be honest, and I don’t like to be the sort of person that relies on distortion in order to make my points. Second, it ain’t good for progressivism to do that. Ultimately we progressives are going to have to stick together if we want to see any real change in this country.
On Facebook I’m chastising folks almost entirely in the opposite direction, have actually unfriended some Sanders supporters over their demonization of Clinton. Here, it’s mostly in the opposite direction, from just a couple of posters. And those posters should be ashamed of themselves.
There are legitimate grounds on which to criticize Sanders. This is definitely not one of them.
Maybe closer to a rain shower.
The OP makes it out to be a category 5 hurricane.
You are right about the Republicans. I doubt if most will admit it, but most establishment Republicans would FAR rather have Hillary than Trump OR Cruz in the White House. She’d protect their key interests: Wall Street and keeping those oh-so-profitable wars in the Middle East going for Halliburton & Company.
You might be wrong about Bernie Dems.
This is nonsense, Evil Captor. Clinton will continue working for public health care, better education (she’s a datamancer, which is a real problem, but at least she doesn’t bow before the Altar of Privatization), general improvements in the social safety net. Yeah, she’s likely to get us into a war–but she’s less likely to do so than any of the Republican candidates. Yeah, she’s got worrisome ties to Wall Street; but she is also clearly someone that’s decided the best way to change the system is from within, not from without, and while it’s reasonable to disagree with that approach, it’s unfair to dismiss her entirely because of those ties.
I think Sanders would be a lot better, but suggesting that Clinton is simply going to protect key Republican interests is to ignore the meat of her public career.
Besides her failed UHC attempt in '93, what exactly has Clinton done to “change the system” from either inside or out? That’s a serious question. I’m curious, because her main draw seems to be that she’s the status quo candidate who won’t upset the apple cart. She’s basically going to be Obama, Jr. with a bit of Bill thrown in, policy-wise, with none of their charisma.
She’s an incrementalist; one proceeds with the utmost caution and weighing up of all the advantages: there won’t be change in her lifetime, nor in her children’s children’s lifetimes, but by God one day Change will come.
And The Money Keeps Rolling In.
Well, she supported and campaigned for a lot of policies that did irreparable damage to black people. So there’s that.
From my perspective, working in health, disability, and aging, Obama has changed a lot. So if Clinton is going to be like Obama, she is going to be making big changes.
Tell that to Germany or a number of other first world nations. On a first-world basis, you are deeply conservative. Your Democratic party is deeply conservative. Your Republican party is bat-shit-insane.
Saunders is not trying to extort you. He is trying to exhort you. Exhort you to move forward, just as the Democrat Roosevelt II and the Republican Eisenhower did, rather than follow in Reagan’s footsteps. If you can’t handle that, more’s the pity.
Totally false.
I think 30 percent is a pretty high estimate to begin with, but bear in mind two things.
First, a lot of his supporters have never voted before, so that they’re not ‘normally voters.’ And second, a lot of D’s who normally wouldn’t vote will come out against Trump. The only thing that might be worrying would be if some of those D’s who stayed home voted for Trump instead, but I tend to think that’s a highly unlikely scenario.
Bernie isn’t in a very strong bargaining position; he has outside factors working against him.
This, “The Clinton Legacy Is Black Impoverishment—so Why Are We Still Voting for Hillary?” is a source which I’m basing my opinion on. If it’s totally false please point me in the correct direction.
I’m not being snarky either, I’d love more sources. It’d make November easier for me.
No President has been good on crime/drug issues in the last 60 years, at least. Bill Clinton sure wasn’t. Even Obama could be a whole lot better. Hillary Clinton won’t be as bad, times have changed.
I agree completely that 30% of Bernie’s supporters are unlikely to stay home in November. It’s a reasonable assumption that the loudest Bernie or bust screamers very rarely vote Democratic. They’re the same ones I’ve run across in coffee shops over the years whining about Republocrats. Occasionally, they’ll support a Jerry Brown or Kucinich, but they’re not reliable Democratic voters in November.
Nader was able to pick off some votes due to his name recognition as well as getting some mainstream media coverage in a very boring 2000 campaign. Jill Stein has neither of those factors.
Yes, Bill Clinton-* like every Politician since the dawn of Civilization*- promoted “Tough on Crime” measures. Hillary generally supported these. *But Bernie actually voted them in.
*
However, “Tough on Crime” does not equate to = “policies that did irreparable damage to black people”. Yes, Blacks are imprisoned more than Whites- but they are also the victims of such crimes more than white people.
I don’t think it’s totally false. But I don’t think it’s without problems, either. Nor do I think it’s ultimately saying to vote for Sanders:
I just don’t find this sort of argument persuasive at all. It feels like an author who likes that Sanders is outside of the Democratic mainstream (which his supporters alternately say is and isn’t true) and who then builds the argument from there against Clinton. It’s not a dishonest argument, but it feels like a slanted one to me.
Note: I think Bill Clinton is personally repulsive, so I don’t think I’m defending the Clintons in a knee-jerk fashion. But I think looking at things like the crime bill that had widespread support in Congress and among communities of every color and saying that Hillary Clinton is to blame for it just doesn’t feel well argued.
Note also that I think “welfare reform” was a huge mistake and horribly damaging. While the crime bill was more obviously misguided (except a few parts that continue to be valid), welfare reform is the bigger sin. What I don’t remember was the context of the legislation (and honestly, I’m probably not going to spend a ton of time figuring that out). I know it was a very big deal at the time. I remember a lot of skirmishes. I don’t remember details.
Post shortened and emphasis in the interviewer quote added. The interviewer is flat out stating that asking for the leading politician to offer some compromise to the endorser is normal. It is built into the preamble to the question that an endorser can and should ask for something. (Actually, he ventures well into legal grey area like cabinet positions, but that’s a different discussion.) Sanders then lists the things he supports, switching to “we” for the portion where he actually uses “demand” and he’s really talking about him and his supporters collectively. That’s not “my policies or scorched earth,” it’s “here’s how to court my supporters.”
It’s not unreasonable for the endorser to ask for their positions to be supported by the leading candidate. What will happen is that there will be an endorsement rally, Clinton will list the things she supports, Sanders will list the same things. There might be a bullet point or a few details added to Clinton’s list from her normal stump, borrowed from Bernie’s old stump. It won’t be a radical change.
Well, there are at least a few million Americans who believe the issues he has raised are significant.
IMO, he’d rather be doing his job in Vermont and DC rather than speaking and shaking hands in Wisconsin.
I doubt he’ll win the presidency, but he has brought important issues to the fore. In the next couple of decades the American people might very well have a better appreciation of his efforts.