On Bernie Sanders and being a realist Progressive
It is 2007. Our wonderful Pandora says to family and friends that the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate is a shoe-in to win the Presidency, unless of course that candidate is a black man or a woman. She of course thinks there is a lot of racism and sexism left in the world, and that would prevent either from winning a general election. And of course she was and is right. Where I disagreed with her was that the racists and sexists wouldn’t be voting for the Democrat in the general election anyway, for, after realignment over the last forty years, they were diehard Republicans.
Thus, for me, thinking that race and gender were no longer barriers to winning the Presidency, I firmly believed a Democrat, any Democrat (well except maybe John Edwards) would win the general election. So, I abandoned my traditional pragmatism when it comes to voting.
You see, I usually want to vote for the most progressive candidate that can win.
Because winning is important to me. You don’t get to enact progressive policies to affect progressive change unless you first win an election.
So in evaluating candidates, I follow my heart and mind. But in 2008, I could more follow my heart, because my mind told me any Democrat then running (save John Edwards with Gingrich-style cheating on his cancer stricken wife) could win. And so I went with Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden.
But now it is 2015. We have made tremendous progress with a progressive President over the last seven years. And yes, Barack Obama is a progressive President who has achieved much progress, and to those Progressives who deny that, you are all purist idiots. Yes, he is not perfect. Yes, he did not prosecute bankers who got us into the financial collapse. Yes, he has not yet closed Gitmo. But we have achieved health insurance reform. We have new regulations protecting the consumer in the financial industry. We have new regulations on the financial industry. We have new regulations protecting the environment. We are pursing alternative energies. Gays and lesbians can get married. We have a more progressive tax structure now, what with the raising of taxes on the wealthy in 2013. We have an Iran Deal rather than a war with Iran. As Andrew Sullivan has predicted, Barack Obama will go down as the Liberal Reagan, a consequential President who has and will change the course of this nation for decades to come.
The most important consideration now for me is winning, so that all this progress is not reversed. As with 2012, we need the Democrat to win the Presidential election. Because a win is needed to cement policy changes into stone. Just as it was important for FDR and Harry Truman to win all those elections in the 30’s and 40’s to cement the New Deal into American society so that the next Republican President could not dare reverse them.
Now, there are some Democrats and progressives out there that do not care for electability arguments. They prefer to put the purest progressive candidate on the ballot, and if we lose, the consolation is that we were true to our principles and pure. Yeah, I am not much a fan of that opinion for the reasons I mention. For that, I am sure I am a sell out and a DINO. But whatever, at least with my way, we might get actual progressive policy results. If purist progressives had their way, Obamacare would have been defeated, and we would be where we were in 2008, with no health insurance reform, meaning that denial because of preexisting conditions is still possible, you still run up against yearly and lifetime caps, tens of millions of people uninsured, with no cost controls and or Medicaid subsidies. But that is ok for the purist progressive, because you stood on principle and waited for single payer. For me, being a Progressive is about making progress. Was Obamacare perfect? No. Is it a much better improvement on where we were? Yes.
To be sure, I am not advocating for the election of moderates or conservatives under the Democratic Party banner just so that our team can win. Like I said above, I want the strongest progressive candidate that can win.
At this time, I don’t think Bernie Sanders can win a presidential election.
And I will defer to Kavips to explain why.
Can Bernie Sanders win? Is supporting him a waste of vote? Were Bernie to win the nomination he would rapidly be pushed into the “crazy old man” box by our corporate media and would constantly be on the defensive clawing his way out. Vast numbers of the ill-informed would take portraying him that way as the truth. Little about American Presidential politics is based on ideas or policies… For a majority of Americans it is about electing your favorite Superhero. As in do your like Flash better than Wolverine? If Bernie was the candidate then large numbers of voters would compare him with the Republican who would be cloned like Romney and say,” Romney-clone is the more normal and with whom I am more comfortable with… I like what Sanders says but I’m more at home with a Romney clone on my TV than someone like Sanders”…. and a Republican then takes the White House…. Hillary despite her faults, as of now, is probably going to be the Democrat’s candidate simply because she has potential to steal voters away from the Republicans…. and bring voters into the fold who have never voted before but want to be part of putting a woman as the most power person on this planet.
That is my exact feeling that I have not been able to put into words until Kavips did it for me. I like Bernie Sanders. I like most of his ideas. I like his role in keeping the Overton Window on the left side of the spectrum. I like that his presence in the race is making Hillary even more progressive and liberal than she already is. I like that his presence is making her bolder (i.e. her student debt plan revealed earlier this week. Cautious triangulating Hillary would never had introduced that).
But Bernie does not look the part. As much as you want to scoff at this notion, choosing a President is a lot about visuals and stagecraft. And that is why Donald Trump is not going to win. His bombast is not what Americans picture in their Presidents.
You know what Kavips says is true. You know that is how our media functions. In a perfect world that purist progressives operate in, that doesn’t matter. I am not a purist and I have long ago realized this is no perfect world. And I want to win. That means I can’t vote for Bernie Sanders.
But, I will donate to Bernie Sanders. Why?
Because his continued presence in the race makes our party and Hillary Clinton more progressive. It makes our Democratic message more progressive.
Here is interesting question for purists to contemplate: Would you rather elect Bernie Sanders with a toned down, moderated platform or Hillary Clinton with a progressive platform? Because you know, if Bernie is the nominee, there will be some moderating going on so that he can appeal to the general electorate.
Think about that. My message to supporters of Bernie Sanders supporters is to keep supporting him, but don’t get deluded about the end game here. Be a realist. And realize that Bernie Sanders serves a very good purpose. But he is not going to be our next nominee or President.
Tags: Featured
Let me preface all of this by saying that I agree with most of it. However, you put up is a pretty flimsy straw man version of my general disgust with the elect-ability argument.
That is simply dishonest. Maybe, if you take a breath, you can see that erring too much on the side of thinking about electability presents its own problems, such as an under-motivated base and lackluster election results despite (and because) if the selection of the more “electable” option. (See: Dean v Kerry & Kerry v Bush)
I don’t know why Democrats don’t get the fact that the base moves the needle. How do Republicans keep winning? Because of their policies?!?! Hell no. It is because they get the base out.
That said – I’m ready for Hillary.
You can see that erring too much on the side of thinking about electability presents its own problems, such as an under-motivated base and lackluster election results despite (and because) if the selection of the more “electable” option. (See: Dean v Kerry & Kerry v Bush)
It is a balancing act. And yes, you can err on the side of electability. In 2004, it would have been better to have Dean instead of Kerry. But why did Kerry win? Because Dean did something that made him look unelectable. The Dean Scream. Boy, did the corporate media run with that, didn’t they? It and they made Dean look crazy, and thus support dropped away.
I know the media shouldn’t matter, but it does and it cannot be changed unless you can loan me a couple billion to buy and run a cable network.
It’s silly to even pretend to know who is “electable” and who isn’t. Sounds like a discussion for Chris Matthews “Hardball”. And like the Hardball program, it’s a waste of time.
@Dorian… LOL. Well, I am making educated guesses based on experience and history. But yes, this all might be a waste of time.
I agree with DG. It is the beltway Dem consultant types who fret about electability. And when have the Beltway Dem consultant types ever been right?
When they said Gore should distance himself from Clinton? No.
When they said Liberman was a good running mate? No.
When they said Kerry was electable? No.
When they said voters would lie to pollsters about voting for Obama out of racism? No.
When they said Obama shouldn’t over play his hand, and should seek to build bridges to the congress? No.
Dem consultants are like neocons. They are never right, and yet they never lose status for being wrong.
Has Hillary pledged to support the Democratic nominee? Just wondering,
With Bernie you’ll get something worse than the ACA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw
PJTV on YouTube is how I get all my best public policy information. That and anonymous anecdotal nonsense from blog comments.
let’s be honest…. Anonymous is really just Jason’s most recent stab at performance art.
I know god damn well this was meant for me 😉
“And yes, Barack Obama is a progressive President who has achieved much progress, and to those Progressives who deny that, you are all purist idiots.”
and so I’m responding in turn. Obama has been the better alternative to anything the GOP could have provided. He sure has been for Wall Street.
I guess I don’t know what a progressive is either, or at least your definition of one. Obamacare? I guess if you can say a major, major sell out the insurance industry progressive sure.
That drone buzzing over your head? Very progressive.
The NSA reading this blog, my email, capturing my pictures and recording my phone “meta data”. If that aint progressive I don’t know what is!!!!!
Remember all those people that tortured innocent people he punished or at least removed from the CIA and military? Let me help you with the names of them……
How about the progressive ideas when it came to holding banks accountable for their continued misdeeds? Fine after fine after fine
Remember that progressive move he made when he signed up for “indefinite detentions”? Yes the epitomy of progressive. Being able to be locked up for no crime because the government said so. Progressive…very progressive.
How about the killing of American citizens with no trial? Progressive x 2
How about the mini wars he continues to fight with drones? OHHHHHH Progressive! No boots on the ground…he’s practically Carter!
You see that defense budget? Man…amazing what we continue to spend now that a Progressive is in office I don’t know how we haven’t been invaded yet
How about that income divide? Very progressive indeed how that gap has been narrowed. Thanks Obama, I now have a bigger piece of the pie
I was wondering how progressive it is to be the most transparent president ever ( I think he vowed to be) then he pushed through the TPP? In secret
How about the revolving door of lobbyists and corporate leaders taking posts within government. I don’t remember exactly his promise to do something about the revolving door that is Washington….but I don’t think he has progressively achieved shit there either.
Planned Parenthood has less money than it did before he started? Does it not?
I’m orgasming progressivity out my manvessel
Obama is a centrist at best. He is not progressive. Spare me.
I almost forgot that Nobel Peace Prize he received then proceeded to say War means Peace and some times you gotta kill baby. How is for progressive baby..
How about those cuts to social programs he gave away BEFORE even starting to negotiate budget cuts with the GOP during the debt ceiling nonsense? Remember that? Remember that collective freakout we went through when he agreed before anything started to cut spending?
OMG that’s right, he’s progressive. That didn’t happen.
The electability issue with Sanders is the word Socialist. The media and regressive party will beat that term to death without directly addressing his policies. Other than any how could any sane person not support him unless you are a 1% corporate crook or one of their self hating talk radio shills
But hey, the buggers are legal now, what more could you ask for
In the 50s a Catholic was not a feasible presidential candidate. In the early aughts a black man was not feasible. A woman has only been feasible in the last 10 years. decide who’s electable. Discussing electability is a waste of time. It’s used to fill air time on cable TV.
On the “progressive” argument, poor DD is a victim of wishful thinking. But even after everything Viti wrote, facts are facts, we got marginally better policies from Obama than we would have gotten from McCain or Romney. However, to call those “progressive” is risible. They’re at best left-of-center.
Progressive? Purity Test? where the hell do you live in bizzaro world?
How about that wonderful manufacturing jobs draining of the “FAST TRACK” (Secret as hell, favoring human rights and worker abusing Malaysia among other despotic “progressive” regimes) Trans Pacific Trade Agreement being negotiated (or so we’re told, no access allowed for stakeholders or States) now that will put China in the competitive drivers seat with its neighbors without forfeiting one iota of its worker/child, environmental and human rights atrocity driven economic style.
Progressive my butt.
John Kowalko
It’s nice to see Delaware Dem regurgitating the lies from a stale Krugman article in the Atlantic. Marriage equality? Obama opposed allowing homosexual individuals to marry each other until Biden came out in support. Even then, Obama continued to oppose any federal protection of marriage equality, claiming that marriage is a “state’s rights” issue. Health insurance reform? Yeah, we achieved the implementation of a Heritage Foundation idea (a conservative organization, since Delaware Dem apparently does not know) that, as donviti said, is just a subsidy to maintain to the private insurance industry system in our country. New environmental regulations? Not only do we NOT have any new regulations, since they are only currently being worked on, Obama has worked to defeat any binding international agreements to deal with climate change, and domestically has only proposed cap-and-trade, which is a conservative “solution” (meaning it does nothing at all to actually decrease carbon emissions) to climate change. More progressive tax structure? You mean more progressive than W. Bush, I guess? Because Obama’s tax structure is far LESS progressive than prior to that, especially since he made permanent most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy (only removing the tax cuts for those making over $400,000, and only after the majority of his presidency). He also removed subsidies for accumulated interest on student loans while students were still attending school.
In addition to all those lies from Delaware Dem, there are also the other points that donviti and my dad bring up, including his massive increase of drone killings, his abuse use of the NSA, continuing to increase the DOD budget, his appointment of lobbyists and corporate insiders to almost all posts, having one of the least transparent presidencies of all time, the proposed TPP, attempting to cut Social Security and other social programs, not to mention his continuation of rendition and other Bush era crimes, his stimulus package that was primarily tax cuts, his unprecedented deportation of undocumented immigrants, and his free trade deals with countries such as Columbia, which kills more union leaders than all other countries combined. Oh, and where has Obama been when unions have been fighting for their rights? Remember his “comfortable pair of shoes” he promised to bring to “walk on that picket line”? Yeah, unfortunately that didn’t happen once (and now we have people like Scott Walker who have made their name and money by destroying unions).
And how has all of Obama’s policies actually worked out? Well, here are some facts you don’t get to learn from a sell out like Krugman anymore. Since Obama took office, we now have higher levels of income inequality, lower wages for the bottom 90%, 99% of income gains going to the top 1%, far higher degree of disparity between income and wealth of whites compared to blacks and hispanics, healthcare costs continuing to rise higher than any other country, far higher degree of financial institution consolidation as well as media consolidation, the “too big to fail” banks are bigger than they ever were before (despite these amazing financial regulations Delaware Dem thinks exist), continually crumbling infrastructure (unaddressed by ARRA, which was mainly tax cuts and the remaining was only for “shovel ready” projects). I haven’t even gotten to his facts regarding his abhorrent foreign policy, and he has done truly evil things with his drone campaigns.
Obama is a proud member of the Third Way, which is a group that explicitly advocates for conservative fiscal policies. He has not stood up for any liberal social policies, and has been a social moderate at best. So a fiscal conservative and social moderate? Maybe that is “progressive” (indeed, that is roughly what the term historically meant). But Obama is NOT, in any way, a liberal. Maybe those who try to say that Obama is a not progressive are “purist idiots.” If so, then I guess that’s better than being a delusional liar.
As if on cue to prove my point.
Oh, and Representative Kowalko, purity tests among progressives do exist. Ask Bryan Townsend. Ask Paul Baumbach. Both have failed purity tests recently in the eyes of at least one purist progressive.
Jason,
What ARE you talking about??
Rep. Kowalko
The only person who meets your standards, John, is the person looking back at you in the mirror. Which is why you’ve alienated potential allies over and over again.
Jee-zus, do you ever read your drivel before posting? And your son is every bit as bad. Obama is far from perfect. But, he’s not exactly been a ‘Third Way’ D. And his Executive Orders could well be his progressive legacy. Accomplishing major goals despite the refusal of a Rethug congress to act responsibly.
Let’s see…this year alone, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact With Iran, wage increases for employees of federal contractors, stricter greenhouse gas standards, an end to no overtime compensation for executive personnel making less than (I think) $50K, an end to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders. And now, major pushback on efforts to water down the Voting Rights Act. You think Carper, Carney or Coons would push for any of those? Of course not. And they epitomize ‘The Third Way’.
Relentless logorrhea is no substitute for rational thought. In fact, it’s pretty much an antonym.
If you’re so bleeping simon-pure, why not run for higher office yourself? Spout that BS to the voters and see how they react. I predict they’ll react just like your legislative colleagues.
While our President has been a decent Democrat. People give him far too much credit on social issues. Even purist liberterians agree with so called progressives on LGBT rights. Even Jack Markell accomplished good things on social issues. These accomplishments have not been the heavy lift people make them out to be when compared to the economic issues that have plagued this country for a number of years.
If Secretary Clinton is the nominee I will hold my nose once again and vote for her as the lesser evil but expectations will be low
As expected, Delaware Dem and El Somnamblo are incapable of actually refuting any of the substance or facts, and instead revert to personal attacks (while cowardly hiding behind their pseudonyms).
Yo, JK III, my name is Steve Tanzer and everyone here knows it, including your pop. So, pardon my French, but fuck you for calling me a coward. I laid out a lot of substance as to what Obama has done and is trying to do. I consider that to be ‘refuting’. Yes, I hate the bleeping proposed treaty as well, but if you can’t see that he has been pushing a progressive agenda during his last years in office, then you’re beyond hope.
Purity for purity’s sake. Sainthood no doubt awaits you.
BTW, I’m inclined to vote for Bernie. Or basically anybody but Hillary. So don’t try to pigeonhole me. You’ll once again be wrong.
Yeah, editing your post after I post mine. So you are also a hypocritical liar. Bye.
Delaware Dem, a lot of build up to say what you could have said in three words, “your a socialist”
JK3, flame throwing the allies is never a good idea.
Rusty, it’s “you’re”. mr k3, I’m not sure what you’re trying to do here, but don’t be Alan Grayson, it’s very undignified
Alan Grayson is a conservative according to JK3. I mean, when you say that Paul Krugman is a conservative liar or a delusional liar, there really is no speaking to him. No hope of dialogue.
Electability, in the end, does matter. Ginsberg is no sprung chicken. “Socialist” is a scary word to older Americans and those who ignore specific policies. We can’t sacrafice the good for the perfect. Was Obama perfect? No, but Reagan on the other side raised taxes and is still idolized. His legacy will be that of a strong Democrat, given what he had to work with especially. I like Bernie, and might vote for him in primary, but we need to defend Hillary and recognize that she will probably be our nominee and best hope to cement the positive that has occurred.
Exactly Mike. I am not asking people to abandon Bernie Sanders. Hell, I explicitly said the exact opposite. But I am asking people to be realistic. And among the more fervent purist progressives, that is where we run into problems, as demonstrated above.
{ grabs popcorn }
The turn this has taken makes me sad. I lived just down the street from the Kowalkos in Windy Hills for nearly 10 years. I was so excited to cast my vote for John the first time he ran. He is a union man with socialist leanings and was my neighbor. Now he’s paranoid, sanctimonious and shrill. Don’t even get me started on JKIII’s comments. (It reminded me of Alan Grayson as well. Incredible bore.)
Look, I’m a Socialist and I’m proud. I’m disappointed in Obama as well – deeply disappointed – and for all the reasons Donviti and John mentioned. But we need to accept that he was the best thing on offer. That’s just a fact. You can throw a fucking tantrum if that’s your bag, but I fail to see how that helps anything. We need loud opposition from the left like Sanders (and Kowalko), but we don’t need fucking lectures.
On the electability bit, I guess I need to say it again. The entire idea is meaningless because nobody knows who’s electable and who isn’t. That’s why we, you know, have the election. It’s entirely made up by campaign staffers, bloggers and cable news producers.
“History is the present. That’s why every generation writes it anew. But what most people think of as history is its product, myth.” – EL Doctorow
Tempest in a teapot. Delawareans don’t get any say in presidential primaries. Bernie will keep things interesting, and will keep Hillary honest. His achievement will be if Hillary is prompted to make committments that are further left than she would have otherwise. I’m rooting for Bernie, and when he drops out I will root for Hillary. But I do have to keep revising Bernie’s ceiling upward.
I will always take a win on social issues but that’s not the litmus test for progressives. The hallmark of progressivism is taxing the rich and using the money to advance the country. That is how we will restore a broad prosperity. I’m for whoever is most committed to throwing trickle-down into reverse.
But it will suck when Hillary chooses a conservaDem running mate.
The real test would be when Sanders is on the presidential ballot as a Democratic Socialist. I know what I’d do. (Donviti – Queue the sound bite of people crying Ralph Nader’s name through huge tears.)
Puck’s got it! Clinton will pull a full Lieberman… But we’ll still be admonished to swallow our pride and just accept it for “electability” reasons. And nothing will ever change because nobody has the guts to use their votes to show that moves like that have consequences. The entire idea fulfills itself… The reason Sanders isn’t “electable” in your minds is because went we’re up against it you all will vote for HRC. It has very little to do with the fact that older voters are “afraid” of the word Socialism. Somebody afraid of Socialism isn’t voting for HRC either.
Yes, the best alternative indeed. But to espouse that he was progressive is nonsense is my only point.
I am a Puckist.
The fear of Nader ruining everything is true and real and also used as a reason to swallow the jagged little pill. And that is what is so infuriating
DV – You are correct. That’s clear I think. My issue here is this phony idea of “electability.” It’s a manufactured cop-out.
Yes, the Nader thing happened. But Nader was simply an activist. Sanders is a politician. That’s the first bit. Additionally, the entire thing is based on low expectations and as I said it’s self fulfilling.
Jason – I would like a full post from you exploring the Puckist view on marcoeconomic issues and foreign policy. 🙂
I’ve never understood the scorched earth mindset. I’ll say what I said in 2007 – I will vote for the Dem nominee, whoever that is. The alternative is unacceptable.
Jason – I would like a full post from you exploring the Puckist view on marcoeconomic issues and foreign policy.
Yeah, i’d like to read that too.
Obama is a centrist and a consensus builder. Hardly a progressive. Compared to what is in DC, he is progressive. But that isn’t saying much. His healthcare reform is far from progressive. It is a republican idea. His environmental record is tragic. But that’s cool, we can give him a pass on that. The only people that make the environment a priority are tree huggers and nobody listens to them. Banks? He just wrote a blank check and moved on. (Yeah, that is over simplified, but here I sit, still waiting for reform and a banker to be thrown in jail).
I gave up early in Obama’s administration (somewhere between bailing out banks without even talking about accountability and the healthcare debate) thinking he would magically grow a pair and fight for something instead of measured approaches and seeking agreement with those bent on destroying him. The latter being evidence that just because you are incredibly smart with advanced degrees, that does not mean you aren’t as dumb as a bag of hammers in matters of the human condition, life skills and management.
There is one thing that could turn me against Hillary, and that is if she comes out with GOP-style negative ads against Bernie. I hope it doesn’t come to that.
When Kay Hagan was challenging Elizabeth Dole in NC in 2008, Dole put out an anti-Hagan ad that implied she was an atheist (Hagan is a Sunday-school teacher), even ending with a voiceover with what was implied to be Hagan’s voice saying “There is no God…” As soon as the ad finished playing my hand automatically went to my wallet and I sent money to Hagan.
Hillary going after Bernie for “socialism” or “extremism” or dog-whistles thereof is likely to provoke the same response.
Reading some of the comments here about the political positions that must be taken, regardless of the potential negative consequences, reminds me of a scene from The Dark Knight: https://youtu.be/5q3z4IP_nNU
[Note: The above statement is chock full of hyperbole… I still love most of you.]
“I will vote for the Dem nominee, whoever that is. The alternative is unacceptable.”
Spoken like a true extremist. You could be an average caller at WGMD if you just changed the party affiliation.
I’m an extremist. I’m extremely certain that any Dem nominee would be an extremely better President than any of the extreme fuckwits and nincompoops running for the GOP nomination.
I won’t actually vote for either major-party nominee — I never do, because Delaware already is in the Democratic column — so when I say “I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary” I mean that figuratively, not literally.
That said, it is not extremist to say you won’t vote for any of the Republican candidates, given that not a single one of them is less extremist than the extremist Republican Congress. Refusing to vote for extremism is not extremism — or rather, it’s only extremism in the mind of conservatives, who lack the intelligence to understand the concepts involved.
JK III wrote:
“Yeah, editing your post after I post mine. So you are also a hypocritical liar. Bye.”
Uh, no I didn’t. Seriously, WTF are you talking about?
Here’s my concern with the ‘electability’ argument. The same ‘electability/inevitability’ argument was made in 2008. Hillary proved to be profoundly uninspiring, and pretty much everything she said sounded like it had been focus group-tested.
So, I start out with more than a little distrust that she means anything she says. She still sounds incredibly stage-managed to me, and there is not a single note of spontaneity (and/or what she REALLY believes, if anything) in what I’ve heard. At least to me. So, there’s no way I’m jumping on the ‘Inevitability Train’ in August.
Could be a whole ‘nother scenario come January.
The only real question is whether support for Sanders will/could ultimately hurt Clinton. I can’t see how. Being hated by the left is actually a mark in favor of a centrist, isn’t it?
Sure, Sanders would be targeted for caricature, but so will any of the GOP candidates, none of whom can reach “centrist” no matter how far they try to stretch. Bernie’s real problem is a failure to connect with minorities so far; without high participation by minority voters, Democrats will have problems in 2016. That said, I think Hillary, with her large female base (no, that’s not a joke about her figure), will get more white votes than Obama did, so I would judge that, regardless of specific positions on issues, she is more “electable” than Sanders.
I think the crowds turning out for Sanders and, for that matter, Trump, suggest that people are looking for more than the carefully-calibrated rhetoric of the usual suspects.
And the stuff Sanders says makes sense to a progressive like me. I get what you’re saying, Geezer, but enough people may wonder whether the constant suggestion of scandal just around the corner, combined with mush-mouthed policy positions, are worth voting for, or even risking in a general election.
You’re right about Sanders’ outreach to minorities, but he’s trying. Wonder what would happen if a group purporting to be ‘Black Lives Matter’ interrupted a Hillary rally.
Although, granted, a lot less people would be inconvenienced…
“enough people may wonder whether the constant suggestion of scandal just around the corner, combined with mush-mouthed policy positions, are worth voting for, or even risking in a general election.”
I think people feel that way without any help from Sanders.
There’s no question in my mind that the email story, which keeps repeating like a nothingburger with onions, has hurt her image. One would think that a simple observation — the Chinese (or was it the Russians?) hacked into the secure government computers, so what difference does it make? — would defuse the story, but journalism no longer covers actual news, it just assigns reporters to follow certain people around (putative presidential candidates, mostly) and report on what happens, even when nothing happens.
Without Bernie, she’d be getting it even worse.
Dear faithful blogger readers-
At 12:09 today El Som, Steve Tanzer, made this comment to JK IIIs 9:10 pm accusation that Steve changed one of his posts-
JK III wrote:
“Yeah, editing your post after I post mine. So you are also a hypocritical liar. Bye.”
Uh, no I didn’t. Seriously, WTF are you talking about?
This was Steve Tanzer’s original post at 8:12 pm last night. It seemed to be addressed to JK Sr.-
“The only person who meets your standards, John, is the person looking back at you in the mirror. Which is why you’ve alienated potential allies over and over again.
Jee-zus, do you ever read your drivel before posting?
If you’re so bleeping simon-pure, why not run for higher office yourself?”
El Som (Steve Tanzer) added the paragraphs below to his 8:12pm post AFTER John III’s 8:39 pm post at the same time he (Steve Tanzer) wrote the 8:46 pm post in which he says “I laid out a lot of substance as to what Obama has done and is trying to do. I consider that to be ‘refuting’:
“And your son is every bit as bad. Obama is far from perfect. But, he’s not exactly been a ‘Third Way’ D. And his Executive Orders could well be his progressive legacy. Accomplishing major goals despite the refusal of a Rethug congress to act responsibly.
Let’s see…this year alone, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact With Iran, wage increases for employees of federal contractors, stricter greenhouse gas standards, an end to no overtime compensation for executive personnel making less than (I think) $50K, an end to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders. And now, major pushback on efforts to water down the Voting Rights Act. You think Carper, Carney or Coons would push for any of those? Of course not. And they epitomize ‘The Third Way’.
Relentless logorrhea is no substitute for rational thought. In fact, it’s pretty much an antonym.
Spout that BS to the voters and see how they react. I predict they’ll react just like your legislative colleagues.”
So yes, Steve, you DID change your post after you got a comment accusing you of not refuting of a commenter’s facts.
Don’t you blog site owners have any integrity? You add after the fact comments to prove others points of view are wrong and claim your comment was there all the time??
Delaware Liberal- or at least some of their owner bloggers- should be shut down. This is disgusting.
Connie Merlet- not a pseudonym, and not a liar
wow. It sure is a mystery why nobody likes JK. A huge goddam mystery.
If pugnacious politicians benefited from family members helping fight their battles, you’d see more of that from successful politicians. If you catch my drift.
Connie – So I guess I’ll add petty to the list. In case you haven’t noticed this isn’t the New York Review of Books. Like I wrote earlier today, I’m am so sad for Kowalko and his camp. I was a neighbour and supporter of his. Lately, rather than a reasoned politician with a socialist bent, we get a paranoid weirdo.
I think you guys believe you are fighting a war, but it’s only in your own minds. To even take the time to post that is astonishing. I know you think you’re helping, but you’re really not. You’re going to have to trust me on this one.
I understand being the proverbial thorn in the side. Holding everyone to account, especially politicians who call themselves liberal. But acting like a petulant, petty little child isn’t doing you any favours. On the contrary, it makes you look like an asshole.
If we wanted a typical liberal screed we just watch old Keith Obermann videos on YouTube. Lighten up, we’re on the same team here.
A lot of this thread seems similar to the complaint “If we would just nominate a real conservative…”
While polls indicative general agreement on many progressive issues, that agreement does not translate into real change simply because inertia is a comfortable place. Better the devil you know…
As a centrist, would I vote for Sanders? Maybe. Depends on how Sanders articulates his vision on domestic and foreign policy and of course on which whack job is pretender to the “real conservative” label. If Sanders were the candidate against a Trump, Sanders would win in a landslide. People may be entertained by Trump, but I honestly don’t think they are going to put the fate of the nation in his hands.
A lot of this thread seems similar to the complaint “If we would just nominate a real conservative…”
^^^^^^^^THIS All Day.
Yo, Connie, I responded to JK III’s meanderings in my 8:12 post by showing some of the things that Obama has done that I think prove that he’s not a Third Way D.
I did NOT edit my post after JK III’s 8:39 post. Rather, I responded to his post at 8:46 to point out that he had ignored what I had written. Did I edit my initial post? Yes, but long before 8:30, and before JK III’s response. I often do that if I have something to add or feel I haven’t framed something the way I want to.
At this point, all THREE of you have now distorted what both DD and I have written, and have called us liars.
Maybe there’s some Bizarro World DL site where your family’s lunatic rantings can find a home. Me? I’m sick of being called a liar, so bleep you.
Oh, and the next time John calls someone a liar, I’ll consider the source.
I believe the first person to come into this thread with a flame thrower and start calling everyone liars was JK3.
I was unaware that disagreeing with someone over what and what is not progressive makes you automatically a liar.
I was unaware that editing a comment to add an additional thought makes not only the specific contributor making the addition a liar lacking any integrity, but also all of his fellow contributors, and indeed the entire website. Apparently the D in DL now stands for disgusting.
And with that, I am closing comments on this thread. And I suggest all the Kowalkos go find other things to do than bother us with their self righteousness.