Here are several of the items that have been passed around in recent days by friends of mine.
I suppose these won’t make my other friends who are Bernie believers very happy.
Don’t get me wrong. If Bernie Sanders gets the nomination, he’s my guy. In the meantime, forgive me for not fully feeling the Bern.
Tom Hayden writing in The Nation, “I Used to Support Bernie, but Then I Changed My Mind.”
Avery Bauer, “Rhetoric and the Bernie Sanders Revolution,” from the Daily News Bin.
Zachary Levin, “The Case for Hillary,” Medium.com.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hmmm. Very interesting essays, indeed. As a senior citizen myself, I am intrigued by the fact that so many young people support Bernie. To me he is the prototypical angry old uncle who holds forth at family dinners in a grouchy mood about all the things he hates. I heard enough of that growing up. Don’t feel a need for it in a President. Especially when, as one of the essayists noted, he has no solutions.
Maybe young people support Bernie because they perceive Hillary as being a “prototypical angry old aunt,” with viral video as evidence.
http://youtu.be/dC4Pvm6Oj4A
You sound hungry, Hillary. Here, have a Snickers bar.
The Hayden article produced a considerable backlash.
http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/tom_hayden_article_endorsing_hillary_clinton_produces_20160415
I voted for Bernie Sanders in the local caucus, and I agree with Hillary Clinton: either of them would be a far better president than Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.
Thanks John. I agree.
It is curious to me that “supporters” of Hillary Clinton spend so much time and effort attacking Bernie Sanders rather than working to explain why they think their preferred candidate is better. Even the linked articles seriously fail to make a case FOR Hillary Clinton. Usually if you really like someone and value someone it is quite easy (and enjoyable!) to tout their values, qualities, abilities, and track record to build enthusiasm among others … and yet it seems very common for Hillary Clinton “supporters” to focus their thoughts and expressions on why Bernie Sanders doesn’t resonate with them. Very strange!
When I was 18 the guy I was for was George McGovern. I voted for Jimmy Carter both times he ran for President, also of all the former presidents I believed he has been the most productive and humane. After all those years I will be voting for Hillary this time around. I believe she’s the best one to handle the messy business of national and world politics. As for Bernie Sanders I am no longer 18 and life has shown me you don’t always accomplish all your idealist goals when dealing with the Republican side of America.
If anyone here wants to support Clinton at this point, that’s obviously up to you. But don’t do so by fooling yourself into thinking that Hillary is suddenly going to get tough and enact meaningful reforms on Wall Street and the banking industry. Don’t kid yourself into thinking that she will help the middle class in any significant way that comes at the expense of wealthy donors who shower $$$$ on her campaign, the Clinton Foundation, and the pro-Hillary PACs. Don’t delude yourself into believing that her hawkish mindset on dealing with foreign affair “problems” is going to let up if she becomes the POTUS.
If she escapes accountability for having used a private email server during her tenure as Sec. of State, ostensibly for the purpose of hiding her communications from the reach of FOIA legislation, don’t naively expect her to turn a new leaf and to truly become transparent with the public as the law requires. If anything, beating the rap on Emailgate will embolden Hillary and her cronies as far as flouting open-records and sunshine laws. In a blog where the topic of openness and transparency in govt. is championed, I find it curious that our host has already chosen to embrace Clinton while the Sanders campaign is not dead and buried yet. Maybe sunshine and transparency only applies to mid-level politicians and bureaucrats, not the standard bearer of the Democratic establishment. (Say it ain’t so, Ian.)
I’m not going to “settle” for Clinton, any more than I was willing to settle for Mufi Hannemann being governor, just to have a Democrat in office. Settling means you are willing to accept another term of status-quo and business as usual. That is what entrenched politicians and party leaders think when they garner votes. If you know or suspect these types of schmoozing the rich with mutually beneficially relationships, they’re not suddenly going to see the light and develop a conscience. If The end of the line comes for the Bernie campaign, I’m not automatically going to hold my nose and vote for Hillary just for the sake of voting Democrat. I just might not vote for any presidential candidate. Heck, I’m willing to sacrifice 2016-2020 to the GOP,… If it means that the powers-that-be over at Democratic HQ will get the message and realize they need to put forward candidates who truly embrace progressive values and will fight for the middle class in the future. Voting for Clinton in ’16 will only send the message to the DNC that you are okay with candidates who give lip-service to the masses, but will continue to protect the interests of the 1%. And if that is what any of you want, then by all means, then go out and campaign for Hillary right now. Just don’t have any buyer’s remorse when Bernie is finally finished,…. and then having to stomach Hillary when she starts her pivot to the middle. Oh yes,… that has yet to happen. Or will more naïveté be displayed here by people denying that?
Allen, the idea that we should not vote in 2016 and cede the presidency to the GOP is nonsense if you truly want to transform America into the fairer, more progressive country Bernie Sanders is calling for. Whoever is President will have the power to change the balance on the Supreme Court and reverse the rightward shift of that institution in a direction that protects women’s rights, labor rights, and other civil liberties.
“Lopaka43,” you are entitled to your opinion if you think that the next 4 years is all that matters. I’m looking at the bigger picture. If you want to vote the choice for the choice of the Democratic establishment with the good housekeeping seal of approval from Wall Street, banking, pharma, and fossil fuel, then go with Hillary. Just be prepared for the “same old same old” from the Democrats in 2020, ’24, ’26, ’30, and so on and so forth until the party base says “no mas.” I’ve asked it before and I’ll ask it again? Does anyone believe that Democrats are immune to greed? Is anyone down with settling for a candidate sporting a D next to their name, just because you think they are slightly less greedier than their opponent? Does anyone here think that a Dem politician has done done their job just because they throw the masses a bone with a progressive bit of legislation here and there, all the while allowing the middle class to be squeezed for the sake of keeping fatcat donors happy? Hey, even the Democratic establishment needs to be shaken up from time to time, in order to smoke out the liars and the crooks and to hold party leadership accountable. Because if you don’t, then cronyism and corruption in the ranks of the Democrats will only get worse, not better. Anyone who lives in Hawaii should certainly know the truth of that, right?
I am in agreement with Allen N.’s thoughts.Dr. Jill stein,Green Party states that Hillary Clinton’s track record is not favorable to women, to children, to the cause of peace and justice and a sustainable climate,” Hillary is Wall Streets best friend. Eli Watkins, CNN. The DNC needs to take a long hard look at its principles, and the people need to long hard look at both parties that don’t serve them. I will never vote for Hillary.
welcome to election year.
everything is at stake right now. our future depends on it.
and then life will go back to normal next year. the losing political candidate (remember Mitt Romney) will vanish from our daily lives.
why is this? advertising and drama are both worth billions.
we want you to freak out today. your ego is priceless and worthless at the same time.
New York Primary, Up-to-Date polling data
realclearpolitics.com
RCP Average 4/6 – 4/17 Clinton +12.8
Emerson 4/15 – 4/17 Clinton +15
CBS News/YouGov 4/13 – 4/15 Clinton +10
NBC 4 NY/WSJ/Marist 4/10 – 4/13 Clinton +17
Siena 4/6 – 4/11 Clinton +10
Quinnipiac 4/6 – 4/11 Clinton +13
NBC/WSJ/Marist 4/6 – 4/10 Clinton +14
PPP (D) 4/7 – 4/10 Clinton +11
Monmouth 4/8 – 4/10 Clinton +12
NY1/Baruch 4/5 – 4/10 Clinton +13
Emerson 4/6 – 4/7 Clinton +18
FOX News 4/4 – 4/7 Clinton +16
CBS News/YouGov 3/29 – 4/1 Clinton +10
I don’t know why these pieces are supposed to be interesting. I’m not mad that you’re being critical of Bernie Ian, but I do wish I had that half hour of my life back. I don’t see anything new in these essays, and they seem pretty terrible to me. They’re full of straw men, half-truths, and fogey-ish condescension towards my generation. The third one is particularly horrible in some ways—Hilary is good because she craves power, okay? Here are two things that none of the pro-Hilary pieces never seem to get at, and in my eyes, they are two of the most important reasons that people are turning to Bernie. First, Hilary Clinton has a problem with the truth. She’s been caught telling bald-faced lies on the campaign trail and in the debates. Her account of the Honduras coup is a really big example of this. None of the pro-Hilary stuff has made any type of case for why Hilary is trustworthy, and that’s a major issue for many voters. I surely do not trust her or her husband. Second, there’s a pretty clear reason why my generation is so forcefully supporting Bernie, and it has nothing to do with naivete. Many baby boomers act as if nothing is really at stake in this election, and a big part of that is because these people have financially and personally secure lives for the most part. For my generation, something very real is at stake. More of the same neoliberal governance means our futures dim a bit more each day. Bernie represents a rejection of that status quo. He offers the promise of a brighter future, not because he has all the answers, but because he offers an opportunity to turn away from this disastrous neoliberal path we’ve gone down for the past 30 years. Is that so hard to understand?
Great points, Nick. Only other thing I would add to that is the crowd size that each candidate draws to their rallies. Sanders is clearly the bigger draw, and it’s not even close. Yet, Clinton has (so far) more people voting for her. That indicates to me that her support is passive and unenthusiastic. I know several Hillary “supporters” who have made their choice, not because they are passionate about her, but because they feel that Bernie is (gulp!) a Socialist. Or they think that Hillary would be a stronger opponent to take down either Trump or Cruz in the general election. Either way, they are supporting Clinton, not out of any strong belief and conviction in her leadership, but because they perceive her as merely being the lesser of two evils. Some people would call that thinking pragmatic.
I call it being fearful and pessimistic.
How Hillary Clinton became a hawk.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
The article seems to display a poor and superficial understanding on the author’s part of US foreign policy orientations by simply opposing ‘hawks’ versus ‘doves’.
Liberals tend to be idealistic interventionists, and conservatives tend to be realists wary of intervention. But when intervention does turn messy, liberals get amnesia and re-brand themselves as anti-interventionists who want to bring the troops home, while conservatives get amnesia and tend to dig in.
Moreover, one will find foreign policy realists and idealists in both political parties today. For example, here is a tribute by Republican Senator John McCain to an American communist who fought in the Spanish Civil War.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/25/opinion/john-mccain-salute-to-a-communist.html?_r=0
Also, the article does not delve into H. Clinton’s deeper, calculating motives for desiring to appear to be “strong” on defense. As a woman politician, it is an angle that she has probably been working for a long, long time in order to become more “presidential”.
From 2003, a profile of Hillary Clinton.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/10/13/the-student
Note how Republican politicians in the article developed a new respect for HRC after her husband left office. Because of her stridency, HRC was once perceived as potentially radical. However, she stuck by her husband through all his scandals, and Republicans began to see her toughness in a new light – that she is, like them, somewhat conservative in temperament. (“Stand by your man…”)
There was a pattern in the Clintons’ political career of pushing forward with idealistic policies, and then falling back onto a bipartisan pragmatism when that failed. That first happened when Bill Clinton was elected governor of Arkansas and tried to push through liberal legislation, but then failed to get re-elected; when he was eventually re-elected, he embraced compromise. He repeated this pattern as president after his health care initiative failed. But there was something fundamentally new that appeared in the Clintons when they left the White House, which was a deep cynicism. Also, the Clintons, once so open in their manner, have since sacrificed public spontaneity, with even the smallest of their utterances now carefully scripted. (The public, political realm is understood to be a realm of freedom, but that is a myth.)