Also, to address the other point: Shalala wasn’t Clinton’s secretary of state; it was Warren Christopher, right? So: was he asked to take a position on that issue, or was it that no one really gave a crap and he wasn’t even expected to comment? Clinton had lots of cabinet secretaries who, as far as I know, weren’t asked to stand up and be counted: not Janet Reno, not Federico Peña, not Bruce Babbitt — because, well, why would they? But if you were a Senator back then, didn’t you get put on the spot when the time came to declare yourself For or Against?
If you’re a Senator, aren’t you expected to do that when the conversation turns to foreign policy, and when it turns to domestic law enforcement, and when it turns to changing the bankruptcy laws; and, yes, when it turns to welfare reform?
In the U.S., Cabinet secretaries are generally expected to stay in their own lanes, policywise. I think Jimmy Carter was the last President who regularly had Cabinet meetings in which anyone was welcome to chime in with their views on issues outside of their bailiwicks. Most Cabinet meetings since WWII have been pro forma morale-boosting sessions or photo ops. JFK notoriously thought they were a waste of time.
With Sanders in, I wonder if he’ll suck up a lot of support from the left, or if his time has passed.
Personally, I think he did a lot of good moving the party to the left over the past two to three years, but I don’t think his campaign will amount to much. He has a lot more baggage now than he did in 2016, and there are a lot more (interesting) candidates running in the far left lane this time around.
Well, that just doubled Trumps chances of winning re-election. Sanders doesnt seem to give a shit about this nation, just his own personal glory. His bros will mercilessly attack every other Dem candidate, cheerfully passing on fake news from the kremlin as fact, and then vote third party when Sanders, inevitably, doesnt win the Nom.
Yes, how arrogant of a candidate who got second place the last time around and successfully induced a major shift of political discourse to the left to run for President again. Nevermind Sanders’s personal popularity, him polling well against Trump, name recognition etc.
I think you are describing Hillary Clinton supporters in 2008 when she lost to Barack Obama.
So why was it him and not Martin O’Malley, a sitting governor? Also people forget that most observers (including myself) expected Hillary Clinton to easily win the nomination and sweep virtually all the contests late into 2015, similar to Al Gore’s performance against Bill Bradley in the 2000 primaries. This is why I find it silly that BernieBros complain about the nomination being “stolen” from him since Sanders massively overperformed all expectations and produced a competitive race where one had not been expected.
Yes, he polled well. Due to the fact that the GOP and the Kremlin were mercilessly attacking Clinton with scads of lies and half truths, while saving all their juicy stuff about Sanders, since he was doing their dirty work for them.
I didnt see any of that at all. Even today Sanders supporters are already starting the attack pieces on other dem candidates.
Certain attacks ended up sticking better than others. Allegations about Trump’s bizarre, indeed “unpresidential” behaviour didn’t while Clinton’s supposed corruption did suggesting that most of the dirt on Bernie which would have of the former kind would not have been particularly effective in an antiincumbent year.
Again, was Hillary Clinton doing the “dirty work” for Republicans in 2008 when she brought up Jeremiah Wright and suggested Obama might be assassinated.
So primary candidates aren’t supposed to attack each other?
Yeah, the kremlin could have brought out a Communist Party membership card with Nernies name on it. Easy. And people would believe it. Add some easily procured photos of Bernie at a Commie rally or forum, and no one votes for him.
Boy that’s a shot from the crazy room. While it true that Hillary mentioned that one reason why she didnt drop out was the Obama could be assassinated, the way you word it is like she was suggesting it. Even her mentions of Wright werent really attacks on Obama like the lies the Kremlin started and the bernie-bros spread.
In both 2008 and 2016 there were people who claimed to support the primary loser but who really just wanted to throw a monkey wrench into the process. In 2016, they were mostly Russians. I don’t know; maybe the pumas of 2008 were also Russian, or maybe they were just home-grown trolls. But in neither case does that say anything about the actual candidates.
Counterpoint from someone who actually pays attention to the lefty kids: They were going to do that anyway. So, be glad he’s running. Nominating him & getting the young populists on board looks like the best way to beat Trump.
It doesn’t matter to me who’s in at this point – the more the merrier. Let’s have a robust debate with all sides represented.
But 15-18 of these Democrats are not going to get the nomination. The absolutely critical point, crucial for the future of our Republic, is that they unite and give their whole-hearted, full-throated, stumping-on-the-campaign-trail support behind the nominee. If they can’t promise that they need to get out.
The danger is what we saw in the GOP side in 2016 - all the plausible, reasonable candidates go after each other in the debates, driving each other out, one every week, while some publicity-hunting twit is ignored - but eventually is the last one standing. The Dems *need *to be the Responsible Adult Party, because the Reps sure aren’t.
Yes, if there’s going to be a cattle drive(and it already is), let it be mutually respectful and idea-driven.
