Ramona's picture

    Bernie and Hillary and Me: Can't We All Be Friends?

    I agree with Bernie Sanders on almost everything.  I agree that the minimum wage should be raised--even higher than Bernie advocates.  I agree that workers are being shafted and our jobs have to come back from overseas. I agree that health care for all without stipulations or roadblocks has to become reality.  I agree that we can't keep funding wars around the world.

    Photo Credit:  David Goldman/AP
     
    I agree that the Republicans have been complete and total shits for more years than we should have allowed, and that the Democrats have been weak-kneed and back-bone-free when it comes to fighting against them.  (If you want to call that fighting.)

    I agree that the money interests have taken over this country and we have to take it back.

    I agree that it's way past time for a revolution. (Vive la révolution!)

    I get it!  I'm as mad as Bernie is!
     
    And I want Hillary Clinton as president.

    Photo Credit:  AP  
     
    I've wrestled with my warring sides for a long time, wondering how I could have changed my mind when all along I was sure if Bernie should decide to run he would be my first choice.

    It comes down to this:  Bernie is my first choice as revolutionary leader. As revolutionary leaders go, Bernie ranks right up there at the top. But if Bernie should win the presidency, his days as a radical revolutionary leader are over.  (Radicalism is frowned on in the White House. See The West Wing.)
     
    He wouldn't in a million years be able to accomplish as much as he might if he stays on the outside pressing for the goals he has outlined during his campaign. We need people like Sanders and Elizabeth Warren to be the gadflies, the pushers, but it's nigh impossible to do it from the inside.
     
    I'm convinced that's why Warren chose not to run. She knows she can be far more effective as the conscience of a nation from where she is. A president has to be all things to all people. The leader of a revolution has to stay focused on the cause. Bernie, if he wins, won't be able to do that and he'll disappoint the people who are counting on him to make radical change. They'll start a revolution without him, or in spite of him, or against him.

    Hillary, no matter how much she would like to be seen as the dewy-eyed outsider, thrives inside the establishment. She knows the players and knows how to play their games. With Hillary it'll be a chess match. With Bernie it'll be hand-to-hand combat.  With the Republicans, it'll be business as usual, and they'll fight dirty no matter who goes after them. 
     
    I see more advantages to getting Hillary, the tougher, more pragmatic candidate, in there, and then helping Sanders and Warren, along with a host of powerhouse liberal Democrats, to get her to where they--and we--want to be.

    Bernie has done the country a true service by running for president. He has drawn in and energized crowds of voters who had given up hope that the system would work for them. They're pumped now, as they'll have to be if we're going  to take the presidency away from Donald Trump, or any other spectacularly unworthy candidate the Republicans throw at us.

    Eyes on the prize now.  Whether the nominee is Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders, we vote for our side.  The Democrats have to win.  Losing at this point is not an option
     
     
    (Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices).
    Topics: 

    Comments

    In another post, I asked if Bernie would be working to get Progressive Democrats elected if he lost. Would he encourage voting in midterm elections and donations to Democrats to build the revolution, or would he go back to be an independent?

    Will Elizabeth Warren and other Progressives including Tulsi Gabbard make outreach to non-white communities to build a coalition?

     


    If Bernie should lose it'll be interesting to see if he'll work for Democrats at other levels.  It doesn't seem to be his pattern.  I don't know about Gabbard.  She seems to have her own agenda.  But I'm betting Warren will work hard to make sure Democrats win.


    Democrats need a multiracial coalition. Warren needs to make connections to non-white activists.


    She's not running for anything or supporting anyone. But I suspect she has met with many minority groups in her efforts to get a clear picture about the abuses by banks and big business.  Do you have info otherwise?


    I know she gave a powerful speech on race at the Ted Kennedy Center

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/09/elizabeth-warren-black-lives-mat...

    ​Im unaware of a direct outreach


    No Warren does not. She's not running for national office. Democrats need a multiracial coalition but not every senator and representative needs to connect wth all parts of the coalition. Warren can focus on Wall Street, banks, and consumer protection. Those are her strengths. She doesn't need to connect to environmentalists, or reach out to hispanics or blacks. One would hope she would vote for the right policies when they are brought to the floor. Her voters should demand it. But she doesn't need to be the leader in crafting and pushing policies that are outside her area of expertise. There are many senators each with their own specialties and they can and should lead in their area of expertise. That's the power of the congress. Not every senator can have expertise on every public and foreign policy issue. Only the president needs to have comprehensive knowledge on all aspects of public and foreign  policy and to build a national constituency. That's one of the reasons it's the most difficult job in government.


    I disagree Progressives need to make their presence known and have their names and faces recognized by minority communities. Otherwise when they do need national support, they will be as unrecognized as Sanders. If you can schedule meetings with majority white groups, you can schedule meeting with minority groups.


    Democrats need voters to come out in midterms and they need minorities to realize what Progressives are doing on their behalf. If that task is too hard, then look forward to winning Presidential elections and Congressional control remains in the hands of a reactionary GOP.


    I think you're saying that leaders within the party - especially high-profile ones - need to make a constant effort to encourage diversity. I absolutely agree. And as Sanders has unintentionally proven, it's an imperative for Democrats at every level.


    Exactly. Democrats cannot continue doing business as usual. Voters have to be fired up by recognizing that Democrats are working on their behalf. Democrats have to build a strong bench by energizing voters and activists. Energized voters and activists can be tapped to run for office. We need to take over sheriffs positions, school boards, city councils, etc.

    Occupy Wall Street did not care about politics and has no lasting impact. Black Lives Matter as a group seems to be rejecting actual political participation and focusing on protest. Unfortunately, as Code Pink has shown, the impact of protest alone is limited.


    The democratic party is not just a coalition of races but a coalition of special interests as well. Democrats can't win if minorities don't vote for them but they also cannot win if hard core environmentalist decide to vote for the Green Party. And in my circle there's been a lot of talk about that over the years especially as the science of climate change became more solid. Considering that many of us think this is a life and death issue for the planet and the luke warm political action of the dems, while better than denial, ends up on the death side of the ledger perhaps you can understand why we treat it as such a high priority issue. I've always told my friends that made arguments for the green party that however disappointed we are in the environmental record of the democrats we still have to stick with the party and continue to try to push it to the left.

    I care about all the issues but I care about some more than others. My top priority has always been the environment . I don't expect leaders in the environment community to speak fluently on the effects mass incarceration on the black community but I do expect them to educate themselves sufficiently to make good votes on the issue. I don't expect John Lewis to come west and speak about environment regulations on federal land but if I voted in Georgia I'd expect him to know enough to make good votes. If his votes on the environmental issue I prioritize are good I wouldn't have a problem if his focus was civil rights and I wouldn't expect him to suck up to environmentalists. If his votes were wrong on the environment I wouldn't care that he's a hero of the civil rights era. I'd vote against him in the primary.

    I've read a lot of complaints from the African American community that too of the democrats in congress take them for granted since they have no where else to go. We in the environmental community make the same complaint and that's why there's always this background grumbling about how we should vote for the green party. But I accept that not every congress person will make environmental issues their focus. If they follow the lead of those that focus on the environment I'm satisfied. Only in a national campaign do the candidates have to find a way to thread the needle and speak with sufficient knowledge and conviction to all the disparate groups in the democratic coalition.

    I think we're just going to have to disagree about this.


    I am less sanguine about the salutary effects of Sanders' candidacy.  The central meme underlying his campaign - that progressive change is frustrated by a “rigged” system - is both false and damaging.  Hard fought victories such as the ACA and Dodd Frank are dismissed as hopelessly ineffective.  Obama’s guidance in leading us out of the Great Recession is portrayed as a sop to big banks and wealthy financiers.  The significant achievements of a President and Party that have faced unrelenting scorched earth opposition are belittled as half-measures, and realistic proposals to strengthen and extend those gains are derided as woefully insufficient to the task.  The Sandernista critique does not differentiate between the Democrats fighting on the ground to improve people’s lives and Republicans opposing them every step of the way.  Anyone who is part of the “Establishment” is painted with the same brush, including Hillary, who is depicted as a tool of corporate interests, architect of mass incarceration, responsible for perpetuating deep poverty, and war monger.  Apart from being false, these claims  distract from the true culprit – Republican obstructionism – and the real solution, not a purifying “revolution,” but sustained engagement.  Want an example?  Just take a look at the post immediately above yours. 

    I give Sanders credit for raising the issues of inequality, access to medical care, etc., and for bringing non-participants into the system.  Hopefully, they will turn out for Clinton in November.  I wonder, though, whether they will remain engaged,  go home complaining that they wuz robbed by the “rigged” system, or worse, defect to the other anti-Establishment figure, Trump, who has already begun trying to solicit them with his own bogus populist message. 

    Rant over.      


    Well put.

    Both Sanders and Trump are tapping into anger.


    Great comments.


    Excellent analysis.

    There will never be a one election 'progressive revolution' (it is impossible with our non-parliamentary system). There may be a one election disaster, if the GOP gains full control again. They have done it before, too many times.

    We need a sustained engagement by Democrats, at all levels and in every election, especially midterm elections.


    Mr. Guerrilla, why do Democrats lack sustained engagement? Surely not because of Bernie Sanders. Democrats have been disengaged for decades, and the only folks who have had any success at inspiring engagement have been Sanders and Warren and Obama-circa-2008.

    So if it's engagement we seek, another wonky pragmatic centrist named Clinton is not the answer. On the contrary, I'd argue that Democrats need someone with a little revolutionary panache.

    For examples of sustained engagement, I look to the GOP, which reliably turns out its base in election after election from local school boards to the presidency. Why are conservatives so good at inspiring engagement? Because they are not cautious, not compromising, not practical. They speak to the heart, not the brain.

    Progressive leaders used to be that way, back in the day. All those wild-eyed firebrands inspired the greatest political movement of the past hundred years. That's sustained engagement.


    Wasn't there a wonkish, pragmatic guy named Clinton who got elected twice? Didn't Obama have to fight against folks who suggested that he face a Primary challenge in 20012 because they were looking for a firebrand?


    Got elected, lost Congress, lost states. Both of 'em. (And faced weak opponents for reelection.)


    La Follette forced a conservative President to pass a Progressive agenda, without ever being President himself. From the Senate he rode a ground swell of popular support for progressive government action which remade Congress, and made opposing his agenda a career ending decision.

    Republicans get the vote out on fear, big lies and by providing targets to blame and hate, and on the premise government can do nothing but build walls (which they never do) or at least ensure that life is more miserable for somebody else somewhere who is 'not like them'. 

    The diverse factions of Democrat voters must show up for more than one election to gain action from a government designed for inaction and easy obstruction.  If they don't, it's not the fault of a President like Obama or Clinton, who were obstructed, lied about and attacked from the first days after they took office.


    Isn't it interesting how we give Republicans credit for mobilizing voters but don't hold Democrats responsible for failing to mobilize voters. Do Republicans have superpowers? Are Democrats impotent?

    See, La Follette didn't ride a groundswell of popular support for progressive government. It was not a random act of nature. He and his allies inspired a groundswell of popular support for progressive government. They turned apathetic voters into progressive evangelists.

    But these days, too many Democrats have all but given up on the idea of inspiring people. 


    This is weird - in the year of Bernie Sanders isn't inspiration by Dems the major theme? The other side is a carny and "core beliefs", adherence to the dogma for all candidates.


    Yes Michael we need inspiring Democratic leadership.  One problem for Bernie is he just can't do it alone.  If he'd had a staunch equally (or better) known ally standing with him like Elizabeth Warren, we might have seen much more excitement.  One other problem (and I have no idea how big it is), there may be some diminution in turnout due to new more restrictive voter ID laws.


    Elizabeth Warren doesn't strike me as a coward.  Do you think it's possible that she didn't endorse Bernie because she doesn't agree that a revolution of the sort Bernie is counting on is going to happen, and that Hillary can actually get things done (including getting elected in the first place?) 

    True, she hasn't endorsed Clinton either, but since Warren and Sanders might be perceived as being ideologically closer, she may be holding back because she believes that Clinton is better suited for the job ahead.  Or she may just want to wait until the nominee is certain.  Either reason makes sense because once we have a nominee she can go full-bore for either one without having the distraction of having to explain away her former choice to every "journo" who wants to deflect away from her message.

    Which is pretty much consistent with Ramona's point here.


    I have no idea why Elizabeth Warren hasn't endorsed Bernie and it really doesn't matter.  We have or had an opportunity in this election cycle to elect a transformative President (or at least one who truly wants to be transformative).  But, it may be impossible for Bernie Sanders to do it without any help from at least one alternative power center.  Warren could have chosen to provide that help.  Sadly for us she did not.

    As leader of the Civil Rights movement, Dr. King needed help to transform America.  He got it of course from the grass-roots but also from alternative power bases, like Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP, and President Johnson.

    [N.B. - in this context I define transformative as one who wrests wealth and power from the richest and most powerful Americans and redistributes it down such that decision-makers are beholden to the majority not a tiny but extraordinarily rich group of plutocrats.]


    I have no idea why Elizabeth Warren hasn't endorsed Bernie

    Likely Warren has some psychological pathology. We'll find out if she endorses Hillary since all Hillary supporters have some sort of mental illness. Perhaps you could take the time using your vast knowledge of psychology to explain exactly what psychological pathology stopped Warren from endorsing Sanders.


    Ocean-kat - you seem much more upset by the fact that I ascribed to "cognitive dissonance" - which is not a psychological pathology - unwarranted attacks on Bernie by some Clinton supporters than I am by being called a "fool" by you and a "shit" by PP.  How would you rank the three in terms of level of offensiveness?


    Nothing here ever upsets me. I've never met you, I'll probably never meet you, you'll never have any effect on my day to day life. I never get upset by something some stranger on the internet says. If I did I'd have to be upset 24 hours a day.

    I simply enjoy mocking you for an extremely ridiculous post.


    Nice dodge .  You managed to avoid the obvious fact that your posts and PP's are offensive and insulting while mine are not.  I give you credit for linguistic gymnastics but none for honesty or self-awareness


    Again, you constantly confuse opinion with fact. Given that you've apologized several times for your offensive and insulting posts your honesty and self awareness is questionable. Were you lying when you apologized or are you lying now?


    I dont mind offensive and insulting if you'd add thought-out and insightful instead of deceitful and single-minded. Note that you spend most of your time saying ugly things about Clinton and deliberately diminishing anything she's ever done, while inflating whatever Sanders has touched. I dont think I've ever much insulted Sanders, only expressing I think he's out of touch with the majority of Democrats and less likely to persuade Republicans than Clinton. But as much as everyone here's pedantically explained her platform and history, you steadfastly act as if we'd said nothing and owe you yet another traipse through history. That in itself is the most insulting.


    Actually we were looking for someone who wasn't prepared to cut social security payouts to poor, working, and middle-class retired Americans.  We also wanted somebody who didn't champion job-destroying "free" trade bills.  We also wanted a President who didn't host Tuesday kill sessions and step up drone killings of innocent civilians in the Middle East.  Was any of this too much to ask for?

    You know what I find really amusing here?  The Clinton and Obama acolytes here complain that I paint with a very broad brush.  In fact, just about every opinion I provide depends on cited facts for support.  In contrast, the Clinton supporters/Hal disputers almost invariably throw out fact-free (usually meaningless) statements like "folks suggested Obama face a Primary challenge . . . because they were looking for a firebrand" or the Clintons are part of the family or Clinton's had to put up with more crap than any other candidate ever or all the criticism of her is smoke without fire or Clinton's the most experienced candidate ever to run for President.   

    Most experienced really?  Compare her record to George H.W. Bush's in 1988?

    There are legitimate reasons to support Clinton.  Foremost, she may in fact be more electable, if only because of the importance of winning Florida where she is probably stronger.  She does seem to care about our healthcare and she's better on guns.  I am somewhat optimistic that Bernie really may have forced her into a more liberal box than she wants to be in.  But please Clinton supporters spare us the boilerplate nonsense.


     

    Your Social Security bit is quite revisionist - at the time it had high support - see below - and democracy is about implementing what people want (presuming a wise leader doesn't see it as actually self-destructive - Iraq War 2 also had high support, but that was trickery). Clinton worked on "electric third rails" and "sacred cows" to try to get well-supported breakthroughs in long-standing problems.. I think that's a noble approach.

    In particular, I think Clinton has strong enough credentials on creating jobs, no? (see below)

    " In contrast, the Clinton supporters/Hal disputers almost invariably throw out fact-free (usually meaningless) statements " - yeah yeah, sure, buddy. Another very revisionist statement. I've quoted so many facts and figures and graphs back at you it hurts.

    Aside from paying off terrorists with weapons, stonewalling investigators and other CIA spookery, there's a question what Bush Sr's practical experience in Reagan's White House was, so yeah, I'll take Hillary's work on health care (1993 + SCHIP) and advocacy for human rights and other wonkery over that. But yeah, George had more years in "The Company" and Congress.

    From "The Pact":

    While there were dozens of reform plans circulating around Washington, ranging from minor tinkering to radical overhaul, there was a growing consensus around "middle ground'' proposals that combined some structural changes in the retirement age with some form of private accounts. There were also hopeful signs that the public was ready for a serious discussion about Social Security reform. An August 1997 survey by Clinton pollster Mark Penn found that 73 percent of Democratic voters favored some form of privatization, and support was especially strong among younger workers. Independent polls also showed that many young people believed that without significant change the programs would not be able to provide for them in their old age.

    Given the high risk involved, Clinton realized that he could not undertake this without bipartisan support, and, Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles reflected, "He knew to do this he needed to work with Gingrich.'' He was confident that he could hold moderate and conservative Democrats and bring enough Republicans to the table to make significant reform. The danger, however, was that Republicans would seize the surplus and use it for tax cuts. Some of Clinton's advisers suggested that he make a surprise announcement of a total overhaul of Social Security in the 1998 State of the Union speech. Mindful of the healthcare debacle, Clinton rejected this option, believing it was important to bring Gingrich and other Republican leaders into the discussions. He also wanted to engage in a public education campaign that would make people aware of the sacrifices that would be necessary. Instead of coming out with a detailed plan, he would establish guidelines for the discussion. "Save Social Security First'' was the slogan he developed to describe his strategy, making clear that he would reserve all of the budget surplus until Congress produced a viable reform package.

    The president reached out early on to two of the most powerful Republicans in the House: Gingrich and Bill Archer. As chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Archer would have control over any plan to reform Social Security. While Clinton talked privately with Archer, Bowles reached out to Gingrich. Initially, Gingrich, who had been burned before on Social Security, was reluctant to get out in front on the issue.

    It did not take long, however, for Gingrich to recognize the potential of a possible Social Security reform package. Bowles provided Gingrich with the same assurances that the president offered to Archer. The president would take the political heat for controversial proposals. Politically, the president and the speaker were closer than anyone realized. They recognized that their parties needed to change in response to new circumstances. They both believed that any effort to update Social Security would require government to incorporate some measure of choice, and that meant some form of privately managed account.

    The exact details would have been worked out later, but the broad outlines were clear. Gingrich was willing to give up the tax cut for a proposal that included private investment in Social Security. "The balanced budget bill was Act I,'' Gingrich reflected. "This was Act II.'' Instinctively, both men still wondered whether the other was setting a trap in preparation for the upcoming elections. Would Clinton leak word that Gingrich was once again trying to tamper with Social Security and Medicare, reinforcing his image as hostile to the old and poor? Would Gingrich tell reporters that the president was ready to accept the centerpiece of Republican proposals for Social Security: privately funded accounts?

     


    I'm not disagreeing with what you say, especially heart over mind, but just a comment before tackling the projects of the day.

    When you make the comparisons between now and then, isn't context a crucial element:?

    Then: an abject survival of the fittest, almost no safety net or health care, daily confrontation with life threats.

    Now: it is survival of the fittest, but not to the same degree. Millennials are living with parents, not selling apples.

    Then: What was real, was real.

    Now: Our society is dominated by pop culture and reality shows and Trump is a facilitator.  You might call that speaking to the heart. Or not.

    So when a Progressive today speaks to the heart---getting underneath the faux culture inspired by Fox,for example, it may require speaking to the brain first.


    You write: "Now: it is survival of the fittest, but not to the same degree. Millennials are living with parents, not selling apples."

    From the 12/7/15 San Jose Mercury News:

    "Faced with increasing public pressure and the threat of homeless people dying on the streets this winter, the City Council on Tuesday will discuss creating a tent city to house a portion of the roughly 4,000 people in San Jose who have no place to lay their heads at night."

    Also from last December's Merc:

    The names of 61 homeless people who died in Santa Clara County over the past year were read aloud during a memorial service in San Jose Thursday

    The number of deaths was nearly double last year's total of 33, but the reason for the increase remains, HomeFirst CEO Andrea Urton said.

    --------

    The 61 people were an average of 56 years old, which is nine years older than the national average life expectancy for a homeless person, Urton said.

    Time to change your opinion Oxy?


    Mr. Ghengis:

    You’ve zeroed in on the question that has bedeviled Democratic activists from Thomas Franks on down.  Why do Democrats lack sustained engagement (or engagement at all, I’d add)?  I don’t presume to have the answer or the time to give it the attention it deserves but I will offer a few thoughts in the context of the campaign.      

    The most persuasive case I’ve heard for Sanders’ candidacy is that his message – that shared prosperity is frustrated, first and foremost, by a system rigged in favor of corporate interests – would inspire Democratic turnout, broadening the party’s base and uniting diverse factions.  Under this view, it doesn’t matter that Sanders’ proposals don’t add up and have no chance of becoming reality under a Republican Congress.  The point, instead, is to make the Party more distinctly ideological by articulating a set of progressive policies worth fighting for.    

    While I don’t entirely discount that rationale, I believe it misapprehends the nature of the Democratic Party and the American electorate in general.  As ocean-kat points out upthread, the Democratic Party is less of a coherent ideological block than a coalition of interest groups not always consistently allied around some vaguely defined common themes – greater equality of outcomes, progressive taxation, concern for the environment, combatting discrimination against minorities, greater access to healthcare, financial regulation, greater emphasis on diplomatic rather than military approaches to foreign policy, etc.  Simply getting these disparate factions to unite behind any particular policy, much less the ideological agenda Sanders proposes, is a heavy lift.  Disagreements among Democrats are not the result of the corrupting influence of corporate cash, but rather the difficulty of balancing these diverse interests behind a coherent agenda – in other words, disagreements. 

    More significantly, though, Sanders misreads the nature of the opposition.  Roughly half the country fundamentally opposes progress toward the goals sketched out above.  Hell, they don’t even agree that these are issues at all.  These are gut-level divisions – racial, religious, regional, class and ideologically based – that transcend the issue of money in politics.  The idea that they would be swept away by a progressive movement once working people realize they are being played is a dangerous fantasy.  If indeed, there is a silent majority out there, I fear it's closer to the one Spiro Agnew envisioned.

    You point to the conservative movement as an example of sustained engagement and its true they have managed to consistently turn out their base with a much more narrow and explicit ideologically focused appeal.  That’s much easier to do when you’re in the opposition and the other party is the clear target.  I’m not sure that’s a model worth emulating.  First, while the relentless drive to the ideological right has succeeded on the local level (helped along by the Democrats’ failures to organize or turn out consistently in non-Presidential elections), it has not broadened their national appeal.  Second, as we are seeing now with Trumpism, the rigid ideological purity is not absolute and its unraveling could well prove the party’s undoing. 

    I don’t know how much closer any of this brings us to the answer to your question (though I certainly hope all these bytes amount to something!).  Celebrating the party’s accomplishments, rather than attacking the compromises it took to get there, is a good first step, and there is plenty to be proud of in both the Clinton and Obama administrations.  Insisting on ideological purity while promoting the idea that leaders who have spent decades working for progressive solutions to complex issues in the face of determined opposition are part of the problem is not – see 2000 and 2010.  Hopefully, those motivated by the positive aspects of Sanders’ appeal will be moved to stay involved when the revolution inevitably falls short.  If so, it could actually prove your point. 

    And of course, one thing I forgot to mention: Fear of Republican Planet should be sufficient motivation alone. 


    1.       You claim: "Hard fought victories such as the ACA and Dodd Frank are dismissed as hopelessly ineffective." 

              A.  Re: healthcare - Per PBS Newshour:

    Sanders voted for the Affordable Care Act, but believes that the new health care law did not go far enough. Instead, he espouses a single-payer system in which the federal and state governments would provide health care to all Americans. Participating states would be required to set up their own single-payer system and a national oversight board would establish an overall budget.

    As of September 2015, the ACA has resulted in approximately 17 million more insured Americans while 33 million still lack healthcare insurance.  

    Conclusion: Bernie's critique of the ACA is spot on.

              B.    Re: Dodd Frank - At his website, Bernie has posted a long and detailed analysis by Robert Borosage.  Benefits are noted as well as areas where the legislation is deemed insufficient.  Sanders endorses a sober and responsible assessment.  Sanders did vote for Dodd-Frank.

    Conclusion: Your attack on Bernie in this area is wholly unfair.

    3.     You claim Clinton is not a "tool of corporate interests". 

    Her  long and close relationship with the fossil fuel industry is well-documented here.  Likewise, she has consistently favored the interests of Wall Street over Main Street as demonstrated in part by her support of the bankruptcy bill in 2002 that she had previously opposed, her work as Secretary of State championing the TPP, and the praise she offered Goldman Sachs in her speeches to them.  These facts among others demonstrate why Wall Street bankers have said they are "comfortable" with her.

    Conclusion: Despite your claim to the contrary, Clinton is a tool of corporate interests.

    4.      You claim Clinton is not an "architect of mass incarceration"?  She was a full-throated supporter of the 1994 crime bill that doubled the number of incarcerated Americans.  She opposes decriminalizing marijuana and thereby ending the drug war which has produced an endless supply of inmates to feed into the private prison industry's maw.  Until shamed into returning the money late last year, she accepted money from private prison industry lobbyists.

    Conclusion: Clinton may not be an architect of mass incarceration but her actions have fueled the extraordinarily large numbers of incarcerated Americans.

    5.      You claim Clinton is not responsible for fueling deep poverty.

    We have lost many millions of good manufacturing jobs since NAFTA and other free trade deals and permanent MFN status for China, which she supported, were approved.  This has led to high unemployment and poverty rates.  At the same time, Clinton spoke in favor of the Welfare Reform Act her husband signed which cut the amount of government support available to those most in need. 

    Conclusion: Clinton is responsible for fueling deep poverty.

    6.      You claim Clinton is not a warmonger.

    Clinton's vote for the war on Iraq gave significant cover to the Cheney/Bush cabal ultimately responsible for our worst foreign policy mistake since Vietnam.  Clinton has spoken fondly of her friend Henry Kissinger who is undoubtedly a warmonger.  Clinton pushed the US to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi and has been the most hawkish Democratic when it comes to fighting in Syria.

    Conclusion: Clinton is a warmonger.

    -----------------------

    You have made a number of bald assertions highly critical of Bernie Sanders and in defense of Hillary Clinton.  Upon relatively cursory inspection, all such claims can easily be shown to be false or, at best, highly misleading.   Isn't it time for you to change your opinion?


    Oy!  Do we really have to go there?  I'll take a shot at responding to these memes, which are at best utterly lacking in context and more often simply misleading distortions. 

    1. Health Care:  I'd say calling for a single-payer system only a few years after the ACA took effect is quite different from saying the ACA simply did not go far enough.  We know how hard it was to get that bill through Congress even without the "public option."  Like it or not, Americans are suspicious of government, resentful of higher taxes, and mostly happy with their employer-provided insurance.  Remember the outcry over several thousand people whose inadequate insurance plans were replaced under the ACA?  Now imagine the reception for an actual, not imagined, government takeover of an industry that consumes 17% of GDP.  Sanders' call for a single-payer system under the circumstances not only denigrates that historic accomplishment that has halved the rate of uninsured in 2 years) but is IMHO, an insane waste of political capital.  Also, the goals of extending coverage and bringing down costs can be accomplished within a system of regulated private insurance.  Taking the insurance company out of the equation does not solve the problem.

    2. Dodd/Frank: Of course, Sanders did vote for Dodd Frank.  His insistence on repealing Glass/Stegall, breaking up banks and jailing financial executives rather than implementing and extending those regulations does seem to me to contain an implicit criticism of the effect of the law, and Barney Frank himself seems to agree.  http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/three-reasons-why-things-will-get-harder-for-bernie-sanders-213591 As with single-payer, those ideas shift the focus entirely.  Without getting too deep in the weeds, I've read numerous pieces preferring the breadth and reach of her planned reforms.  See, e.g., http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9482521/hillary-clinton-financial-reform
    http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/hillary-clinton-gets-bernie-sanders-doesnt-wall-street  

    3. "Tool of Corporate Interests":  (A) Accepting campaign contributions from individuals within a particular industry (that does not meet your favor) does not make one a tool of that industry.  (B) On the various bankruptcy bills, the facts are far more complicated.  As Elizabeth Warren has stated, Clinton was instrumental in getting the first Clinton administration to veto the first bankruptcy bill. A similar bill came up in 2001 when Hillary was the NY Senator.  Clinton has claimed that some of the offending provisions had been changed and she voted for the bill at the urging of then-Senator Biden.  That bill did not pass and, I believe, never made it out of committee.  Another bankruptcy bill came up in 2005. Hillary opposed that bill, but was not present for the vote because Bill was in the hospital.  Her vote either way would not have made a difference.           

    4. Mass Incarceration: As a public defender, this one is near and dear to my heart and your assertion that the Crime Bill doubled incarceration rates is simply false.  First, the missing context: At the time the law was passed, America was at the end of a real crime wave (it had peaked, I believe, a year or two before, but of course, no one would have recognized that at the time). Communities really were under seige. And Democrats had been taking a beating for years for being "soft on crime" (see Willie Horton).  Bill Clinton's "tough on crime" posture was essential to the Democrats taking back the White House and it's fair to consider what legislation might have looked like if we hadn't.  As for the Bill itself, which Sanders voted for, along with Carole Mosely Braun, Bobby Rush, 2/3 of the Congressional Black Caucus, Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, etc., it had virtually no effect on mass incarceration, which was the result of State level policies enacted long before.  Federal inmates make up only around 10% of the prison population.  There were some good things in the Bill that communities were asking for, more police officers, crime prevention programs (e.g., "midnight basketball" that Republicans mocked, VAWA and the assault weapons ban.  There were also some bad things: mandatory minimums, funding for more jails, truth in sentencing, more federal death penalty crimes (though none that have ever resulted in it being applied).  Violent crime and homicides, which had just started to fall off before the Bill passed (though not long enough to be seen as anything other than a statistical blip at the time) continued to fall after its passage and, while one can debate cause and effect, the law was for many years seen as a huge success.
    See http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2016/02/michelle_alexander_blames_hillary_clinton_for_mass_incarceration_she_shouldn.html

    http://www.vox.com/2016/2/11/10961362/clinton-1994-crime-law

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/02/22/dont_punish_clinton_sanders_for_1994_crime_bill_129729.html

    5. Any claim that NAFTA and trade with China are responsible for deep poverty is so ludicrous I wouldn't even know where to start.  With respect to the Welfare Reform passed by Bill Clinton (which I did not support at the time), note that the bill was the third one sent to Clinton by the Republican house (Clinton vetoed the first two). Like crime, it was an issue that Democrats had been slaughtered on for decades, with AFDC widely seen as promoting a “culture of dependency.” The bill imposed a work requirement, created tax credits for low income individuals, and funds for job training and childcare. It also replaced AFDC with block-granted TANF funds to the States and placed a time limit of 5 years for receiving benefits. It was widely hailed for many years for nudging people into the workforce but over time the time limits and block grants have proved to be bad ideas, though hardly responsible for persistence of deep poverty. Clinton has acknowledged that those provisions should be changed. Sanders, I believe, has not articulated how he would replace the bill.

    6. Warmonger - I answered those claims on a different thread.  

    I'm out of gas.   

     


    1 & 2.  You wrote Sanders called ACA and Dodd-Frank "hopelessly ineffective".  It appears you're backing away from that claim.  Good.

    3.  If Clinton is not a tool of corporate interests, I'd like to know who is.  Over and over, with a few exceptions, she has put them ahead of the people.  You, I notice, haven't provided counter-examples, although there are some.

    4. From the Guardian: "Former US president Bill Clinton has called for an end to mass incarceration, admitting that changes in penal policy that happened largely under his watch put 'too many people in prison and for too long' and 'overshot the mark'."  More from the same source:

    In 1994 Clinton championed a crime bill that laid down several of the foundations of the country’s current mass incarceration malaise. Vowing to be “tough on crime” – a quality that had previously been more closely associated with the Republicans and which Clinton adopted under his “triangulation” ploy – he created incentives to individual states to build more prisons, to put more people behind bars and to keep them there for longer. His also presided over the introduction of a federal three-strikes law that brought in long sentences for habitual offenders.

    In terms of doubling the incarcerated population, in 1994, the Justice Department estimated the number of incarcerated people in America's prisons  at about 1.5 million.  By 2014, ThinkProgress estimated there might be 2.4 million people behind bars at any one time.  So I was wrong when I said the '94 bill doubled the number of inmates.  During the subsequent 20 years, the number of inmates increased by about 60%.  Given that numbers had been steadily rising before 1994, I'd say a 60% rise remains wholly unacceptable and is fairly described as mass incarceration.

    5.     Public Citizen put together a comprehensive report in 2001 detailing how NAFTA led to the impoverishment of thousands of American family farmers.  The Economic Policy Institute documented the loss of over 750,000 jobs during the Clinton administration due to NAFTA.  The Week describes the despair in working-class communities around our nation due to cutbacks to social welfare programs, especially Clinton's welfare reform:

     American poverty is increasingly brutal. Male wages at the bottom fifth of the income ladder, for instance, have fallen by over 30 percent since the late 1960s, and inequality has exploded. These days, those in the top 1 percent capture virtually all economic growth.

    Other countries have responded to similar trends by building a strong welfare state: universal health care, free education and college, disability and unemployment insurance, maternity leave, a child allowance, paid vacation, and so on. With economic growth plugging along, there is more social product to fund generous services — thus ensuring that just about everyone has at least a decent standard of living. That is behind the broadly improving mortality rates in other nations.

    America has been extremely stingy about putting welfare where it's really needed. Fifty years after we got insurance coverage to the elderly and most of the poor, we just barely got a halfway-decent framework for covering everyone else who didn't have it (which still needs a ton of work). Direct cash aid to the poor was basically killed under Bill Clinton. And we are nearly alone in the world in providing no maternity leave or child allowance. (It's important to note that we do spend about as much as sensible countries on welfare, it's just that a huge portion of it is funneled straight to the rich through tax expenditures.) As a result, the white American poor — like Dylann Roof's friends — are economically insecure and deeply alienated from mainstream society.

    6.      We look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions.  I see 1) a vote for war on Iraq, 2) cajoling the Obama administration to bomb Libya into submission, and 3) calls to arm rebels in Syria, 4) send them military "advisors", and 5) impose a "no-fly" zone as war-mongering.  You don't.  Fair enough.


    Beginning to think you simply don't read so well, vs. intentionally resistant, though hard to tell.

    1994        Federal inmates: 95,034            State inmates: 958,704

    Which should tell you that laws at the federal level were about 1/10th the effect of those at state level. Additionally, using 20 years as your window for the effects of Clinton's crime bill? That's 2 other presidents' 8 year terms along with the remainder of his. Why didn't someone else fix it once out of the crime epidemic? (except it's mostly state governors, so why didn't they?) Will you still blame him in 2065?

    "Over and over, with a few exceptions, she has put [corporate interests] ahead of the people." Yeah, right, Hal - this is becoming one of your patented bullshit standards. Last summer you couldn't even list any of HIllary's earlier legislation or most of the items on her platform, and now you're a supposed expert on all her corporate sellouts. So how exactly was Hillary listed as the 11th most liberal senator if she was such a corporate whore? I'm sure you'll come up with some bullshit logic on this one.

    PublicCitizen is Ralph Nader. Economic Policy Institute is Robert Reich. Nice guys, but they've been beating the same drum for a long long time, and it's pretty wearisome. Yeah, life is horrible, and as The Week says, let's all go kill ourselves.

    #6 war - what would you suggest doing, Hal, except sitting back and criticizing everything anyone is doing. Is war unnecessary already? Have the turtle doves descended already? Should we arm the Kurds and have them be our Mideast badasses? So many questions, so little time...

     


    Re: incarceration -

    The federal and state prison populations rose more under former President Bill Clinton than under any other president, according to a report from a criminal justice institute to be released today.  In fact, the analysis of U.S. Justice Department statistics by the left-leaning Justice Policy Institute, a project of a San Francisco-based justice center, found that more federal inmates were added to prisons under Clinton than under presidents George Bush and Ronald Reagan combined.

    http://articles.latimes.com/2001/feb/19/news/mn-27373 But maybe you don't like the LA Times either.

    Re: poverty - One other source regarding extreme poverty caused by Bill Clinton.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/27/bernie-sanders-is...

    But maybe you don't like the Washington Post either.

    Re: corporate welfare - Here's another example of her carrying water for the corporations.  Clinton in 2007: "I also want to reaffirm my commitment to the H-1B visa program and to increase the current cap. Foreign skilled workers contribute greatly to our U.S. technological development." http://www.computerworld.com/article/2909983/it-outsourcing/heres-where-... But maybe you don't like Computerworld or you don't think the H1B visa program leads to unemployment and lower wages here.   Mother Jones disagrees with you but then again you probably don't like Mother Jones either.

    But in reality, most of today's H-1B workers don't stick around to become the next Albert Einstein or Sergey Brin. ComputerWorld revealed last week that the top 10 users of H-1B visas last year were all offshore outsourcing firms such as Tata and Infosys. Together these firms hired nearly half of all H-1B workers, and less than 3 percent of them applied to become permanent residents. "The H-1B worker learns the job and then rotates back to the home country and takes the work with him," explains Ron Hira, an immigration expert who teaches at the Rochester Institute of Technology. None other than India's former commerce secretary once dubbed the H-1B the "outsourcing visa."

    Re: war.  I suggest voting against authorizing Bush to use force as a number of Democratic Senators and Bernie Sanders did.  I suggest holding off on bombing Libya as soon as it became clear (and it became clear very early on) that Gaddafi had neither the will nor the abilitfy to massacre the people in Benghazi.  I suggest exploring every diplomatic means available to avoid becoming embroiled in the Syrian conflict.  I also suggest that a "no-fly zone" is insane.


    Hal, this is getting a bit tedious and quite far afield from the original post, which was about comity after all (though, to be sure, I at least questioned the premise).  On a general level, I am not persuaded by your examples, which seem to consist of isolated exerpts, frequently misrepresented, shorn of any context and held up in contrast to an imaginary perfect world in which Republicans don't exist and every negative consequence can be traced back to craven decisions made 20 years ago that always seem to lead back to Clinton perfidy.  In this imagined world, Sanders proposals might indeed have resulted in better outcomes - indeed, Sanders might have even achieved some legislative accomplishments (and please don't send me the link to the "Amendment King.").  It's not the world we live in, though.  Turning to a few more specifics:

    1. I stand by my assertion that even as Sanders himself voted in favor, the thrust of his campaign's message is that the ACA and DF are derided as hopelessly insufficient.  Here's Barney Frank:  . 

    "In sharp contrast, and in a way that weakens Democrats in the coming electoral fight, Sanders denigrates what we did achieve to the point of dismissal."

    "As Sanders enjoys more success, you can expect the quiet unease over the tone of the Sanders campaign to become outspoken in coming weeks. Why? The problem isn’t his call for revolution to bring single-payer health care, much tougher taxation of the wealthy, universal free higher education or breaking up big banks. What troubles me and many of my former colleagues—among the most liberal members—is the belief that nothing short of this is worth fighting for.

    In fairness to Sanders, I do not argue that he is himself saying this explicitly, but that’s the message coming through to his supporters loud and clear: Unless he does not win the presidency with his promise of political revolution, they believe, nothing of consequence will be done to make us a better country.

    Defending the ACA, financial reform and a higher top tax rate from the lavishly financed assault from the right that is coming will be hard enough, without some on the left having been taught by Sanders that these hard-won progressive achievements weren’t all that valuable in the first place."

    2.  I don't know how many different ways I can say this, but the Crime Bill had a negligable effect on mass incarceration, which was the result of State policies put into effect years earlier.  Comparing the number of prisoners in the United States in 1994 to those at present could not be more irrelevant - it's akin to attributing one's present heart condition to a ham sandwich eaten 20 years ago. 

    3. Re: Trade.  I happen to be against the Democratic tide here in believing that more trade is actually a good thing overall, though there are bound to be winners and losers.  I've read both praising and criticizing NAFTA.    Those pieces I've read that have criticized the TPP have mostly conceded that the effects would not be profound.  What I have never seen until now is any claim that free trade is responsible for persistent poverty.

    4. The piece you linked to on the welfare reform is quite informative, though I believe not inconsistent with anything I've said.  Again, there's good and bad, and as in all these instances one also has to consider the alternatives.  AFDC had its own pathologies and was definitely on the way out.  

    Sorry, but I've run out of gas here.     


    Thanks.


    I talked to my daughter in Colorado last night as she stood in line to caucus for Bernie. Not only does she like his message but she has a soft spot for anything Vermont as we had our best family time there when she was growing up.

    Speaking of being "grown up", she and her husband will gladly support and vote for Clinton if Bernie loses the primary.


    I wish for Hillary to be my President and our friend. hahahahah

    Thank you for being my friend:


    I don't hate anybody for disagreeing.  I certianly disagree with you.  It's up to you how you feel about me.  But I will continue posting what I believe and you will continue to post what you believe and it does create tension when we are passionate about our beliefs.  Doesn't mean I hate anyone.  


    Thanks for writing this Ramona. You're my mother's favorite writer- a position I once held. I think too many people are confusing revolution with governance. Any revolution that ends in a shuffling of the political deck isn't a revolution. I really like Bernie, but I have to admit the size and scope of his program makes it a legislative impossibility. If his goal is to push the bar so far to the left that compromise yields incremental shifts in the system he's a genius.


    Thank you, Danny.  I'm sure your mom loves you much more than she loves me, but I'm flattered!

    I just finished watching the most bizarre program I've ever seen on TV, and I've seen Honey Boo Boo.  The GOP debate was such a wacky circus I'm feeling good about our chances to win the day and move to the rational left.  Bernie will be right there doing what he does best.  Hillary will be right there doing what she does best.  And we, either in or near the Democratic Party, will be energized and willing to work, because we've seen the opening and it is ours. 

    The Republicans have moved so far toward Starkmadland, liberalism/socialism is looking pretty good.  I think.


    Latest Comments