I understand why you think it is not a ringing endorsement, but it is an important endorsement, decision and vote; with social and political consequences.
…"This election is about the single mother that I met in Nevada, with tears in her eyes, fearing for the future because she and her daughter were not getting by on $10.45 an hour,” Sanders said. “Hillary Clinton understands that if a person works 40 hours a week, they deserve to make a living wage. We must raise the minimum wage to a living wage, and she is determined to create millions of new jobs, by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, our roads, bridges and water systems.”
Sanders said the Citizens United decision was the worst decision in United States Supreme Court history, saying it undermines democracy. For his remarks, Sanders received a standing ovation from former President Bill Clinton.
Sanders further emphasized the Supreme Court justices that the next president would appoint and the influence these justices would have on key issues such as LGBT rights, campaign finance reform and civil liberties.
“If you believe that this election isn’t important, that you can sit it out, take a second to think about the Supreme Court nominees that Trump would put out,” Sanders said…
Bernie Sanders revolution is not over. A political revolution is not won or lost during one democratic presidential nomination contest. Many Bernie Sanders supporters represent the future of the Democratic Party and the future of America.
When that inspired Bernie Sanders supporter of the future runs (advocating a Bernie Sanders agenda) and wins the Democratic Party nomination for president; democrats, including former Hillary Clinton supporters, will remember the class and grace displayed by Bernie Sanders, as he helped unify the Democratic Party in 2016.
With this history etched in democratic political memory, the same class and grace Bernie Sanders exhibited in 2016, will be deserved, expected and given to whoever the future Bernie inspired democratic presidential nominee is. Bernie Sanders assured that this past Tuesday, with the below unifying and moving moment–one of the best from the 2016 Democratic National Convention to date.
If you’re looking for an example of a Dem who wasn’t as hawkish, FDR is probably not the one you should be thinking of since he was working diligently to get us into WW II and was in no way a dove (nor were Truman, Kennedy, or Johnson). Carter was basically the only dovish elected Dem. in the 20th c.
Maybe hawkishness wasn’t the right word. I’m not so much talking about Democrats who are willing to fight a big fight, but the fact that now we have Democrats who can’t END fights.
So yeah, needs a different word, but the acceptance of going into foreign nations and creating a bunch of new enemies to fight is something I have some major issues with. Where’s the party that adamantly refuses to murder strangers? I want them in charge.
So when the UN, or maybe just Germany, France, and England, ask the US to join them in a police action, you want our president to tell them, “hey, your reasons for acting are compelling, but on principle I plan to stay home and watch the telly?”
So are you thinking of Clinton? He did go into Somalia, Bosnia, and Rwanda. But troops were there to stop genocides, and he had plans for them to get out which we did. He also worked in N. Ireland and got the peace process going there, and made more progress in the Palestinian peace process than anyone has before or since (though Bush immediately sabotaged this once in office). He fired cruise missiles a few times, though. Still I don’t see that as going into foreign nations and creating a bunch of new enemies to fight.
Obama’s more complex, and his willingness to bomb/drone all over the ME is a mess, though not anything unique for a Dem. Obama also inherited two wars, so the record’s muddier as a result.
Given the fact that Kennedy got us into Vietnam, while Johnson escalated it and earned us millions of enemies, and neither had a plan for getting out, I don’t see there being a change of Dems having once been dovish in really any sense.
Has there ever been one in the US that’s won an election? The best case is Carter, but he’s the outlier, and was doing things like shipping arms to Suharto to commit genocide in Indonesia, so he’s, um, complicated. I’d like the Dems. to be better, but this isn’t a matter of going back to some ideal they’ve drifted rightward on, but making progress towards a new ideal.
I think there’s a huge analog scale and we’re wayyy on the wrong side of it. Most of these ‘police actions’ are triggered by us.
On top of that, when did we become so anti-refugee? Those people are humans and make productive workers and excellent citizens (more so than those who start as citizens). Instead of blowing up somebody else’s infrastructure how about we treat those people like a resource instead of trapping them in camps?
Bring us your tired and huddled masses my ass.
I understand there’s an occasional last resort, but that hasn’t been our typical reason for sending missiles into somebody else’s backyard, and it’d be amazingly naive to think otherwise.
You’re right, other than Carter in my lifetime…not really. But that kind of speaks to the fact that we have a system that’s bad for humanity, doesn’t it?
Circling back, I grew up with Reagan and Carter. I honestly think the problem is in the primaries because we don’t end up with democrats that have balls/ovaries enough to deal with the right accusing them of ‘being soft’.
I hope that’s the reason, at least. The alternative is that the only way out of this trap involves disrupting the heck out of the existing system.
And while I know it’s easy to just ignore what happens to foreign people in other lands (we’re tribal creatures, after all), the reality is that every time we do anything we leave a nasty mess behind, including a ton of ruined lives. Every one of them is a human just as valuable as you or I…but hardly anybody cares about them…and that’s an absolute travesty. I don’t think my heart or mind is big enough to digest how horrible that is, but what little I do digest is beyond traumatic.
I’m not saying I’m confident that Bernie’d be an optimal candidate there (not the only subject I disagreed with him on) but I think he’d have been somewhat better at avoiding continuing these entanglements. I’ve got some hope for Hillary there too, but to be fair neither of the candidates was likely to solve that problem.
Possibly. The use of primaries to determine party candidates is relatively new, and a nod in the direction of more democracy. Perhaps we should go back to the way we used to do things before '68 (and the way other parties do things: neither Nader nor Stein became Green candidates through contested primaries). Of course, you can’t get angry at the way the DNC favored HRC and in the same breath say giving them full authority would be better. (Likewise anyone who is angry at the DNC and reacts by switching to the Greens or Libertarians…that defies logic.)
OK, I’m going to put this here instead of in the 1000 other threads now running on roughly the same subject, because of stuff mentioned way upthread. It is also going to piss some people off, but honestly I don’t care:
I understand the appeal of voting 3rd party and hoping to make an eventual difference, or of voting for Trump (or not at all) and hoping the resulting 4 years of chaos makes a big change in the Party (or in the party system) possible in 5 or 10 years time.
However, there are people who need the system to work better right now. People of color, the disabled, the unemployed, refugees, pregnant women in states where abortion is difficult; all kinds of people can’t wait. All these people need Clinton to win - not want, need.
It is pretty easy if you are white and decently employed to sit back and be a purist or play the long game; that’s what privilege is all about. But if you are honestly progressive, and not just pretending, then you will be doing everything in your fucking power to get Clinton into the White House this November, because a true progressive will do everything they can to help the downtrodden right now (not in 5 or 10 years time), and a lot of vulnerable people are going to be seriously hurt immediately after Trump wins, and for a long time after.
Back during the primaries when Clinton surrogates and @khepra (upthread) were suggesting that people supporting Sanders were sexist or racist, that was compete bullshit. But now, when there is a real possibility of a virulently anti-minority anti-woman administration getting into power, if you opt to sit back in your comfortable life and support some random idiot, then yeah, that’s the kind of passive racism and sexism that accompanies comfort and privilege.
Step #2: go all-out on destroying and rebuilding the hopelessly corrupt faux-liberal actually-plutocratic Democratic party.
Yes, we need a Tea Party of the left. The Tea Party are destructive and horrible because their underlying ideology is destructive and horrible, not because there is anything wrong with their tactics of overthrowing the party elite from within.
Stop Trump, then hold the Blue Dogs to account, and primary the fuck out of anybody who doesn’t come around.
The GOP are the major immediate threat to the American people. But the establishment Dems are the primary opponent of the American left.
Sure. But the DNC is not appointed by Satan - it is a small-d democratic organization that can best be reformed from the inside. It isn’t even all that hard. In my state - an old-line party state - Sanders supporters took over the party in one year, simply by showing up. Nearly everywhere party leadership positions go to the people who show up. Once you have people in the local, then the state, leadership positions, those people have authority over the national leadership positions.
Showing up in sufficient numbers is how the DLC took over the DMC 30 years ago, and showing up is why so many DNC leaders today are people of color who fought for Obama in 2008. This isn’t rocket science, it is just fundamental “how does the Party work” stuff.
The sad part is how hard people have to work to get a functional democracy. It’s just not in line with how we actually function… we go in bursts and use cognitive dissonance so we don’t go completely insane once we wear down.
We have a system that gives all the advantages to the worst in us and punishes the best of us.
