The Hillary Clinton backers who are calling on Bernie Sanders to quite the race even as he continues to win primaries seem to have forgotten 2008 when Clinton contested the election all the way to the final California primary. As for the charge that his supporters are too angry, remember the PUMA movement back in 2008? That stood for ‘Party Unity, My Ass!’ and was the name adopted by those Clinton supporters who vowed never to support Barack Obama. Their numbers ranged in the 40%, far higher than the number of Sanders supporters who currently say they won’t vote for Clinton. In the end, those who voted for Clinton in the 2008 primary ended up splitting 83%-16% in favor of Obama over John McCain.
Seth Meyers discusses the absurd media freak out about the fact that Sanders is not quitting the race.
But Sanders is still drawing large and enthusiastic crowds to his rallies and these are important signs of the strength of his message against the corporate dominance of American (and Democratic party) politics. People need to be fired up about these issues and voters in the remaining primary states deserve the chance to have their voices heard.
I certainly want my chance to vote for Bernie in the California primary, and I would think party unity might be even harder to achieve if Sanders supporters felt that Bernie had been forced out.
“Party unity” == “how thoroughly we control you”
What I find appalling how they seem so offended when people suggest that maybe Clinton should actually try to appeal to progressives.
To be fair, PUMA was a Hillary identity cult and infatuation over the Clinton name. Bernie or Bust recognizes the very real problems with Hillary -- it is not so much a temper tantrum as it is a total condemnation of Hillary Clinton. It does not matter if Bernie strongly endorses her, they won’t vote for her. http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-supporter-slams-cnn/ This explains the Bernie or Bust movement.
In all honesty, I think there are very few differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. He wants a wall, she wants a fence and she won’t make Mexico pay for it. To be fair, she’s said her fence is not as tall. He wants torture, she wants enhanced interrogation (the only FP disagreement she had with McCain) He wants American nationalism, she wants stronger American presence on the world stage. He wants a insurance based healthcare plan fueled by competition, and she wants Obamacare. Obamacare prices by the way are going to spike before the election. Basically, she is Donald Trump who gets things done. Considering that the checks and balances of Assembly and Speech and the complacence of a democratic party under a weak democratic president, Trump may in fact be the lesser of the two evils. Before you say there is a difference in immigration policy, remember the Honduran coup and the “children as a message” idea she has defended. It is unfair to say Clinton is to Trump’s left on immigration at all despite what she claims.
To be fair, PUMA was a Hillary identity cult and infatuation over the Clinton name.
You don’t think gender and race had anything to do with it? It’s hard to know what Clinton actually thinks about anything but she acted like she thought that her gender was part of it (and the republicans acted like Obama’s race and Clinton’s gender had something to do with it)
I guess what I’m saying is: “Are there really people ‘infatuated’ with the Clinton name?” That idea sounds kind of absurd. Even Monica Lewinsky was infatuated with the office not the man…. But then it’s hard for me to see any of them as more than sleazy douchebags.
I guess that another way of putting my comment is: I am utterly gobsmacked that anyone could take any of these personalities seriously. It’d be like watching Ian McKellen in Lord Of The Rings and thinking that he’s a kindly wizard in real life. How could anyone with any sense take a look at any of these assholes and mistake their carefully buffed public facades for anything but hollywood special effects?
@Marcus Obviously gender is the entire justification for Clinton’s candidacy. She’s not running to make the country a better place or to push an agenda or vision. She’s running cause she wants to be the first female president. But in the end her qualifications aren’t accomplishments or positions -- they’re positions of power she’s previously held and her brand name. So yes, cult like infatuation with her and her name is the driving force behind her candidacy.
As for how people believe her lies -- Clinton and Trump are masters at Goebbels’s tactics. Repeat a lie enough times and people perceive it to be true. Talk about “right wing conspiracies” to make your serious flaws seem like random allegations. Strongarm the top media brass and spin everything in your favor. Use things like the NY Daily News interview to trap your opponent. Then candidacy killers like the Honduran coup, the “children as a message” and the Clinton Foundation charity fraud seem crazy.
The Democratic party has, for a very long time, put up with Sanders and has gotten precious all in return. The Democrats have allowed him to caucus in the senate with the Democrats and protected his seat, even from several runs by registered and loyal Democrats. In return Bernie has not lifted a finger to help any Democrat or raised any money for the party. He votes with the Democrats but one assumes that this is the one area he would rather be known to be not part of any payback deal. He is not a team player.
If Bernie had been excluded from the Democratic party primaries he would still be a little known oddball socialist from that weird state. Allowing him to participate has been all to the good, for him. It would have been hard to run on $27 contributions without the Democratic run and financed primaries to use as a platform to advertise his brand from. But here again Bernie is perfectly willing to use an institution which he barely acknowledges as important to advance his revolution without giving anything back. Where was he in the hard times when Democrats were on the run and hurting. He was hunkered down in safe seat in Vermont.
Of course the party is less willing to cater to Bernie than Hillary. He hasn’t contributed to the larger cause while Hillary has long been active and made large contributions in time, effort, and money. She was manning the barricades and scrounging money in those hard days. She can be proud of her loyalty and endurance.
The Democratic party is about group dynamics that far exceed any one, or any small number, of elected candidates or positions. To advance the cause it is necessary to advance the larger ticket with an eye toward gaining the presidency, but also, the US senate and congress. But it doesn’t stop there. You have to work to gain governorships and state legislatures, and judges. It all has to fall into line. From local library advisor committees on up to the presidency. Politics is a team sport. Bernie is a one-off socialist who, according to some sources, refused to self-identify as a Democrat until 2012. He is not a team player. If, by chance, he was elected he would be all alone and powerless politically.
So much of what I read from Sanders people is little more than a cult of personality and fetishism over ideological purity.
Also. I mostly agree with:
http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2016/04/the-politics-of-memory.html
The assertion: “Bernie Sanders should get out of the race now!”
The translation: “I want Bernie out of the race so his supporters stop talking about the issues he’s campaigning on, so I can go on louder about mine.”
The proper answer: “No, but thank you for letting me know how little you think of me and the issues that are important to me.”
Clinton is well aware of these ideas. They’re not new, not original, not terribly complex. The media is all over it for the same reason they were all over Trump for so long: they’d like to turn your eyeballs into cash in their pockets. That’s all there is to it. No deeper meaning.
John Smith:
No other reason whatsoever, only gender.
Right.
<snicker>
You’re exceedingly skilled at the opposite of cogency.
Just a handful posts back, I was arguing in the comments about the inane tribalism of the Democratic Party. lorn’s comment @8 is very much an example of this. “Bernie bad! he not one of us!” being the basic argument.
Referring to Bernie not self-identifying as Democrat as a point against him betrays a lack of interest in policy, what matters is the label.
Mentioning Hillary’s contributions to the Democratic Party as a point in her favor is interesting, given that literally 99% of the money that she raises “for the other D’s” goes right back into her campaign.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-fundraising-leaves-little-for-state-parties-222670