Well I sure don’t trust me.
I don’t remember perusing The Nation in the past, but apparently I’ve read all the free articles they’re willing to show me.
I’m a total sellout.
But I don’t get this argument. To build a united front between Democrats and left leaning independents, we should oppose the left-leaning independent running as a Democrat?
And it’s largely Clinton supporters who insist on the importance of definitely voting for whoever is the Dem candidate - so why don’t they take one for the team and vote for Sanders?
It’s a bit like this editorial - where the author apparently really liked Sanders, as long as he was playing nice and not trying to win, but instead just influencing Clinton a bit.
ETA: I think there are much better bits in the actual article that could be posted as better arguments.
The best reason all of the Hillary switchers ever give is to fight against trump? Lame! Is that what we teach our children now? To accept less because of fear x and scary y? Forget making things better and hopefully the status quo wont get worse?
Is Trump really all that worse than Hillary? They are both going to be self serving and the middle and lower classes will continue to be neglected. Trump has the immigrant issues but Hillary has the military industry pulling her strings, either way the US continues to be the world’s ignorant and abusive problem child.
At least Trump talks about hating the government and its waste. He calls out the oil wars for what it really is. If he was not on the worlds top 50 asshole list, he would get my vote over hillary.
He does eventually actually state the reason way down there, I was left pretty unsatisfied about his reasoning overall. What he gives is “People of color are voting for Hillary, so I am too” and “I want a woman to be president” which are fine desires, but still left me wondering why he’s making a big deal of it now, if that makes sense.
I wish Tom Hayden would travel back in time and give himself his own advice so Past Tom Hayden can work with Past Michael Harrington, Past Irving Howe and the Past LID for a united front against Past Richard Nixon.
But until he gets that done, I think his argument needs to be taken seriously in this timeline.
Well, I will say one thing. I remember clearly how obvious is was both that we were being lied to and that the war would be an unmitigated humanitarian disaster in the runup to the Iraq war, and I don’t go to protests often, but I did go out and get pepper sprayed and ridden off the road by horse cops when we declared that war.
Without taking a stand on whether, in any particular case, that support was due to malice or simply to an almost incomprehensible level of credulity and incompetence, I can say that, as long as I live, there is zero chance that I will ever vote for anyone who supported that war.
“All those Day-Glo freaks who used to paint the face
They joined the human race
Some things will never change.”
[Edit: Must credit Messrs. Becker and Fagen for those fine words.]
Isn’t this just an argument from authority? Like forget all the relevant issues, this guy has totes cred, so let’s go with what he says, in spite of the fact that it’s just the worst logic ever?
I mean, oh no, the democratic primaries are getting a little heated. Doesn’t anyone remember Hilliary going up against Obama?
I don’t know. A lot of weak tea here.
Voting out of fear instead of convictions is not the way to build a great society.
It has become so fractious among Democrats and independents that I began to think that only Trump or Cruz could save us from ourselves.
Not the best way to establish your credibility for the argument that follows!
Most of his op-ed is a litany of reasons why he prefers Sander’s stands to Clinton’s(!), but then (as @daneel points out) he says that the "fundamental reason" he is voting for Clinton “has to do with race.” However, rather than articulate any actual positions where Clinton is better than Sanders on racial issues, he says that it is because members of the African-American community support Clinton over Sanders. The show of solidarity isn’t nothing, it is commendable, but the actual argument boils down to an argumentum ad verecundiam, which is rather weak. Even weaker would be supporting Clinton because Hayden does.
An 'endorsement" by way of default is no “endorsement” at all. That’s how I read that, anyway.
His first argument for why he liked the Sanders campaign was that it pushed Hillary to the Left.
Seems like he never really supported Sanders.
Tom Hayden is largely irrelevant, self-inflicted with his legacy killing endorsement, and Hillary is entirely problematic in the general election. I don’t understand how a now retired, formerly true progressive, nets in running away from said legacy to support dynastic politics that run counter to his record and accomplishments. Shameful.
I’d rather be disappointed in the voting public, than disappointed in myself.
It’s the “argument” of a tired soul. Sadly.