Tom Hayden endorses Hillary Clinton

I find it inspiring that Bernie Sanders shows by his own example that not all old progressive idealists eventually compromise on moderate, supposedly “reasonable” expectations of very slow, often dissatisfying change.


Best response to Hayden’s foible. Thank you.


What a coincidence, I just read an article about a previously progressive person that followed his own generation a bit late, but eventually got old and started letting his fear of the the future instead of his fear for the future rule his votes and endorsements.

Oh Snap, same article! Boy is my face red.


Bernie Sanders is Tom Hayden. They’re about the same age, experienced the sixties at the same time, went into mainstream politics afterwards. But Bernie wasn’t highly visible in the sixties, and thus whatever he said or thought, it doesn’t have to be erased.

Bernie moved to Vermont in 1968, I’ve not seen a reason, but it was a year after people like Ray Mungo and Marty Jezer moved there for the commune, taking the Liberation News Service press with them. Lots of ideals, but they stayed, changing but also changing Vermont. Bernie still identifies as a socialist, he never married a movie star. This isn’t “I listened to the Grateful Dead in university” or other homilies that usually is a distancing. It’s my friend Rusty who got out of the draft, came to Canada for twenty years, a teacher, then moved back to the US, making and selling jewellery. People who changed, grew up, but didn’t become completely different.

So some guy who is loud, but long in the past gets to choose, when Bernie stayed the course all these decades. He represents a Vermont that was changed by the sixties, the land trusts, the solar power, progressive politics, the origins of proper civil disobedience on a large level, and the Clamshell Alliance.

In early April of 1982, Bernie was about six months into his first term as mayor of Burlington, Vt. He stood on the steps of the town hall, and welcomed us, walking on the way to New York City for nuclear disarmament. The only mayor I remember doing that, though we did visit city hall in Arlington, Ma.

Bernie is the real thing, not someone pretending to be something or distancing from the past. He’s been an elected official since the fall of 1981. Maybe one last gasp of the Boomers as president. They/we changed the world in ways that may be forgotten or are too subtle to notice, which is precisely why Bernie can now run for president. You no longer have to age according to a template.

There may be reasons to choose someone else, but not because Tom Hayden says so.


The whole “going up against Trump” thing. That reminds me of the anxiety you feel in weaker moments sitting in the airport lounge waiting for your flight, and wondering if it might be going to go down in flames, and maybe you should get on another flight.

Who knows? The other flight might be the one that goes down. It’s not something you can make a rational decision about. I don’t think there is that much tangible evidence to put either Sanders or Clinton in front in that race, and frankly I would enjoy seeing either of them pin Trump down.


I came out that article feeling you’d be crazy to not vote for Sanders.


Yes, and the suggestion that Bernie would not hold up under a republican attack - and Hillary would? With all the shady innuendo that they have to dig in to with her? Bernie has integrity and the consistancy of his convictions. The repubs can attack him for all these things and it will only make him stronger because thats why we like him after all.


There is no argument. None. Arguing that Hayden should be listened to because of his credentials is pure argument from authority to people who really have a problem with current constructions of authority. This is the opposite of persuasive.


As disappointed as I am with the Democratic Party, I still think the biggest barrier to getting real reform isn’t so much establishment liberals like Hillary, it’s obstructionist Republicans. As flawed as Obamacare is, it’s still a baby-step in the right direction that will mitigate wingnut fears about “Death Panels” and “socialism.”

I voted for Bernie, I still want him to win. I don’t really know why so many voted for Hillary in the primaries, but we can’t turn back time and fix it. You should still vote for whoever you think is better in your primary, no matter what Tom Hayden thinks, but if Bernie doesn’t win NY and CA then it’s time to make peace.

Hillary in the White House is still better than Trump or Cruz, in the same way a bowl of dried cutworms for a meal is better than starving to death. It’s hard to know what the future holds, but I would prefer the Democratic Convention be peaceful and reasonable rather than have it turn into the fistfight you know the GOP Convention will be.


Yeah exactly, it’s like the idea is that only Hillary has the robotic machiavellian statecraft to defeat Trump’s evil genius… so much cynicism, so many risky assumptions with that view!

Isn’t it at least as likely that Sanders would pull the rug out from most of Trump’s bluster, just because he’s remained so unencumbered?


I think the idea is “they’ve been attacking Hillary since 1992 and haven’t found anything substantial enough to bring her down yet, so it’s pretty unlikely they’re going to find something that can between now and November.”


Are you kidding! There is always new stuff brewing with her.


I’m still planning to vote for Bernie in the primaries, but clearly “unable to withstand a concerted attack from the Republicans” is not one of Hillary’s key weaknesses.


She doesn’t just have to withstand it though, she has to emerge as the most popular candidate for the presidency.

1 Like

As would any candidate.

I hope Bernie wins, but I still like Hillary’s odds against the likes of Trump or Cruz.


She’s very lucky the GOP are hell-bent on picking someone even less popular than she is.

I have no concern about her ability to withstand GOP attacks, or how competent she’d be as President. I just expect very disappointing policies from her. But I guess low expectations are the secret to happiness?


If their current GOTV strategy (more dumbasses than ever before suckered into voting because they think it’s actually a reality TV show) is continued into the election, it isn’t a Republican attack against Hillary that will be a problem, it will be if the requisite number of democrats are willing to swallow their bile and bother to vote Hillary.

Srsly, I’ll make up my mind on the day of if she gets the nod, and if I’ve got something better to do, I’ll do that. Watch it burn slow, watch it burn fast? It’ll depend on my morning coffee.


Fair call. I guess the implication then is that Sanders might not withstand the race. I don’t know if that is a real or perceived concern, he does have a very laid back style, and the Republicans have shown a willingness verging on hunger when it comes to getting dirty.

Again, it seems really hard to speculate on how that might play out.


Maybe, but in case you haven’t guessed from my previous comments around here, I’m a lot more cynical about it- or realistic, you decide: I think Democratic party is simply being stupid. I’m going by the old saw about stupidity versus malice here. The Dems are in an echo chamber about this and are talking about “realism” without any examination of what that means. Realism is not only that you need to fool independents into thinking you’re going to represent them, but also getting your base out of the door on election day. No one has made the slightest compelling argument that Clinton is going to be capable of either of these better than Bernie. There are a lot of unexamined assumptions in this “realism” and I don’t see a lot of mainstream Dems challenging it. There’s some serious inertia behind this idea, and from where I’m standing it looks more like cargo cult superstition than a rational fact-based assessment. The way the polls look now, a Trump nomination gives the general to either Democratic nominee. The real contender people should be focused on is Cruz- there the data simply does not exist (spread is within margin of error for polls I’ve seen.)

The thing that should keep the DNC up at night is if the Republicans pull a rabbit out of the hat. If neither candidate has more than 50% of the vote, they can pick anyone- even someone who hasn’t run yet.


Honestly that wouldn’t bother me. I don’t want the Republicans to win, but I also don’t want the Dems to win just because the Republicans put forward the worst candidate in living memory. Ideally, the Presidential election should be about the best candidate each party has to offer facing off in a spirited exchange of ideas. Anything that moves us closer to that situation is OK by me.