I watched the Democratic debate tonight, sort of. I wasn’t paying close attention, but here are my impressions, anyway, ranked in my order of preference.
5. Chaffee: why is this guy even here? Muddled and goofy.
4. Webb: Beetle-browed bellicose buffoon.
3. O’Malley: Meh. Not awful, not very interesting.
2. Clinton: The confident moderate. Will probably win. Don’t expect much change.
1. Sanders: The revolutionary. Would shake things up, if he had a cooperative congress…otherwise, nothin’.
Just send 5, 4, and 3 home — I can’t imagine them making a decent showing in a debate with the blustering clowns in the Republican party.
You probably have a different impression.
Didn’t watch the debate, but I followed The Atlantic’s liveblogging.
I’ll almost certainly vote Sanders in the primary, but with little hope. This comment from one of the livebloggers amuses me (the context was Sanders’ dismissal of the Benghazi nonsense):
“Bernie Sanders just won his audition for vice president.” —Russell Berman
(I don’t really think that’s what the Bern was doing. Just struck my funnybone.)
You mean Jim “I Killed A Guy And Am Proud Of It” Webb?
Seriously, what was that?
Lincoln Chaffee was pure comedy gold. My wife and I had a laugh riot making fun of him and the soldier. O’Malley was a robot, but he spoke well, said some good things about energy and the environment, and generally made a good impression. Clinton looked polished and confident overall, but she came off as disingenuous when the topic turned to banking reform. Bernie rocked it. I loved that CNN gave him more airtime after the debate to offer commentary and introduce his wife.
Chaffee: Agreed. Some moments of his were nice, some weren’t, but didn’t make a strong presence in the time he was allowed.
Webb: Ick. I think it was one of the CNN folks that said something along the lines of “he showed himself to be a strong, confident, intelligent Republican.” I can’t say I had that much of a positive opinion of him, but I agree with the sentiment. He did come closest to sounding like he was talking about real specifics foreign-policy wise, for a few seconds. He did make me realize that the democratic party is actually allowed to have a diversity of liberal to conservative, while the republican party has sailed off into the sunset.
O’Malley: I wasn’t surprised when I read elsewhere after the debate that O’Malley was in the strongest position to gain from the debate of the three “others.” I don’t think he pulled it off, but still.
Clinton: Very clearly acted like the front runner. Had some great moments, some ok moments, didn’t convince me that she doesn’t just take political positions based on the crowd.
Sanders: Played to his supporters to a T. Which… god, I wish he could expand his message beyond tying everything he says to income inequality. I get it, it’s an important issue, but he treats every question like an elevator pitch or a stump speech. It’d be fine to tie everything to income inequality if he’d go on to talk about WHY inequality is an issue, WHAT particular things lead to the situation we’re in now, and therefore what he’d do to counteract it. Sanders didn’t lose my support, but he dinged my rose-colored glasses. :(
Overall the debate just reinforced my opinion that Sanders and Clinton are the two choices. The depth of the debate was like the Mariana Trench compared to the Republican debates, but it still felt shallow when it was people I was actually interested in voting for and figuring out what they stood for. Here’s hoping Sanders can polish himself up for the next few debates!
I’ll need to catch up on the actual debate (I’ll do that tonight), but wasn’t that the impression we already got from the lead-up to the debate, anyway? Sanders or Clinton were and still are the only real contenders. And it took a fucking long time for the media to even acknowledge Sanders as a contender. It used to be Clinton without an “or”.
Sorry, but no. Sanders is a successful US politician. True, one of the more liberal successful US politicians, but still a successful national level politician. He is no revolutionary. If he got elected, his supporters (which would include me) would be in for the same disappointment we got with Obama. He’d be a good Democratic president, possibly further left than any of the other possibilities, but he wouldn’t bring the revolution, not even with a cooperative Congress. Which he won’t get, thanks to gerrymandering.
Here in the UK, we just got an actually left-wing opposition leader, Jeremy Corbyn, for the first time in 30 years or so. He began the race at bookmaker’s odds of 200-1, was ridiculed by the press as a feeble beard-and-bicycle nonentity all the way through, and ended up winning his party election with 60% of the first-round vote. He might become prime minister, but the entire political establishment and most of the press is doing its best to stop him. He’s been picked apart in the editorials for not singing God Save the Queen (despite being [a] openly against the monarchy and [b] an terrible, terrible singer), he’s been quoted out of context to make it look like he supports Bin Laden (what he said was that he wished Bin Laden had been tried), and his deputy is now at the centre of a shitstorm for telling the police about some allegations of child abuse made against a former government minister – not for making them up, but for reporting those allegations to the police. He’s also already had to make several policy compromises to the centre and right of his own party.
If it’s anything like the situation in the US: it might turn out Sanders has enough support to win the nomination, but he’ll get the bumpiest of rides between there and the presidency if he does.
Fixed the ad-hom for you.
@9 But “buffoon” isn’t ad-hom?
@Saganite #10, as far as I know, a buffoon is like a jester. Though it also seems to be used for people who have deliberately chosen not to avoid saying foolish things. Either way, being a buffoon is being foolish. Not being a fool who can’t help it.
@ EigenSprocketUK
But, as they say “alliteration vincit omnia”!!!
I’ve only watched the opening statements so far. The Three Stooges were barely distinguishable from the background, let alone from each other. Sanders was the only one not to witter on about his family, and raised quite a few key domestic issues (inequality, oligarchy and political corruption, climate change, the prison industry, race, unemployment, education), but said nothing about foreign policy or the military. Either he is passionate about the issues he focuses on, or he puts on a convincing act. Clinton was cooler in tone, mentioned: jobs, infrastructure, science, climate change, profit sharing, the tax system, equal pay and paid family leave, race, gender, LGBT issues – again, nothing on the miltary or foreign policy.
According to al comment I’ve seen, The Three Stooges did little or nothing to get themselves noticed, so this confirms that Clinton and Sanders are the only realistic possibilities unless there’s a late entrant. If Biden (or Gore, or Kerry, or whoever) was thinking of running, now might be the best time to launch, declaring that Clinton is fatally flawed, Sanders is an admitted socialist, The Three Stooges are stooges, I therefore feel it my duty to party and country…
I’ve got a particularly strong aversion to manipulative mannerisms. More specifically speaking: gestures, tones, inflections, pauses, “earnest” looks, and things of that nature. Whenever I see it, in person or live, I literally feel gross and want to distance myself from the person. I see it a lot in pastors, politicians and con men, of course. And many of each of those is at least one of another.
O’Malley drove me nuts for this reason, because he was on an unbearable level in this regard. It wasn’t quite a Ted Cruz level of smarmy and slimy, but it was close.
Maybe O’Malley should get Aiden Gillen to play him in debates.
Richardelguru — that’s truly tip-top truth you’re telling. Anyway, here endeth the off-topic digression.
Doubtful. He’s been extremely clear about what his plans are, and he doesn’t show any signs that he’d stand for those being undermined by his own choice of policies. (Clinton, on the other hand, like Obama and many others, is routinely, perhaps unwittingly or perhaps intentionally, setting things up to fail by starting somewhere in the muddled middle, or somewhere based on what the current polls suggest will get her another vote.)
And he’s not the sort, for example, to shy away from calling himself a democratic socialist, like he plainly is. He doesn’t leave much room for vague, open-ended, middle-of-the-road weasel words and lawyering like Obama or Clinton or many other politicians often do. Mincing words and pandering and using elaborate figures of speech, to conceal what’s going on under the flowery rhetoric and to make himself look good to people who don’t actually agree with him on the substance, is not his standard method of communicating and persuading the public. He doesn’t really give a fuck about how he looks or how popular he is with everyone, he doesn’t rely much on personal experiences or anecdotes or analogies, and he doesn’t act like someone telling a bunch of fairy tales to people he treats like children.
I always try to be prepared to be disappointed by anybody, but I just don’t think it’s right that we should expect the same kind or degree of disappointment. They do not at all seem like the same brand of politician to me, so I don’t have much reason to expect the same things from them.
The only thing that leaves me a little worried are Sanders’ positions on guns and gun control. But I do think he’s sincere about trying to increase gun control (and ban certain guns, large magazines, etc.) as much as possible. But not everything we might want is possible right now. I doubt any radical changes will happen any time soon, especially things that would run head-first into the second amendment as it’s currently interpreted, so Clinton is desperately and transparently lying whenever she suggests otherwise. She cannot and will not do that in 2016-2020, so it has no real place in her agenda. And I shouldn’t hold it against a politician for trying to be honest and practical and realistic, instead of trying to manipulate me with false promises. And it’s already hard enough to imagine federal-level gun controls like background checks, an assault weapons ban, etc. But I don’t know; maybe we could get there.
I can’t be sure what PZ means by “revolutionary,” but I doubt it’s a claim that there would be anything like a revolution, in some big trumped-up sense of the word. You could overturn a lot of things and solve a lot of important problems — that would be revolutionary, even if it doesn’t “bring the revolution.” PZ’s not usually a very utopian thinker, so he probably means something less than that.
And thanks to low voter turnout. But if that doesn’t happen, because for example people can see very clearly what he’s all about and are excited enough to take some responsibility for our society (instead of merely blaming faceless goons in DC for rigging the game against them), then it doesn’t happen. That said, I think it’s true the chances are very low that we’ll win the House. Part of the problem is that we don’t have a bunch of Bernies running in all of the races. We just have the one (that is, assuming he wins the primary, like you’re doing here). If more of the Democrats actually knew what they were talking about and took a stand on things that matter, instead of letting a bunch of Republican clowns run the show, the outcome might be very different. But that’s probably not going to happen either.
Hmm…I suppose if enough voters got excited about Sanders we could have a sort of Reagan effect where multiple Congress people get elected on the platform “I’m just like Sanders”. Then we might see some real change. Not as many as we’d like (I’m significantly to the left of Sanders, personally), but at least some movement away from oligarchy. But I’d be very surprised if it happened. (Though, for once, not disappointed.)
Sanders versus…well, any of the Republicans really, would be an exciting election with a clear choice presented to the voters. Actually, for all her faults (and she has many), Clinton versus any Republican would be a clear choice too. It’s going to be an interesting campaign.
Well, that was a frequent refrain of hers in last night’s debate, when she didn’t have any way to claim she’s more progressive than the others (most importantly, Sanders). Instead of budging an inch in the right direction, or giving a meaningful counterargument if that were possible, we effectively got “oh, I won’t address the points raised by the others on the stage here with me…. just consider how much better we all are (don’t forget: me too!) compared to Republicans.” That’s true, at least about many issues, but it’s also some weak fucking tea. I mean, why come to the debate, if that’s all you’ve got? Win your primary, like you think will happen, and then raise such points with a Republican — some time next year, maybe, if people don’t see right through you before then. Gah. It’s so frustrating to see not just pointless questions from CNN, but to also hear such pointlessly evasive answers when there is some actual substance to talk about.
dianne@18 said:
My mother (a big Hillary supporter, and in her younger days a delegate to the DNC) and I were talking about this last night. If the Repubs were running a real candidate, Hillary could be in trouble. The Republican PTBs don’t just view her as an opponent, they personally hate her with a flaming animus. I am staggeringly impressed that she decided to make this run anyway. She knows damn well what’s coming if she wins the primaries.
(And it’s not just the Repubs who will hound her. Hillary has an advantage over other women (eg Anita Sarkeesian and other GG targets) in that Hillary has effectively infinite money and resources to soak up the shit and never let her see it, but damn. It’s going to require a rare bravery for her to get through 2016.)
I intend to vote for Sanders in the primaries on the basis of him being closer to my own political leanings. But if Hillary is the November candidate, I won’t have to hold my nose to vote for her. She could be significantly worse and I would still vote for her, if only to keep out of office whatever gibbering ignoramus the Republicans choose.
Even the least of them was better than the ‘best’ of the GOP field. I could grudgingly accept a President Chaffee, but never a President Trump, Fiorina, or Rubio.
Republican response to the Democractic debate is fairly predictable. From Marco Rubio:
The “free stuff” comment takes me back to Mitt Romney’s campaign and the fateful “47%” speech.
Rachel Maddow is moderating a “candidates forum” on November 6. That should be a more meaningful event. She will ask good questions, and the event is limited to Clinton, Sanders and O’Malley.
Link
Rubio via Lynna:
Not free college education and health care! Truly dangerous and unprecedented! And not helpful to us all, collectively, in any way whatsoever!
Versus tax cuts, de-regulation, and war. So much better.
Anderson Cooper should be castigated by his peers and by the public for his smarmy red-baiting of Bernie Sanders, with “You honeymooned in the Soviet Union.” Cooper sounded like a Republican attack ad. He left out the context. The Sanders trip to the Soviet Union was one of many duties Sanders fulfilled as mayor of Burlington, Vermont.
Link
Think Progress posted an excerpt from the debate that focuses on the gun-control discussion. Scroll down for the video.
Now that’s a real debate on policy issues. The video is five minutes long — a good sampler of a Democratic Party debate. Not at all like the Republican debate.
It’s also, of course, false. The idea is often to fix broken “government programs,” like those controlling our financial, immigration and justice systems, to name just a few. And there are of course no tax increases, for anybody at all, required in order to end the war on drugs, to not start another trillion dollar war against the boogeyman in the Middle East, to guarantee equal pay for women, or to do a fuckload of other things Democrats want to do. It would be saving us money, as well as ending programs or not even starting them, if those were the criteria that actually mattered even to lying dumbfucks like Rubio. But “government programs,” according to people like him, is code for basically anything that helps a human being. And socialism in particular is sooooooo bad that it eclipses everything else. Somehow, because we don’t send an innocent black dude to jail, Rubio, the poor guy, will get a tax increase and have his guns taken away so Bernie can claim himself dictator for life — it makes no sense but that has supposedly been our evil plan all along.
Put Bernie and Hillary in a comfortable living room (dump the rest) with hidden cameras and microphones and no audience or interviewer, and let them chat for an hour or two. I think that might be interesting.
Trying any such thing with the fist-pumpin’, chest-bumpin’, mindless fake-alphas of the Repugs would lead (at best) to fisticuffs and unfocused rage.
Lady Mondegreen
O’Malley will be crushed. It’s clear he’s trying for that position. Did anyone see him looking to Hillary for approval when answering the question about Snowden?
Honestly, at this point I’m for Hillary because I think she’s an effective political operative who will reverse regression on women’s rights. I don’t agree with a lot of her opinions, but I don’t find Bernie pragmatic enough to be president, though it would be nice to have a socialist in office.
Yes, Hillary doesn’t have the best track record on other issues. But I think that’s because she’s more of a politician than an idealist. I do think that if given a position of power and pushed enough in the direction of reform, she could make it happen. Although it would also be nice to have a powerful liberal coalition in DC to keep her authoritarian side in check (see: her views on Snowden).
Having watched both the Democratic and Republican debates, I’m more convinced that Democrats and Republicans are different species. That is, take any 2 of the Democratic candidates and they will have much more in common with each other than with any of the Republican candidates. And vice versa. I also think the Democratic debate benefited from only having 5 people on stage so each person was able to flesh out their ideas more.
I thought Sanders was a bit muddled on gun control. But otherwise I didn’t really disagree with much of anything that anyone on stage said. And props to the Democrats for acknowledging that we can learn from what other countries do instead of the Republican mentality of “USA! USA! #1!” Though I fear that Anderson Cooper was right that “socialist” is practically a curse word in America since so many people assume that Socialist = Communist = evil Soviet.
I’ve also been following Nate Silver’s analysis. I don’t really understand why Sanders is polling so poorly with non-white Democrats. Sanders is doing fine in Iowa and New Hampshire which are both relatively homogenous, but if things maintain the status quo he’s going to crash when the primary gets to more diverse states like South Carolina and Nevada.
From speeches that I have heard Sen. Sanders deliver, he is adamant about the fact that it isn’t him that will go to D.C. to change things, it is the responsibility of the voting population as a whole to send to D.C. the people that will support the same policies he supports. In essence, you the people need to be the change agents, not one man or one woman elected President.
That leaves me feeling like nothing will ever change, but that is just cynicism typing.
consciousness razor:
Excellent point. In addition, Democrats might not even want a tax increase as much as simply shifting the tax burden more towards the wealthy and corporations and less away from the poor especially, and the middle class to a degree as well. Closing tax loopholes and the like. Which, of course, even if the amount of tax income was kept the same, would still be categorized as “Democrats Raising Taxes” by Republicans.
Some of the most memorable moments from the debate, a sort of summary for those who didn’t watch the debate.
Hillary Clinton: “[…] it’s our job to rein in the excesses of capitalism so that it doesn’t run amok and doesn’t cause the kind of inequities we’re seeing in our economic system. […] we would be making a grave mistake to turn our backs on what built the greatest middle class in this country. […] I’m a progressive who likes to get things done.”
Bernie Sanders: “I am not a pacifist, Anderson. I supported the war in Afghanistan. I supported President Clinton’s effort to deal with ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I support airstrikes in Syria and what the president is trying to do. Yes, I happen to believe from the bottom of my heart that war should be the last resort that we have got to exercise diplomacy. But yes, I am prepared to take this country into war if that is necessary.”
Bernie Sanders: “Let me say something that might not be great politics, but I think the secretary [Clinton] is right. The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.”
Hillary Clinton: “[…] it’s always the Republicans or their sympathizers who say, ‘You can’t have paid leave, you can’t provide health care.’ They don’t mind having big government to interfere with a woman’s right to choose and to try to take down Planned Parenthood. They’re fine with big government when it comes to that. I’m sick of it. You know, we can do these things. We should not be paralyzed—we should not be paralyzed by the Republicans and their constant refrain, ‘big government this, big government that,’ except for what they want to impose on the American people.”
Bernie Sanders: “The scientific community is telling us that if we do not address the global crisis of climate change—transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy—the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable. That is a major crisis.”
Jim Webb: [His answer to a question about which person are you proudest to have made an enemy of.] I’d have to say the enemy soldier that threw the grenade that wounded me,” Webb said, with a smile creeping onto his face, “but he’s not around to talk to.”
futurechemist:
Some attempts at an answer:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/bernie-sanderss-big-chance-to-woo-non-white-voters/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/13/bernie-sanderss-big-black-voter-problem/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/12/the-new-number-that-drives-home-bernie-sanderss-black-voter-problem/
As was mentioned a few times, it seems like Hillary is doing so well in taking up the non-white vote due to associations with Bill and Obama.
I’ve seen the issue put as Sanders doing well among the “liberal elite” but not being connected enough with the masses. I’ve also seen it as a failure to connect to the “uneducated” (which is an insulting and possibly racist way of framing the same idea). And he irked some people, as stated above, in regards to Black Lives Matter protests (and his fanboys and fangirls didn’t help much in damage control). Though he is trying to make amends now and trying to incorporate more racial justice into his economic justice platform and reaching out more to non-white communities, so we will see if that changes things. If not, it isn’t clear what the issue is.
Maybe I’m alone on this, but that’s not a quality I value much at all in a politician. When Congress is full of paranoid obstructionist warmongering assholes, you have to be a lot more than “pragmatic” if you’re going to be cooperating with them in any meaningful sense. You either give in to their shit or you don’t. If there is any sort of reasonable middle way on an issue, although there often isn’t, it tends to have a quick pathetic death in the raging clusterfuck that is DC. Or it gets passed as a “bipartisan” solution that everyone can brag about in their next election (because of course they’re running again and again), but it does nothing productive.
Another point is that Sanders does have a good chance of beating whichever Republican clown it is who wins their nomination. It’s not like Clinton’s electable but he isn’t, if that’s what you’re worried about. So, assuming he is elected, I don’t understand what you could be worried about. He’ll make his position too clear or be too determined to make some kind of meaningful progress — he won’t be wishy-washy enough to be president? Why the hell are we giving him the job, if he’s not expected to follow through on (some or any of) his plans? He (or Clinton) would not just be a placeholder where otherwise a Republican would sit — they need to do their jobs or they should be run out of office.
In what sense does “being a politician” mean you don’t need to have a good track record? Or is that not supposed to be a very compelling explanation of anything? Do you think politics ought to be something other than morality at the societal level as opposed to judgments about individual-level behaviors?
So, not the head of the executive, who actually demonstrates leadership about anything…. Just somebody with some kind of power (not much apparently), who others might be able to push. Seems like they have the power, just not the position. Who those others are and what exactly they want is apparently not a big concern for some odd reason. But okay, if that’s how the presidency should work, I guess. However, if that’s the case, I wouldn’t say it’s her making it happen. She is somebody who can be pushed a little bit, maybe. Does that seem at all satisfying to you? Does it seem like a legitimate form of government then? Does that seem like a reason you should cite for preferring her over somebody else?
You probably should be more than a little cynical, but I wouldn’t say he’s wrong. That’s just how representative democracy works. If some politician wouldn’t agree to that, then we’d have an actual revolution on our hands. (Then again, perhaps it already happened while no one was looking.) Maybe it wouldn’t be such a big deal, but we might at least have to install a throne, invent some fake history, put their face on all the currency, standard bullshit like that.
Ironically, when it comes to race, Sanders tends to come across as “top down” precisely where “grassroots up” is what’s needed — and what he advocates in general. I suspect he didn’t realize at first that “I was there for you back when” (which he was) is not a compelling argument, especially to folks whose parents may not have been born “back when.” He’s a good guy, but made a major political false step: his economic and class analysis simply did not resonate, though he’s doing better now. By contrast, Hillary I think benefits because she personally still faces pretty obvious discrimination as a woman, and overcomes it.
In the debate, there was a question (from a black guy, via a video submission) like this: “is it black lives matter or all lives matter?” Directly to Sanders, some of his first words were “black lives matter,” then some talk about reforming the criminal justice system, and probably (don’t remember everything too clearly now) the war on drugs and related issues. Then I guess it was O’Malley, who essentially agreed and didn’t add much, while trying to specify (not very effectively) what is meant by “black lives matter.” Then Anderson Cooper cuts in to ask Clinton about … well, not that, but some more generic question about race that I think I forgot a minute later. She didn’t even try to answer the first one but otherwise said something fairly reasonable. I’m not sure if Cooper realized it wasn’t going anywhere productive, or it almost seemed like he wanted to give Clinton a softball. Most likely, he didn’t know what he was doing.
Then, of course, Webb needlessly made a tone-deaf ass of himself by saying something like “to the president all lives matter” but also tried to acknowledge a few race problems at the same time. Not very surprising coming from him. I don’t remember anything from Chafee. Anyway….
I don’t think you could say Sanders policies would be any sort of a problem for most black voters, but like your sources said a lot of people apparently just don’t know him well yet, or aren’t as comfortable, like they are with Clinton. The election’s still over a year away, so a lot can change by then considering how fast communication “moves” these days.
I think Sanders was actually approaching the right idea with regards to how a person like him could get anything done in with an obstructionist Republican congress.
The truth is that there is a segment of the Republican congress that is absolutely dedicated to opposing compromise. They want the ACA repealed, they want gay marriage illegal again, they want planned parenthood defunded, and they aren’t going to cede any ground unless they can get those things done. No democrat, no matter how pragmatic, is going to get anything done with them.
Hell, even Republicans are having a hard time with them.
At some point, when compromise is no longer possible, it’s up to the voters to take the obstructionists out. It’s on ‘us’ to vote better people in, and it’s on politicians to appeal directly to voters to explain the problems their elected officials caused.
Hillary may be more pragmatic and more of a politician, but the Republican hate for her probably outweighs any they have for Bernie. That pragmatism isn’t going to help get anything done with this particular congress.
Consciousness Razor:
I could have stated that better. She’s an effective politician who gets things done, as opposed to one who makes themselves look good (eg Reagan). Her flaws include that she focuses a bit too much on political expedience for my liking (DOMA, Criminal Justice, Iraq), but I think now is a time where what is politically expedient for her is actually a good thing. (Yes, I am that cynical). I agree more with Bernie, but until he can reign in or at least address the large amount of White condescension in his fan base, I trust Hillary more with executive office.
And I just flat-out don’t like any of the other Dem candidates as much as either of those two. Webb is too hawkish, Chafee is… (wait, what is Chafee?), and O’Malley just seems to want to be Hillary’s Veep.
Progressives like Bernie. And I do think that he would be electable (I think most of the people on that stage are more electable than any of the clowns on the other side). I would vote for him happily if he won the nomination. I would celebrate the chance to have a socialist in the White House. However, I perceive Hillary as being a lot more capable of working within DC from an Executive Branch position to get things done. I feel like Bernie would be a better leader from a legislative standpoint.
I readily admit I could easily be wrong, and that I may be a bit wishful here.
Right, I probably made it seem like I envisioned her as a puppet. No, I think it would be good to see different center-left and left factions working within the three-branch system of our government and balancing each other. Again, wishful.
Thinking about it now, I wish someone had asked about drones. My opinion could easily be shifted by that. In no political climate can I accept the murder of civilians, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Hillary were for continued drone strikes.
BTW, thanks for the criticism. I like being able to see the weak points in my arguments (no sarcasm).
She’s supposed to be pushed by people like him….. Why not go directly to the source? But okay… you would like that (and maybe you’re telling me what I want to hear), but why wouldn’t you expect such pushing to be effective from any other direction? Why not people on Wall street? Why not people who are scared out of their wits about terrorists and have no solid evidence that there are WMDs or whatever sort of national security issue it may be? Why not random lobbyist X for this or that or the other thing? Why is being pushable (or “pragmatic”) a quality that’s even worth mentioning, instead of anything else that might tell you about substantial policy difference or their integrity, honesty, etc.?
It’s certainly not the first thing I worry about, and it’s not like I’m asking for some dogmatic tyrant who’s going to do whatever he likes no matter how it affects the people or what the Constitution says…. I mean, we’re comparing Clinton and Sanders here, after all. That’s not a problem we’re going to have.
What’s supposed to be the difference in terms of their methods or outlook or what have you, if it’s supposed to be a difference that favors Clinton? (Honest question. Maybe it’ll help me feel a little better about if it she’s nominated.)
Well, I didn’t mean to press it too hard either… it’s a pretty typical theme really. Probably asked too many questions at once. Whether you’re right or not, I just don’t understand the reasoning. How am I supposed to come to that conclusion? Is it a gut feeling sort of a thing? I would at least get that, but then we’re having a different conversation.
As Bernie has pointed out, real change in America is going to take a serious change in the composition of both the House, Senate and Supreme Court. If elected he might have the same success as Obama in getting things passed which is essentially nothing. However, I get the sense that he will use the power and visibility of the Presidency to do what Obama has been unwilling or unable to do, which is frame liberal and progressive economic and social ideas in opposition to what the right wing is offering. If he can use the bully pulpit to change the electoral map, that, in and of itself. would be a more powerful and lasting legacy than anything the Dems have accomplished recently. To put it simply, Hillary is interested in getting elected, and Bernie is interested in changing who we elect.
That said, HRC will probably get the nod because we just can’t have nice things.
My favorite moment seems to have been overlooked by all the talking heads.
Chafee was pulling out the “but everyone else was doing it” excuse for the second time trying to justify why he voted for the PATRIOT act by saying, “again it was one of those 99-1 votes…”
Bernie jumps in and says, “it was 99-1 and I was the one.”
That there sums up Bernie better than anything.
He has deeply rooted principles and will stand for those principles even if he stands alone. Furthermore, history has shown his principled stands are more often than not totally correct. We need someone like that in the White House nominating Supreme Court justices and taking on Congress.
consciousness razor @ #35
I agree with you completely. How “pragmatic” was FDR when he railed against “economic royalists” in June, 1936 or said that “…Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob” in October, 1936? (That November, FDR carried every state except Maine and New Hampshire, with a 60%+ popular vote.)
My take on what Bernie Sanders in the White House would mean is this:
(1) His starting point for negotiation, if any, would be much further to the left than anything we’ve seen in a long time and certainly further to the left than any position of President Obama. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the ending negotiated point would be any further to the left (given that the Republicans are not that interested in negotiating) but at least the possibility remains.
(2) More importantly, Sanders would at least attempt to correct the bizarre inverted frame we’ve had for the past 40 years. How is it that the US is the only advanced country without health care for all its citizens? Instead of asking the ludicrous “how can we afford it?” question, the fact-based question is why are we paying per capita more than twice what people in other countries pay—with poorer outcomes and with people not insured or underinsured? How is it that Germany can afford tuition-free public universities and we cannot? How is it that the US is only one of three nations (the other two being Papua New Guinea and Oman) without some form of paid maternity leave? There are probably dozens more questions like that.
One of the problems is that we’ve had neoliberal Democratic presidents in the White House in the past 20 years, who share many of the same assumptions as the Republican ones. We haven’t had someone who rejects those premises as Bernie Sanders does or, as Sanders does, calls for “mobilization” after election day. We simply don’t know what a president like Sanders could accomplish but I wouldn’t be that concerned about a lack of pragmatism.
futurechemist @30
Those views are changing and that’s with a corporate media that still uses socialism and related topics as scare words (George Stephanopoulos, saying what Republicans might say: “He wants America to look more like Scandinavia.” Gasp!) and without someone like Sanders rebutting those assumptions. Libraries, public parks, highways, sewer systems, fire departments are all aspects of a socialized—or, at least not neoliberal—system. What’s so bad about those? And, Americans, by and large, are operationally liberal even if they describe themselves as “conservative.” I’m not so sure what Sanders is advocating is all that different than what FDR advocated in his “Four Freedoms” speech in 1941. At least Sanders owns the label and doesn’t cower defensively about it—that goes a long way to defusing any attack.
Frankly, the Republicans’ hatred of Clinton is one reason that I’d like to see her win both the nomination and the election. That and, while I suppose I’m closer to Sanders’ stated positions politically than to Clinton’s, Sanders is a man. A white man even. Is anything really going to change under him? At least, is he really going to care or indeed notice problems that affect women only? Doubtful. Clinton might not either–I grew up in the 1980s and Thatcher made me well aware of the danger of identity politics–but she’s likely to do the right thing when it’s a low profile issue and her political future isn’t riding on it. Sanders…may not recognize the right thing.
Though I will vote for either of them or even Biden or one of the three nonentities rather than for a Republican. The Republican candidates this year are so bad that a quasi-libertarian friend of mine has jumped the fence and is planning to vote Democratic in 2016. They’re all the crazies this time.
And there, in a nutshell, is why I don’t think Sanders is really all that different from the rest of the Dems. Okay, so he’s willing to be a little more flexible than average on issues like taxes and social issues within the US, but then he’s ready to use US military power in whatever aggressive war he feels like. In a couple of years, we’d just have President Sanders instead of President Obama explaining why bombing a hospital was not a war crime just a “tragic mistake” and how the use of drones is completely justified.
I’m so disgusted with it all that sometimes I’m ready to say, “Heck with this. The US is repugnant and deserves what it gets. Why shouldn’t I just vote for Trump and let the implosion complete itself?” Then I counter my own argument with, “Because it would be an evil act that would harm a lot of people and result in the US committing even more war crimes throughout the world.” “Right,” I say to myself. Then I sigh and vote for the lesser evil, again, knowing perfectly well that I’m voting for a mad bomber.
And that pretty much killed that conversation…
Muddled, goofy, buffoon, or meh. I’ll take any one of those guys over any one of the Republican candidates. The Democratic nominee is going to have my vote.
Seriously. Can I name any one of the Republicans who would be better for the United States, or me, or my child, or the future generations of the world than Chafee or Webb? Nope. Not by a long shot. All five of the Democrats have weaknesses. All umpteen of the Republican have “Either an idiot, or an evil hypocrite” written all over them.
@44, dianne
I don’t give a damn what the Republicans think about anything. I don’t want the government to be set up either to please or to confound them. They are irrelevant. What is relevant is that Clinton stands for the same old corrupt, blue-dog-to-the-max, throw-the-base-under-the-bus politics which the Democrats have been employing for decades now. I’m sick of it, and I will not vote for her. I don’t care if the Republican ticket is Hitler/Satan, if the Democrats choose Hillary, I’m either voting Green or leaving that contest blank. I can’t prove it, but I suspect there are others like me. Obama has used up all the goodwill that DLC-style “compromise-by-giving-the-one-percent-and-the-Republicans-everything-they-want-and-get-nothing-in-return” dealing had in me.
Well, gee, maybe you could see if he’s actually said anything about it before he was running for president. That might give you some idea. Too bad the Internet doesn’t exist, so you can’t go and look it up on a search engine like Google or something. How sad that all news of current events vanishes immediately.
Oh, wait, the Internet does exist and you can. He has been a constant, firm supporter of women’s rights — and has a better track record on supporting the rights of groups of which he is not a member than Clinton, by a factor of about sixty gazillion. (But then, since Clinton is actually one of the people who invented the strategy of “we only have to be slightly to the left of the Republicans”, and has repeatedly thrown people under the bus for the very slightest reasons, that should surprise nobody.)
That’s just so incredibly counter to all the observed history and facts that I’m hereby declaring you a Republican candidate for President. Congratulations.
And, of course, there’s also the high-profile issues. You know, like trying to fix the economic excesses of the banks — from whom Clinton has accepted millions in donations. Or trying to put the brakes on our excessive incarceration — where, again, Clinton has accepted millions from private prison companies. If you’re unwilling to vote for the Greens, then once you have cast your vote in the primaries, you have lost your only bargaining tool with the Democratic Party. But those moneyed interests can still donate money. If Clinton gets the nomination, which do you think she’ll be listening to: the voters who no longer have any say in how things are done, or the very rich companies who are spending huge sums on her campaign?
Personally, I refuse, categorically, to vote for anyone who voted for war in Iraq. At least a third of the U.S. population was smart enough to know that it was a bad move — both the specific history of the country and history in general describing the fate of such attacks would lead any intelligent person to reject the idea. And it was also a severely immoral, unethical move — it was an act of unprovoked belligerence, the sort of thing we claimed, at least, to punish at Nuremberg.
Clinton does not claim to have been privy to any special knowledge of Iraq to counteract the foolishness of attacking, she merely claims that she believed the Bush administration when they said it was important. Yet she still voted for war. So at best, when Clinton is faced with an important decision, she is immoral and unethical. More likely, she is immoral and unethical and also a fool. I refuse to support that.
And you want to vote for her. What does that make you?
Your don’t. Your ideology blinders are showing. Stop telling other people how to vote.
getkind, 47:
For decades, my view has been that anyone who identifies as Republican must be either not very bright, actively evil, or both. That view gets stronger with each election cycle, as the Republicans keep doubling down on all the horrible things they stand for. These candidates are so ridiculous that it’s almost beyond belief that anyone could take them seriously, but they’re just the people that the Republican slide downward has come to embrace. If any of them had run even ten years ago (or, at least, run the way they are acting right now), they would have been laughed off the campaign. Now, the wackier, the better.
@49, Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
Okay:
1. Mind clarifying that first sentence? I’m presuming it’s a typo but I can’t decide what you actually meant to say.
2. I want a president who isn’t obviously corrupt or a fool. How terribly ideological of me. Don’t get me wrong — I have genuine ideological reasons for not being willing to vote for Clinton; she’s pro-NSA-spying-on-everyone-in-the-world (she has both said so, and voted in accordance with that), and she’s an incredible hypocrite about China, having repeatedly given speeches castigating China for doing exactly what the U.S. was doing at the same time (my favorite was the speech she gave about cybercrime on the same day as the Snowden revelations). But just pointing out that she is not as bright as she seems, and is also unethical? That isn’t ideological, that’s just telling the truth.
3. I will take your “don’t tell people how to vote” seriously when you reply to Paul K’s paragraph, right below your comment, which castigates the Republicans in the same sort of language, but without providing specific justification as I did. (Oh, that’s right — when it comes to obvious corruption, capitulating to the 1%, and being an enabler of warmongers, It’s OK If You’re A Democrat™. Fellow Tribe Members! We Must Stand Against Those Who Do Not Agree With Our Tribe Leaders!)