Listen: Bernie isn't playing some game of "N-th dimensional" chess
A person who meets the bullet-point description below is a person who is literally 180 degrees opposite every message Bernie sent this election season (except one; more later).
- is corrupt
- is (probably) a criminal
- is a serial liar
- supports the economic side (neoliberalism doesn't do it justice: it's neo-integralism on a global scale) of a fascist policy
- supports and orders the death of men, women, and children abroad (as long as they aren't US citizens, and preferably also not white)
Bernie has said he'd support the Democratic nominee since the campaign started in 2015. So a candidate who fits that description wouldn't be the opposite of that message. However there is support and there is support. The real extent of his support for Hillary remains to be seen. My view is we should take Bernie at his word, though. He has endorsed Clinton, and he will campaign for her and other democrats. He has endorsed her in spite of her standing opposed to every issue he has advocated in this campaign because, as he himself has said, he thinks Trump will be worse. He may not think that only Hillary can beat Trump, but for whatever reasons he acts as if that is what he believes.
He isn't making some wink-and-nod gesture to supporters or asking us to read between the lines. He isn't secretly supporting independents and he isn't secretly preparing a third-pary or Independent bid post-convention. Could that change? Sure, but he will speak and signal plainly his intent to do so.
As exciting as his announcements for progressive organizations are, they should not be construed as pertaining to this election cycle. They are very clearly future-oriented. And, while some casual statements he has made indicate these organizations will support non-democrats "if appropriate," there isn't anything substantive to indicate what "appropriate" means or in what contexts (e.g. would that apply at all levels, including POTUS, or is there an "upper limit?"). We shouldn't assume intent or anything else, given how plainly and honestly Bernie has been to date, except where his actions can reasonably be interpreted (e.g. as is the case in his endorsement of Hillary over, say, Jill, in which we can reasonably conclude he thinks Hillary is the best candidate who has a chance to beat Trump).
Considering all this, I will make a controversial and antagonistic statement: Bernie ought to be considered a sheepdog for the Democratic Party, at least for now. This does not mean I think he has betrayed anybody. It is simply an observation of his actions and the conclusion I draw from considering them. So I will weigh his campaign rhetoric for this election cycle with a bit of extra skepticism that, in my opinion, carrying water for one of the corrupt criminal parties that run this country merits.
Comments
He's certainly something for the Democratic party
now, whatever he was during the primary. Maybe not a bad thing for those who still support the Dem party, maybe even a good thing. But for those who consider the Dem party the opposition, it is what it is and Bernie is what he is, a Democratic party politician.
But it doesn't really matter now except to those who still hold out hope that Clinton will be arrested by a SWAT team at the convention and Bernie will be inserted into the "place nominee here" slot. We're either going to get Clinton or Trump as President for FOUR YEARS! so the question is what are we going to do about it. Are we going to just shut up and take it or are we going to tell them where they can shove it. Personally I'm going to tell them where they can shove it every chance I get.
No matter how things go...
It appears that the Greens will be positioned to offer the most viable challenge to the Clinton Industrial Complex. I see no downside to helping them get signatures and getting to know Dr. Stein while we're waiting to see what happens at the convention.
Currently, I don't think Bernie matters that much in terms of the presidential race. I mean, unless he comes up with some magic set of words to make us forget that we don't like evil, he can't hurt us. I love him, I really do, but he isn't the boss of all progressives. He knows that. We know that. He has endorsed a lot of candidates worthy of consideration. Except for one.
Why is it necessary to do this?
I meant it more as a disclaimer to let folks know I
understand that it's not necessarily a popular opinion.
And that's appreciated
At least, in regard to "controversial". It covers that just fine, though it doesn't address "antagonistic".Perhaps you said more than you meant to?
One of the reasons
this site rocks is we are not required to self censor. Someone gave me a hard time the other day for saying sheep dogging it and folding as it was derisive in language. I do not believe in the whole idea that pols regardless of their so called integrity or popularity are above speaking frankly about. I see why this poster is leery of expressing himself as he doesn't want to get yelled at for using disrespectful language about Bernie's sacred shoe, in caps. He sheep dogged and he folded regardless of what his apologist's divining his intentions are. It's I could give a rats ass about his intentions or political reasons. He did what he did. This is not an 11th or even 3 dimensional chess game. Been there heard that for 8 long years and that's exactly why I'm here. There I've said all I meant to. Hope i didn't antagonize you.
Again, over and over
You keep saying what I wish I had the guts to say in such strong terms. Once again, you spoke for me. Thank you, Shaz.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
I appreciate that you're not self-censoring
I'm sure not. But I never say up front that I'm going to antagonize someone when it's not actually my intention to do that
There are several synonyms for the word 'antagonistic,' such as
Blogging is about expressing one's opinions/views--including opposing ones.
I see no problem with BAL's choice of words.
Mollie
“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
National Mill Dog Rescue (NMDR) - Dogs Available For Adoption
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Context is everything
Obviously, YMMV....
Again, the context 'is' that this is political blog. If folks
want to spend their time parsing words, so be it.
Mollie
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I am well-aware of the context of the
blog. I was actually referring to your post which contained a word you took the time to post one definition of.
Thanks for the reply!
You're welcome. EOM
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Thanks, Shaz. Well put. EOM
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I'm curious
If you have any personal theories about why he didn't run Third Party instead of endorsing Hillary.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Thank you, BAL. Frankly, since this is a nonpartisan blogging
community, I am very sorry that you felt that it was even necessary to have to do so.
(issue a disclaimer, that is)
As a reminder, loyalty oaths or pledges to parties, or to candidates, are not required of members here at C99P.
Mollie
“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
National Mill Dog Rescue (NMDR) - Dogs Available For Adoption
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Because of this:
I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. - e.e.cummings
How many times does it get repeated?
And to what ends, exactly?
Just asking...
People are frustrated
They have a need to say it, and if this isn't the place to do that; vent - then where is the right place?
I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. - e.e.cummings
How about in the shower?
That's usually private enough to get a good vent going without any likelihood of doing any damage.
What damage does
it do to speak freely regarding Bernie Saunders candidacy and the subsequent consequences of his sheep dogging and endorsing Hillary? What's the damage done here? Loose lips sink ships? What done is done and their is no need not to discuss the matter. I prefer to sing in the shower and write talk about politics or issues openly on cc99%. If a candidate advocates and runs on a needed political revolution and then decides to throw his support behind the neoliberal Democratic party it's fair game to discuss.
Bernie is not playing any kind of 'N-th dimensional game'. He did what he felt was his best option. It's done so where's the harm in talking about the absurdity of believing his every move is strategically aimed at still being the Dem. candidate. He thinks he can do more good for people within the Dem. party. I disagree, I'm allowed to. It does no harm. If anything from my point of view it allows the people supporting the movement to move on. Some will stay in the Party and some will not.
I did not think this essay was venting. I thought it was BAL's thoughts on flogging a dead horse as far as pining ones hopes on a political candidates intentions and hidden agenda. Like I said for 8 years I heard over and over how Obama was really a progressive and his policy and agenda was just him playing 11th dimensional chess. If instead of focusing on the persona of pols and analyzing there every move we could instead looked at issues and alternative to this 1% duopoly.
My response was very specifically to someone
who was asking where a better place to vent might be.
But since you've enlarged the discussion, I'll suggest that accusing Bernie of 'sheep-dogging' is unproductively distracting: many seem to believe that while many others think it's bullshit, and while we can certainly just split and go our separate ways given the amount of far more substantive areas in which we agree that strikes me as sub-optimal.
If people are disappointed because they never managed to wrap their minds around what Bernie has consistently said he would do in the current situation that's only human but not particularly rational. If many wish he had acted differently that's an entirely reasonable sentiment which I share but, having listened carefully to what he's said, never expected him to do.
There was a reason we all left TOP
C99 is a place where thoughts can become words and reality can be explored for plausibility. There are times when we all could have chosen a different or better word, but it doesn't have to step on the message.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I donated to Jill Stein
I donated to Jill Stein yesterday and today I received an email stating that she has received approximately $380,000 during the past week. She is shooting for $500,000 by August 6th. We know that she needs more. Please donate. Bernie is not running. He is going to give a powerful speech touting the dangers of Trump and how we can make the changes we must see, from within the Democratic party. He has sold us out. There is no reforming the Democratic Party. Like the Repugs, they are wholly owned by the Corporatocracy. I believe Bernie knows this. I don't want to waste another moment of my time wondering why he betrayed his supporters. He did. Let's move on. Jill is inspiring. Her stated values and policy positions are ours. Whatever you can give, will send a message that we won't be duped by anyone, even if a bird comes to sit by him.
We'll see. I'm not too worried either way.
If Bern becomes the nominee of any party, I will vote for him. If not, vote and work for Jill Stein. I'm already helping get signatures in KY, and invite others to do likewise. Here are the states needing help to collect signatures, http://www.jill2016.com/ballot_access
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
That is awesome, elenacarlena
I would love to see us move away from these "he sold us out" posts and go all in on the "action" posts. Thanks for the link!!!
I have written an "action" essay and have several
action-oriented comments.
The essay is Election reform and voter rights: a legislative agenda. I've also got another "action" essay in draft form right now.
Not that I think keeping score is appropriate but that's one more "action" essay than you've written. I invite you to write one or two, because I agree with you: we need more "action" essays, you clearly have ideas and opinions about how to proceed, and being just one fallible person I cannot cover all angles.
Why would you, then?
I'm glad you've written them, I've probably thumbs-upped at least one. And that's very nice of you to link to them. I wish all of your posts were so positive.
Thanks, lunachickie! I figure he's doing what he thinks is best.
But I never did follow him because of him, but because we had shared goals. If our goals diverge, I'm fine with moving along. He still gives a great stump speech!
I don't see any harm with going ahead with Jill. Even if Bern wins the Dem nom, more choice is a good thing.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Nor do I
particularly since Trump just rendered himself completely unworthy with his VP choice. Ugh. UGH. So much for *that* bit of strategic voting, he just completely dumped on the GOP rank and file, but they're oddly unconcerned about someone who wants to send their women back to the Stone Age.
He wasn't already completely unworthy?
That whole party is worthless. Did you read about their platform? Who in their right mind puts Tony Perkins in charge of their platform? Ugh indeed!!
"Stay in the kitchen, Mother!"
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Words and Phrases Have Meaning.
I like your essay except for this sentence:
"Considering all this, I will make a controversial and antagonistic statement: Bernie ought to be considered a sheepdog for the Democratic Party, at least for now."
There really isn't any need to make an antagonistic statement or to use a term like "sheepdog" if you want to say he will now do just what he said he will do.
Can't we all just nurse our hurt or anger quietly and privately and get on with our lives? It's really just a distraction and a waste of time. Try working for Jill Stein or some other candidate you think is close to your views and forget Bernie. He did a magnificent job of exposing the near universal corruption in the world and especially in the Democratic Party. Remember that instead of your own disappointment.
We need to get on with the job. This group can do wonders, I'm sure.
-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962
It's pejorative...
because it implies that those who follow Bernie to Hillary are akin to sheep.
But it's not necessarily inaccurate.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Well...
Sheep do tend to get kinda frenzied when something they didn't expect suddenly jars them out of their grazing. They even can start to bite each other in their fear.
On the other hand, my impression is that it's not people following Bernie to Hillary but rather Bernie's move to endorse her (which is consistent with the statements he's made in this respect for his entire campaign) which is being criticized, despite the fact that, rather unlike any sheepdog with which I'm familiar, he has also long stated that it's her job to earn the support of his supporters rather than expect him to round 'em up and move 'em over.
So I'm wondering exactly which group are acting like sheep here.
He's herding 'wayward' liberals...
back into the Democratic pen. Goopers do the same thing with far right voters.
Regardless of whether you feel like arguing the right or wrong of that, 'sheepdogging' is a standard term for the practice and is prevalent among many left leaning Democratic pols.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I think you misunderstood my point
It was that Bernie is not doing that: he's simply doing what he said he would do all along in terms of supporting the eventual nominee without making any effort whatsoever to 'herd' anyone (and in fact stating explicitly that what other people did was up to them).
In my opinion the people acting like sheep are those who became very upset because they didn't understand that this was what he had always said he would do, or simply repressed it because it didn't fit their own idea of what he should do despite his having made it very, very clear.
That what comes of asking rhetorical questions, I guess: some people take them literally.
Keep telling yourself that...
if it helps you sleep.
He also said he was taking the fight to the Convention. He also said he was starting a Revolution. Endorsing Hillary is simply incompatible with either of those statements.
So cherry pick whatever statements you want. At the end of the day, it's the actions that count.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Your understanding of incompatibility seems simplistic
Bernie has not conceded precisely because he is indeed taking the fight (not only for his nomination, not only for a progressive platform even if that's largely symbolic, but for changes in party rules such as use of super-delegates and closed primaries) to the convention, and doing so in the only way he can. He is also still attempting to continue a revolution which he indeed ignited and is depending upon people like us to continue in ways that he cannot due to the commitments that he made to the party in order to be able to run as a candidate for its nomination (a tactic which noted Democratic stooge Ralph Nader has endorsed enthusiastically as the only way for a truly progressive candidate to develop any traction given the realities of our political duopoly).
What helps me sleep is understanding complex situations like this rather than jerking my knee reflexively. I highly recommend it if you're having problems in that area.
Nothing complex about it.
He endorsed her and is now campaigning for her.
Everything else is just elaborate window dressing.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Many people find complexity difficult to deal with
and hence seek refuge in simplicity. My own inclination is to Einstein's view on the subject: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Bernie is thinking the most marvelous invisible thought
of course we can't comprehend it. It's so brilliant that it would render us blind if we looked too closely.
Not to suggest that your comment is unwelcome
but you really don't appear to have managed to understand the specific discussion in this sub-thread.
Yes, it could take that meaning.
On the other hand there are perfectly rational, valid reasons folks have for accepting the "Lesser Evil" argument that all sheepdogging depends on. The propaganda lock and electoral college all but ensure either a Democrat or Republican will be POTUS. For some folks the (ironic, in some cases) self-fulfilling nature of their returning to the fold is outweighed by their particular concerns. It shouldn't be construed to be pejorative for them.
Maybe, instead of reinforcing
THIS repetition:
We could use repetition which attempts to break that lock?
I mean, let's be realistic--who thinks we'll be changing the Electoral College any time soon?
Dean, Obama, Kucinich, Bernie etc., etc.
It amazes me how every election cycle Dems pull the same stunt, and over and over again lefty voters fall for it.
Every cycle a lefty Dem comes along who gets everybody worked up with promises of Progressive change, and once they get critical mass they spin 180 and throw their support to the conservadem who lefties never would have voted for before, but all of a sudden looks so much better because the lefty Dem has now endorsed.
And off they all march into the conservadem slaughterhouse.
I don't know whether they've ever measured the long term memory of sheep, but it has to be longer than that of Democratic voters.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Perhaps you're amazed because you can't differentiate
between legitimate progressives and/or insurgents within the party and poseurs like Obama. It does take a few trips around the block before the differences become more apparent.
And you are so sure you can?
Because just labeling those you like 'insurgents' doesn't mean their game is any different.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Yes, I'm reasonably confident, though of course anyone can err
I've been a Democrat since reaching voting age in 1968, have seen rather a lot of the best and the worst that the party has to offer, and did manage to understand what Obama was 8 years ago, for example (Nader got my vote that year because it was not entirely clear that the Greens had yet recovered from their attack of extreme timidity in 2004 when they told me they didn't want my vote since I lived in a swing state, hence Nader got it that year as well).
But mostly I was suggesting that you seemed far more confident in your own judgment than might be justified. You do seem to have been a supporter of Bernie's until recently, hence expressing amazement that others were as well seems a bit strange - more in the nature of the uncritical zealotry of the newly-disillusioned than a well-considered, long-term assessment.
If you been voting since 1968
and still haven't figured out the game, nothing I can say will really make any difference.
Buddy, I've been wise to this scam for decades. Doesn't mean it doesn't hurt to see well meaning people fall for it time and again.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I'm not sure that you actually addressed what you quoted
You claim that you've "been wise to this scam for decades" and earlier included Bernie in the group who you claim perpetuated it, and yet you appear to have been a supporter of Bernie's until very recently.
So are you accepting that despite your professed wisdom you were taken in this year just as much as those whom you were criticizing as being sheep earlier? Inquiring minds want to know...
What are you talking about?
Did I give you the impression I plan to vote for Hillary just because Bernie endorsed her?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Guess you'll need an extended instant replay
1. You originally stated "Dean, Obama, Kucinich, Bernie etc., etc. It amazes me how every election cycle Dems pull the same stunt, and over and over again lefty voters fall for it" and concluded by comparing "the long term memory of sheep" favorably with that of such voters.
2. Then, after my first suggestion that your own judgment might not be all that good in this area (because as a Bernie supporter you appeared to fall squarely into the category of voters you had just been disparaging) you replied "Buddy, I've been wise to this scam for decades. Doesn't mean it doesn't hurt to see well meaning people fall for it time and again" rather than addressing that suggestion.
3. And after I explained it again your response now is "What are you talking about?"
Well, duh. What I'm talking about is the way you apparently 'fell for' exactly the same 'stunt'/'scam' that you claim to have been 'wise to ... for decades': "Every cycle a lefty Dem comes along who gets everybody worked up with promises of Progressive change."
So were you a Bernie supporter or not? If you were, was it because your own short-term memory is just as bad as that of those you were disparaging? Or was it because you judged him to be different (just as those you were disparaging did) until you decided that he wasn't?
Whether you'll vote for Hillary in November is irrelevant: a lot of people energized by Bernie won't just as a lot of people energized by Dean and Kucinich didn't vote for the eventual nominee in earlier elections despite their endorsements. Some, of course, will vote for her, but how many who wouldn't have done so if Bernie had never run in the first place is not at all clear (nor is how many who would have voted for her if Bernie had never run but now will not, though I suspect that number is non-negligible).
Being a cynic seems to be in fashion right now. I have nothing against cynicism as long as it's competent, but what I've been seeing very recently has in large part not seemed to be.
I'll take that as a 'no'.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Well, if that's all you can glean from it
I guess that can be taken as an indication that you are so completely baffled that even when the answer to the question that you posed in the subject line of your previous post is broken down into small, easily digestible pieces you cannot seem to wrap your mind around it.
It makes your inability to understand the rest of this discussion much less surprising. TTFN.
Would folks re-read Glen Ford's piece, please . . .
Unless I misunderstood the gist of the piece, Ford was not describing Bernie as a sheepdog--or even many of us as sheepdogs.
A 'sheepdog' would be those folks who are (once more) corralled into the Dem Party veal pen.
Or, the supposed 85% of Democrats, or Dem- or left-leaning voters who currently say that they will vote for FSC in the General Election.
Bottom line, folks who plan to vote for Dr Stein, or for a Presidential candidate other than FSC--this term does not apply to you!
(Sorry, I've already provided the link several times, so I'm not searching for it again/posting it. But, I'm pretty certain that this is the essence of his piece.)
Mollie
“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
National Mill Dog Rescue (NMDR) - Dogs Available For Adoption
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
I've enjoyed Glen's insights for the past dozen years
and he's often a lot more understanding of subtleties than his managing editor Bruce Dixon is (Bruce typically being inclined to call 'sheepdog' on anyone working in any way whatsoever within rather than directly against the Democratic party).
Edit: Though after reading your post again I'm not sure that you understand that a sheepdog is the one doing the corralling (please forgive me if I'm just parsing it incompetently).
I enjoy Glen and Bruce, too. Had pleasure of talking to Glen
on XM Radio's, MIP, quite a few times; they are two of my favorite writers.
Yes, I understood that he was implying that Bernie was trying to corral, or steer the Dem Party Base in FSC's direction.
(as in 'sheepdogging')
But, because I didn't want to see things blow up, and have to moderate the thread, I deliberately chose to point out the positive aspect of Glen's analogy--that those who don't 'follow' Bernie on this, aren't sheep.
Welcome. Haven't see you here, that I recall.
Mollie
“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
National Mill Dog Rescue (NMDR) - Dogs Available For Adoption
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Thanks
I spend most of my time at K4S, but a post there referred to this one so rather than comment there I came over to the source (and in the process found a couple of people from DK that I had been missing).
Edit: Blow up, eh? Reminds me of a very early Heinlein story, 'Blowups Happen'. Sometimes they're not always bad, because whatever tension there is may get worse if it's not periodically released a bit (tectonic plate analogy yearning to be made here).
But in any event I'll try not to exacerbate things any more than I already have.
I appreciate accuracy.
I appreciate you making the trip over from K4S and posting the understood definition of a political sheep dog in this thread. One can always Google, but it would have been helpful to include it in the essay. I also agree with you and Heinlen about blow ups - within limits. Tufts are one thing. A fist fight is another. c99 is about being free to voice and explore ideas.
This essay expresses what some fear and cannot or will not say. I'm not sure what I think, which is why I'm waiting for Bernie to finish playing the game, not just the hand.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Good points. I've posted a link to the BAR
piece about 'sheepdogging.'
Correction: It's Bruce's work. Here's the link below.
Presidential Candidate Bernie Sanders: Sheepdogging for Hillary and the Democrats in 2016
Submitted by Bruce A. Dixon on Wed, 05/06/2015 - 16:09
I should have offered it earlier on, but have linked to it here on several occasions, and didn't have it bookmarked. I'll do better, next time.
BTW, I noticed that Glen Ford has a recent radio commentary on the endorsement--folks may want to check out. The transcript is also available.
Paul Street is another excellent writer that I follow at BAR and/or ZMag. (FWIW)
I must admit, I'm not familiar with the Heinlen story; but I'm in total agreement with DK that tufts should be allowed.
Since this is a nonpartisan blog, it is my hope that we can avoid setting up the milieu in which folks become too intimidated to express a 'less than popular,' or minority view, or topic. And, IMO, 'disclaimers' should not become necessary.
Shaz summed it up perfectly, when she said,
I totally agree with that statement.
Now, I consider a blowup to be a situation in which commenters are engaged in rhetoric which has taken an irrational turn--or verging on it--and/or which is vitriolic--and, therefore, totally counterproductive.
Thankfully, we've had very few of these at C99P.
Mollie
“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit, and, therefore, to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)
National Mill Dog Rescue (NMDR) - Dogs Available For Adoption
Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.
Thanks Mollie,
That's a great idea. We often assume others will know what we mean just because we do.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Ah - it did sound a bit more like Bruce to me
but since I wasn't sure what article you were referring to let alone what it's contents were, thanks for providing the link and for noting Glen's other piece as well (which I will now listen to).
Edit: Bruce's piece turned out to be one I had read quite a while ago that was written at the very beginning of Bernie's campaign before anyone had any idea how effective that campaign would be. I'm not sure that Bruce ever changed his view as a result but my recollection is that Glen was relatively encouraged by that burgeoning interest.
Glen's view of the endorsement returned to the BAR party line, but while both of them acknowledged that the endorsement reflects what Bernie always said he would do in this situation they seemed to miss the fact that he is not doing anything to encourage his supporters to follow his lead and has instead emphasized that it's Hillary's job to earn their support (even more explicitly than Dean acted a dozen years ago when he simply reminded his supporters that they still 'had the power' rather than exhorting them to support Kerry).
I don't see
any reason for declaring something "antagonistic", unless one wants to "antagonize".
I have a problem with the term, too
though it's certainly your prerogative to use it. I don't think it's accurate, Bernie is no more enamored of Hillary or the Democratic party now than he ever was and it seems to me his campaigning now is only incidentally for the Democrats as a means of achieving his primary goal, which is stopping Trump. That's my take, anyway. I don't think he has any illusions about the bulk of his supporters continuing to say, "Hell, no!" to Hillary and her Band of Merry Thieves.
The smaller the mind the greater the conceit. --Aesop
Can't disagree with most of that, but I suggest
that it doesn't preclude Bernie playing the role of sheepdog, here, intentions be damned.
That's the great thing about the First Amendment
You can state your opinion and I can disagree.
You can imagine a cowed Bernie trapped inside the Democratic Party and I can imagine Bernie shrewdly keeping his options open.
You can imagine him conceding his campaign, and I can, oh wait...
Ok, well maybe he's getting old and forgot he's supposed to do that when he endorsed Hillary.
Like he forgot to mention the Democratic nominees name ONCE when he was campaigning for another progressive a few days ago.
That Bernie! What a forgetful sheepdog!
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I didn't write that I thought Bernie was cowed.
I even was quite explicit that I don't think he "betrayed" anyone, and that I think he is doing what he says and believes is necessary to achieve his goal (defeat Trump).
Well said.
In addition to signaling that he will support the Democratic nominee for over a year, he has also indicated that the onus will be on Clinton to close the deal with his own supporters. I don't think it's a case of telling people what to do either, he's just describing reality. Whether the Clinton team heeds it or not is another matter.
I think it's also significant that he hasn't turned over his fundraising lists or e-mail lists to the Democratic Party; he has also indicated that his organization will support people who are willing to fight for the platform that he ran on, not just those who run on a "D" ticket. Practically, I don't think he will challenge the Senate leadership, and back candidates who run as independents against Democratic nominees, but in local and state elections that principle will apply and potentially in House races. It's not 11th dimensional chess, but he's not doing an ad hoc approach either. He has made no secret about what his approach is going to be.
Yes, that's further afield than my essay ventures but it
I agree.
Pie!
Yummy!
"They'll say we're disturbing the peace, but there is no peace. What really bothers them is that we are disturbing the war." Howard Zinn
Maybe not nth dimensional, but still perhaps a clever move...
http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/you-can-have-your-weak-nominee-if-you-wish-the-sanders-endorsement-backfires-on-hillary-clinton-empowers-sanders-in-one-masterstroke/
Now, do I think it will matter with such a corrupt bunch of neolibs as SDs? No. But it certainly does make it clear that the only thing holding Hillary back is Hillary herself. And on their heads be it.
ETA: Sorry - the whole article is worth a read:
Thanks - you and the article nailed it
Not n-dimensional chess, just the kind of intelligent move we've come to expect (or should have if many weren't so wrapped up in "Not us - MEEEEEE!!!!!" anguish).
At least one article (non-MSM, of course) got it right. Why so many of us are suddenly channeling MSM pundits is just one of life's inexplicable mysteries, I guess.