Just watched Bernie Sanders’s speech at a rally in Louisville. It was one of the best speeches I’ve ever seen a politician give.
Sanders was at the very top of his game tonight in Louisville. A genuinely beautiful speech, delivered in perfectly modulated tone, with a wonderful, mostly young group standing on the stage very close behind him and to his sides, and a crowd that several times broke into chants of “Bernie! Bernie!”. I felt like I was there. I hope he uses clips of it in internet ads as he campaigns in California and the other remaining states.
This is the first primary night speech I’ve watched more than just a few minutes of. I haven’t watched most of the election night speeches at all, and have seen only short clips of a few rally speeches. But I clicked on the Washington Post website to see the early Indiana returns, and when I saw that Sanders was beginning a speech in Louisville that the Post was showing live, I clicked it. Watching it was really an experience. I’m guessing that his convention speech will be a version of tonight’s speech, modified somewhat as necessary—a tremendous spur for the Democratic Party from the top of the ticket on down.
It is a mistake to misread the role Bernie Sanders will play in what will be a tremendous victory for progressives—a true turning point. He talked tonight about some legislation he’s currently presenting in the Senate, and I’m sure there will be more legislation and a larger focus on it as the convention approaches. This is what I’ve been hoping he’d do. He probably won’t be the presidential nominee, but he’s making it clear that progressive governance will be a team effort among progressive Democratic elected officials. And Hillary Clinton seems to be indicating now that she wants to be a part of that, not a hindrance to it. Good for her.
Although most of those on the stage with him tonight were young, photos I saw of his rally last night in downtown Indianapolis, with about 8,000 in attendance, showed a largely middle-aged crowd. Tonight Sanders is winning Marion County, where Indianapolis is, and most of the suburban Indianapolis counties, and the county where Fort Wayne is. At this writing, with 76% of the vote counted, he’s ahead in Indiana by more than 6%.
Clinton will win the nomination and the general election, but Sanders will be the Most Valuable Player, in November and beyond. The Democrats are uniting around progressivism.
And both uniting and progressivism are operative words here.
Smart progressives know that uniting with the Clinton camp means sacrificing the significant gains and momentum achieved during the “Bernie Moment”. A better strategy is to keep it going beyond the Dem nomination – well beyond :
A recent petition , by Kshama Sawant :
Dear Bernie,
You are fighting to win, and we support you. If billionaire interests block you from winning the Democratic nomination we urge you to continue the political revolution by running independently of the Democratic Party rather than endorse Hillary Clinton.
Your grassroots campaign that we have all worked so hard to build is too important to let its fate be decided by a rigged primary which involves only a small minority of voters. Running in the general election will reach tens of millions more people and can be the start of building a new political party for the 99%.
http://movement4bernie.org/run-all-the-way
My sentiments , exactly , Kshama. Let’s hope Sanders is still feelin’ the Bern.
Ironic because Kshama Sawant herself exemplifies the right path for progressives: win local and build the movement from the ground up.
Why didn’t Kshama run for Governor? Because there was no path to victory. On the other hand she has a relatively secure seat on the Seattle City Council that actually struck one of the biggest and earliest victories for the $15 movement.
Bernie can do so much more by working from the Senate and redirecting his people to elect more Kshama’s.
Bruce:
Living in Repub Michigan is a treat. The local gov is Repub; yet, the state goes Dem. Michigan is gerrymandered and sends more Repub House Reps than Dems because of it. !n 1990, 2000, and 2010; the Repubs have controlled the state legislature and established the districts. I think what you are suggesting is a 50 state plan. We need to win the localities.
And Trump will win
I think you’re confusing Bernie Sanders with Ralph Nader–who, incidentally, recently expressed regret about his role in the 2000 election and said Sanders is making the right decision in categorically rejecting the idea of a third-party run.
Bruce is exactly right. Sanders can do so much in the Senate as a leader now of a real progressive movement. And as a third-party candidate he would accomplish what Nader accomplished: nothing good.
Sawant is thinking about this at a higher level than Nader ever did. There’s no desire to throw the election to Trump and it’s easy to avoid that outcome. The desire is to provide a good chunk of anti-establishment voters a voting alternative ( including Repubs who won’t vote for Trump or Clinton ), and to establish a third party that can compete at the national level effectively in 2020 and beyond. Local elections are great , but we don’t have to limit ourselves to that , and it would be pathetic to accept as inevitable that we’ll still be struggling from within the DNC prison a decade from now.
Read Sawant’s comments in the box on the right at the link above , and more commentary by her , here :
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_socialist_alternative_20160501
If anyone thinks Clinton will turn left once in office , they must have just fallen off the turnip truck. She’s now the bipartisan establishment candidate , and once in power she’ll strive to maintain that status , meaning her turn will be – if anything – even further to the right.
Rahm once told us in no uncertain terms what the Clintons and their circle think about progressives. Rest assured that in 2017 Hillary will put us in our proper place , under the bus , once again.
It ought to be remembered that not only has Bernie said more than once that HRH HRC would make a better President than The Donald any day of the week but that he is a practical politician and has been making very practical decisions day by day for a very long time to push his agenda as hard as he can, then consolidate by getting the best he can – push and consolidate, push and consolidate. He is and has been in the fight for the long haul. There is absolutely no way that he would do anything to further any possibility of a Trump victory, which would be the surest way to negate the progress he has made.
Besides, he has won. He has established himself as a true powerhouse both as a Progressive leader and, as all these lily-livered politicians value most, as a (self-) fundraiser. They have pricked up their ears. We have elbowed our way into leadership. And the likes of Sherrod Brown and Elizabeth Warren have seen their own muscles grow and will be, as always, ready to use them.
Further, Jane Sanders just the other day emphasized that Bernie never began the campaign with his election to the Presidency being the only, or perhaps even the main, goal in mind. It was to begin a political revolution, and he has succeeded. It is left to all of us to accept Hillary’s victory, as Beverly wisely and magnanimously advised, and then to continue the struggle, the next phase of which is already taking different forms. Thankfully Bernie will lead with no desire to be the Leader, unlike Trump, he sees himself as Der Fuhrer. Our future is in our hands, and it has to be pursued practically by electing Progressives at every opportunity, primarily by raising the money to get elected.
There is very little difference in terms of being vital affirmative effective political institutions between the GOP and the Democratic Party. The DP is ripe for capture, fundamental redirection and profound reinvigoration.
This is such an eloquent comment, ms 57. Thank you for this. A week ago, the day after the Conn. primary, Conn. senator Chris Murphy, who had endorsed Clinton, made a statement in which he emphatically effectively endorsed Sanders’s agenda and said that the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton must push for real progressivism, not half-measures. Clinton won Conn. very narrowly the day before.
A key reason that the ACA has no public option is that Joe Lieberman held one of the two Senate seats from Conn. Conn. is, I believe, has wealthiest and most highly educated population, in the aggregate, of any state in the country. Huge numbers of Wall Street folks live there.
In Indiana yesterday, Sanders won all but one of the wealthy suburban counties that ring Marion County. And while Clinton did pull out a victory in Marion County, it was tiny, and only by dint of African-American voters there–most of whom are not exactly averse to real progressivism.
And although Clinton and her campaign pretend otherwise, they do know that that 16-point victory of hers in NY two weeks ago was very largely courtesy of NY’s requirement that voters had to register with a party six months before the primary in order to vote in it, and that not many New Yorkers’ knew that.
Hillary Clinton blows with the wind. Why anyone would think she’s so committed to centrism in domestic policy that she will block the progressive agenda that the winds are now demanding, I wouldn’t know.
I just checked, and Sanders did pull out a win in Marion County after all. With 98% of the precincts counted he needed a gain of almost 1,000 votes to win that county. Amazingly, he got that.
Run,
Locals vote swings with the preachers. When preachers say democrats are all abortionists, won’t let you pillory gays, etc……..
That said the democratic party has a the better controlled but minute tea party.
Trump says “we are no longer being the world policeman”, scares the heck out of MICC execs sending a lot of money to HRC.
Flipping back to CNN from “Life Below Zero” and “Last Alaskans” I found this pointed out and left up long enough to read twice:
Campaign chairman John Podesta issued a statement saying that Trump would be a “risky choice” for president, saying he was neither prepared to keep Americans safe nor to help working families get ahead. “Donald Trump has demonstrated that he’s too divisive and lacks the temperament to lead our nation and the free world,” Podesta said.
“Risky choice” is the PNAC scare campaign: US won’t be safe until China and Russia are Libya. And their other scam that the democrats are not all for Wall St.
I would have hated to vote for Cruz but I would.
Ted Cruz said yesterday, in a completely accurate statement, that “”Donald Trump is a serial philanderer and he boasts about it,” Cruz said. “This is not a secret, he is proud of being a serial philanderer…Describes his battles with venereal diseases as his own personal Vietnam.” Trump has been enthusiastically endorsed by Jerry Falwell, Jr., and has carried the evangelical vote everywhere he went – at the expense of Cruz, son of a notable evangelical preacher.
Let the local preachers say what they will. On the morning after the election there is going to be a lot of garish red paint splashed on the map where Trump will have won – across the South and up the Mississippi. It makes no matter.
Far more important is this:
“”We have an informed understanding that we could have the potential to expect support from not just Democrats and independents, but Republicans, too,” said Clinton spokesman Brian Fallon. “There’s a time and place for that support to make itself known.”
While a vocal segment of the Republican Party has denounced Trump, few have been willing to go as far as saying they would back Clinton in the fall. But with Trump essentially capturing his party’s nomination with the win in Indiana that knocked Texas Sen. Ted Cruz from the race, there are some early signs that a sliver of the party might see Clinton as the only option.
“(T)he GOP is going to nominate for President a guy who reads the National Enquirer and thinks it’s on the level,” Mark Salter, a top campaign aide to 2008 Republican nominee John McCain, wrote on Twitter on Tuesday. He added Clinton’s slogan: “I’m with her.”
Ben Howe, a Republican strategist who has worked for Cruz, said he’d be actively working against Trump — a decision he recognizes means backing Clinton.
“Anything right now that would allow Donald Trump to become president is the wrong move, so the de facto result is that Hillary would win,” he said. “I don’t agree with Hillary Clinton. What I think is Hillary Clinton is more honest than Trump, and that’s saying a lot.”
Endorsements from prominent GOP backers could potentially pave the way for Republican voters to back Clinton, particularly woman.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-wins-clinton-exploring-win-over-republicans-071855950–election.html
Yea and take all Vietnam vets down the sewer with his life style.
Trump as president is better for progress……..
Trump as President is better for Trump and Trump alone… Is it necessary to point out the guy gets his information from the Sunday morning news shows and the National Enquirer — the violence, the racism, the ignorance of Constitutional government, the misogyny, the xenophobia, the sheer fantasies, the narcissism, the habitual lying, the failed businesses, the bombast, the bragging? That is not progress.
Marko,
Why do you bother talking to people when you obviously cannot add small numbers together, have no knowledge of the Constitution and lack a thrid grade level of history?
You post is madison worthy:
“What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Ms 57,
You have to forgive Ilsm. He spent his entire life putting food on the table by working for the military industrial complex.
Now he hates himself for that so much that he has become interested in only one thing, being against anyone he thinks is liable to be more in the pockets of the MIC(like he was) than someone else. For some reason I cannot understand, he believes Trump will be less “imperialistic” than Clinton.
His guilt has rendered him incapable of thinking outside of this one box.
I firmly believe that progressives and millennials will show up and vote for Clinton in November, and give the senate to the D’s. It is then that Clinton 2.0 will have to make a decision to give Bernie supporters more than the finger. I fear that if she ignores the progressive side, and tries to triangulate, she could be less than a single term president. Unless she gives Bernie supporters something to motivate them to turn out for the 2018 mid-terms, they will stay home, giving the senate back to the R’s (and impeachment proceeding will be underway). But if they are motivated to show up and vote in the 2018 mid-term elections, D’s keep the senate, more Dem statewide officials get elected, just in time for 2020 census and re-districting.
Sorry Mark:
We moderate all new replies. You are set to go.
““If Sanders runs as an independent through November he will win seven, maybe 10 million votes,” she said. “That would not be enough to win the presidency. But if he ran as an independent and got 10 million votes, we would have 10 million votes for single-payer health care, 10 million votes to tax Wall Street speculation, 10 million votes for a political revolution against a billionaire class. That would be a phenomenal starting point to lay the basis for an independent party of the 99 percent. It would strike real fear into the heart of the establishment.”
Kshama Sawant
I have never read a more inane comment in my entire life. Let us all hope(and pray for those who do that) that Sanders does not listen to this incredible imbecile.
In a wonderful moment toward the end of Sanders’s speech last night, Sanders, with an expression on his face that indicated a humorous dismay that anyone would actually think otherwise, made unequivocally clear that he will be actively campaigning for Clinton after the convention. He began by saying something like, “To the millions of people who fear that we might end up with President Trump, let me just assure them that will never happen.”
He just shook his head in dismay as he finished that sentence. There was a slight smile on his face and a glint in his eye.
No need to pray, EMichael.
“Unless she gives Bernie supporters something to motivate them to turn out for the 2018 mid-terms, they will stay home ”
MarkBob
And therein we have the main reason why the progressive movement in this country has floundered for decades.
Even if Sanders wins the nomination, there will be no “something” enacted into legislation. No stimulus; no(or very little) raising of the minimum wage; no single payer; no Wall Street tax or regulation.
That is a known fact.
And the reason for it is because these progressives have the mindset of a two year old. If they don’t get “something”, they’ll stay home and thereby ensure that no “somethings” will ever happen.
Sanders has a real chance to move this country left, he just needs to convince people that no such movement is possible unless it is done within the Democratic Party. I wish him a lot of luck herding those cats.
Bev,
It ain’t over till the fat lady sings.
Sanders shows he knows by the simple fact he is running for the Democratic nomination. However, people like Marko and this Sawant scare me to death. I doubt he listens to them, but I really need to hear him tell them to shut the hell up about this independent bs.
They’ll turn on him like a cheap suit when he does so, but they would have turned on him in a NY minute if he was elected President and didn’t implement all of his policies in a hundred days or so. Despite the fact that you need an IQ above double digits to realize there is no chance those policies could be implemented in his first term, and probably not his second if that happened.
“Bernie can do so much more by working from the Senate….”
Sen. Sanders does not have to give up his seat to run for President.
“The DP is ripe for capture, fundamental redirection and profound reinvigoration.”
Ms 57
Post of the day(week? month?) there.
The problem lies in driving the far left into the DP. They are so happy with their dream world making them see reality, and the work involved) seems so hard to them.
Sanders has the ability to get most progressives and some of that far left into the party. He could not find a better way for his revolution.
When I think of the “far left” I think of ideological socialists, even left-anarchists like Chris Hedges, who outright reject Bernie for not being left enough (Hedges enthusiastically endorses Jill Stein and the Greens). Noam Chomsky is fairly neutral on Sanders, except to the extent that Sanders presents the possibility of an organized mass movement, the need for which Chomsky has repeated over and over and over.
I think Bernie is best described as he self-describes: a Democratic Socialist, which I think of as small “d” democrat, large “S” socialist. In his speech at Georgetown in January he sounded — and repeatedly referred to — FDR, appropriate given the near-depression and feeble recovery. Some of his proposals seem far left — free college, for example — but really are not. As early as the 19th century a university education was free, which included the added benefit of freely moving from one university to the next, following favored professors or movements, etc.
But as I said, Bernie has a very strong sense of pushing very hard for what he wants and accepting what he can get. It is a practical and hard-headed approach to his agenda, which has been consistent for the last 3 or 4 decades.
He will most definitely not run a third-party campaign.
By the way, I don’t know if you’ve seen the latest sort of deep diving polling by Stan Greenberg, but this is what he found:
15% of folks have a favorable view of CEOs, 20% have a favorable view of Wall Street, and 19% have a favorable view of trickle-down economics. 82% believe the economy ‘is rigged in favor of the wealthy and political elites’ with 62% of blaming politicians. The worm has turned. The truth is, though, that Hillary will not govern in a way that respects those numbers, just as Paul Ryan and the reactionaries do not respect the overwhelming popularity of folks to keep Social Security the way it is, or raising the cap on contributions. Our representatives do not represent us. Bernie does, without reservation.
For those of you who just cannot bring yourselves to vote for Hillary for whatever reason, there already is a very respectable progressive candidate who ran in 2012 and did reasonably well, if not so well as to throw the election to Romney. That is Jill Stein of the Greens. Go vote for her.
To Ilsm, you have been blathering for some time that you wanted to vote for Cruz, a man who when the former House Speaker described him as being “Lucifer in the flesh,” a more conservative congressman, Peter King declared that this was an “insult to Lucifer.” I suggest you just join the Republican Party and join the gang that is entering wrong sex bathrooms at Target Stores and dropping their pants to protest their obviously anti-common sense policies. I meant that is what Ted Cruz said the new laws are, against common sense. It makes much more sense to demand that chromosomal females who now have beards, lots of muscles, deep voices, and wear Hells Angles leather jackets and chains, should go to womens’ restrooms. Lots of common sense, but I am sure this will bring on Bernie’s revolution.
Thank you Barkley. The Greens need the votes to maintain their ballot positions and anyone who is too pure to vote for Hilary can satisfy their sense of grievance by voting Green/Dr. Jill Stein. But anyone who maintains any hint of a “Heighten the Contradictions” stance by voting for Trump or Cruz is playing the same losing hand Trotskyites have been playing for almost 100 years now. You don’t move the Center by acting to shove things to the Right in hopes of a Left Revolution. This has NEVER worked and always had the direct effect of screwing the working class while making bougie parlour pinks feel self-righteous.
Oh, sorry, Ilsm. I forgot that Trump is against those common sense bathroom laws that Cruz was supporting. So you do not need to go drop your trou in a womens’ bathroom at a Target store, whew!
Instead, you can start cheering for Trump to build a wall, deport 11 million illegal aliens, prevent all Muslims from entering the country, and nuking ISIS, among other wonderful things.
In any case, you might as well go join the Repubiclan Party, and try not to crash into any of those Republicans running the other way they are so disgusted by Trump. But, hey, anything to heighten the contradictions so as to move the revolution that much closer!
EMichael,
aka Sheldon,
Clinton has my anger.
You are minimal aware! I wear the hair shirt and rend my beard (I have had once since I retired from the Air Force reserve) mainly for my active duty time in SAC, standing watch to keep the machines that could incinerate the world working.
You miss the main. The vast majority of my time in the MICC was in uniform or as a GS trying to get them to deliver.
You get only a tiny part of my anger: I go to the Vietnam wall each time I am in DC. I hold a huge amount of angst about the lies, ignorance, bad faith and ineptitude that got 6000 and counting of our kids killed for profit and oil.
Barkley Rosser,
Doing ISIS in less than years, and endless billions is laudable. Trump will figure Riyadh and its Wahabbists need nuked rather than being reassured US will defend them from Shiite justice.
Much preferred to Clinton’s neocon style militarism which seeks to make Russia and China failed states.
Wall St might not be worse off with Trump, about the same as HRC.
HRC is pandering to coal miners like the Donald!
The war mongering is all I need to go for Trump over Hillary!
Oh gosh, a veteran! Well, I guess we should be impressed that you are hoping for Riyadh to be nuked rather than ISIS, as Trump has been so massively and irresponsibly talking about. I mean even talking about nuking anybody has been something absolutely forbidden for presidential candidates for decades, and Hillary is not talking about it. But I guess you know so much about her, she is planning to nuke Moscow and Beijing rather than Riyadh like Trump. The latter is such an improvement.
And, hey, the only thing that matters is foreign policy, so it is just fine that Trump does all these unpleasant things to women and minorities. I mean, what a bunch of losers, voting for Hillary. They deserve to be nuked by The Donald.
Thanks Barkley
Barkley,
Enough, the only thing that matters to me is Clinton voted to give W a franchise to send US soldiers all over the world, which Obama still uses. Doing Qaddafi and knocking off the regime in Ukraine.
The other issues are on the fringe.
Calling Trump a loose cannon may play, not with me.
I have been anyone but Clinton for a couple of decades.
Woe, Ilsm, so impressive. Does not matter that she long ago declared that her Iraq War vote was a mistake.
Yeah, Libya was a mess, but it should be kept in mind that the pressure on doing something came from other nations, initially from the Arab League led by the Egyptian Abu Moussa, who was running for prez there in the aftermath of the Arab Spring, although in the end he got nowhere, and the AL talked the British and the French to do stuff, which they probably would have done even without the US “leading from behind,” and with Russia and China not opposing the UNSC mandate. Yeah, she led the charge in the admin, but she was the one who was getting it from all of those folks. Sure, we could have not pushed the UNSC, and maybe nothing would have happened, although we would have had both the Arab League and the Brits and French ticked off at us, not to mention that Qaddafi was going to bomb heck out of Benghazi like Assad has been doing to Aleppo in Syria, where we have stayed out because we “learned our lesson” in Libya, especially after Hillary killed our ambassador there for sure.
As for “knocking off the Ukraine regime,” you are talking about the Yanukovich regime? His campaign manager is now Trump’s, so no wonder you like him, and probably liked Yanukovich. Except, Ilsm, all that happened after she left Foggy Bottom. Sorry, you cannot pin that one on her, although clearly you think she is the evil genius behind all bad things that have happened in US foreign policy for sure. It is so great that you are fully on top of this.
Arab League, you mean the group of Sunni states that tossed the Syrian government to seat the jihadis in Nov 2011?
The Ukraine pro EU/NATO factions were working since Cheney was VP, I pin continuing to be Cheney on Ms SecState…..
To Clinton the world is a free fire zone.
BW,
Trotsky, right!
I don’t think there is a hair’s width of difference between Cheney and his “New American Century” neo-con brethren and Clinton. Some of the neo-cons (Robert Kagan) and GOP hawks have already endorsed her; more will follow.
The story of what happened in Syria and the nexus between it and Libya is not all known very widely. Here are a few important articles on the subject, and on her hawkishness, by Jeffrey Sachs and Scott Ritter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-ritter/hillary-clinton-foreign-policy-record_b_9221284.html
MS 57,
Kagan’s wife has been “up there” in Dept of State since Bill’s quiet activism to push Russia out of the Balkans. Neocon is Kagan family busiess, some exercise teaching ‘history’ at West Point.
“Compounding this error is the decision that followed — to capitalize upon the significant stocks of arms and munitions existing inside Libya in order to supply Islamist groups in Syria, intended to facilitate yet another round of regime change, this time targeting Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad.”
The CIA cover for the contracted SOF platoon in Benghazi, sea line of communication to jihadis in Syria, was buy up man portable SAM’s…….
Hey who cares how many muslims get killed? As long as Shiite Iran is sundered.
American security has no limit in its lust for state sponsored murder.
Ilsm,
I get it.
My problem with you is how in the world do you know what Trump will do? I have seen nothing in decades that would make me think anyone knows what he will do.
What could possibly go wrong?
“And more important than the title are the benefits presumptive nominees receive. As Rachel noted on the show last night, one benefit in particular stands out:
“Now, today, as the presumptive nominee, [Trump] does start to get treated differently. Now starts a process that will see him ultimately get RNC staff and RNC money. He will start to get control of the Republican Party’s bureaucratic apparatus to use for his own purposes.
“Yesterday he was accusing Ted Cruz’s dad on being in on the JFK assassination. Now, he’s about to start getting classified CIA briefings as the Republican Party’s nominee for president.”
That last one is easy to overlook, but it’s quite important. Federal officials – non-partisan, career personnel – begin a process every four years of preparing would-be presidents for their prospective responsibilities.
And that means, among other things, classified intelligence briefings, which Trump is eager to receive. By some accounts, Obama administration officials have already begun preparations to provide regular updates to both parties’ presidential nominees, including Trump, with sensitive national security information.
And this opens the door to some interesting possibilities.
TPM’s Josh Marshall noted, for example, that Trump will be receiving classified CIA briefings while his campaign chief “works for pro-Putin Russian oligarchs.” Won’t that be interesting.
But we can keep going with related questions. What would Trump do, for example, if the CIA told him that his anti-Muslim rhetoric was creating a national security threat?
Or more broadly, has anyone started a pool as to when Trump might blurt out sensitive information he’s not supposed to share publicly?
Remember, senators – and to a lesser extent, governors – receive intelligence briefings with some regularity, but Trump has literally no background in public service. This will be a fascinating experiment.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/about-those-intelligence-briefings-donald-trump
“The truth is, though, that Hillary will not govern in a way that respects those numbers, just as Paul Ryan and the reactionaries do not respect the overwhelming popularity of folks to keep Social Security the way it is, or raising the cap on contributions. Our representatives do not represent us. Bernie does, without reservation.”
Ms 57
Agree with all of that, with one huge exception.
This belief among most Americans that the POTUS is solely responsible for governing ignores the simple fact that the Constitution does not allow the POTUS to govern us.
The power is in Congress.
Always has been, always will be.
Ilsm,
The plan was, exactly as you say, to grab surplus weapons in Libya and send them to the rebel who first rose against Assad. This was Hillary’s baby all along. Her efforts have obviously been not just a complete failure but have led to unimaginable and ongoing suffering — and to the exodus of refugees to Europe, which is fanning the flames of the extreme right there — the neo-nazis are on the march everywhere.
What burns me up is that HRH HRC and her neo-con buddies never learn a friggin’ thing. They are so arrogant, so sure they are right, so sure they will win the next one — wherever that will be — and apparently completely disregard the most blatant lessons from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc.: Americans are incapable — insufficiently sophisticated, insufficiently wise, insufficiently canny or crafty or shifty — to mess around in that area of the world. I will never forget hearing someone say during the hostage crisis in ’79: the Iranians have forgotten more about the bazaar than we will ever know.”
Kagan’s wife is Victoria Nuland, the one who was caught on the phone essentially deciding who the US would back (appoint?) to lead the new government in Ukraine. It’s also not widely understood the central role as muscle both in the original coup and in the fighting that has taken place since.
When you say, “American security has no limit in its lust for state sponsored murder,” it should be noted that one absolute limit was any serious discussion, or even passing contemplation, of dropping the bomb there — not until Trump and Cruz came along. If you’re — if one — is going to take Trump seriously — the wall, deportations, banning Muslims — one is required to take him seriously about the bomb. Only Hitler saw “unpredictability” as a virtue in foreign or military affairs.
Just for the record for those of you whose hatred of Hillary has you drooling all over yourselves, I would note that the indeed very troublemaking Victoria Nuland did not get into her high level State Department position until after Hillary had left there, as I already pointed out that she was out when all the serious shenanigans in Ukraine took place, in which Nuland played an unfortunate part. Why Kerry appointed her, I do not know, but it was not Hillary.
Also, claiming that there is no difference between Hillary and Cheney is frankly ridiculous. Trump is closer to Mussolini than Hillary is to Cheney.
Also as far as Syria goes, I agree that the efforts to arm supposedly “moderate” Sunni oppositionists has been seriously misguided on several grounds. But nobody should be under the illusion that the US started what has gone down there. It began with spontaneous local demonstrations demanding democracy and an end to corruption that occurred simultaneously with the general wave of Arab Spring demonstrations, which were certainly not Hillary’s doings, even if some conservatives blame Obama for the Arab Spring basing this on his speech in Cairo, even as it actually started with a guy in Tunisia burning himself to death to protest corrupt regulations (and with Tunisia probably the only MENA nation to come out of the AS clearly better off than before it went in). In any case, Assad responded to these demos by bombing the heck out of the demonstraters. The violent rebellion followed this. It may be that Assad is the best counter to ISIS, but Hillary was not responsible for the uprising against him.
BR,
Nuland got “up there” with Strobe Talbot in 1993 or so. It is in wiki.
Your mileage obviously varies on Clinton vis a vis Cheney and Hitler, at least you don’t drag in Stalin, Mao or Ho.
As to siding with and arming moderate jihadis, I have a bridge you can get the deed to.
While General al Sisi did away with Arab spring in Egypt after HRC left DoS.
What is the definition of sex?
EM,
I don’t know what Trump would do.
I know what Hillary did and how she viewed her actions, and her hyperbole about Iran. Iran had nothing to do with 9/11 nor al Qaeda. To Clinton al Qaeda is to terrorism as sex is to what Monika Lewinski did with Bill Jefferson C.
Your first sentence is enough for me.
On the other hand, I know what Trump would do to our domestic policies.
More Americans will die if Trump is POTUS than if Hillary is POTUS.
That we know for a fact.
First sentence is enough for me.
I know what Trump will do to our domestic policies.
More Americans will die(many more) under Trump than Clinton.
That is a fact.
EM,
Predictions? I do them every time I buy a powerball ticket I predict I will be a bazillionaire……..
My predictions have not worked out but I keep buying powerball tix.
Barney, I don’t know if you’re comment on HRH HRC was directed at me, but it reminds me of the old story about Truman in ’48. He was giving a stem-winder against the “do-nothing” Congress when someone called out, “You Give ‘em Hell Harry.” Truman said, “I don’t give ‘em hell. I just tell the truth and they think it’s hell.”
Kagan was a founder of the Project for a New American Century. Cheney was a signatory. The thrust of their ideology was to establish a Pax Americana in the Middle East by overthrowing the governments in Iraq, Syria and Iran in order to “defend” our “common interests” with Israel. Kagan himself describes “the main components of American neoconservatism as a belief in the rectitude of applying US moralism to the world stage, support for the US to act alone, the promotion of American-style liberty and democracy in other countries, the belief in American hegemony, confidence in US military power and a distrust of international institutions.” Kagan has endorsed her. The question is begged: does that represent Clinton’s views or not. Her actions in Honduras, Syria, Libya and her vote for the war in Iraq (an unprovoked act of aggression – a war crime – which has resulted in the deaths of nearly a million people and the destabilization of the entire region) clearly demonstrate that she acts and believes the same way, and will act the same way as President. If not, show me how not. But if so, then there’s not a hair’s width of difference between Cheney and her.
To say Nuland didn’t get her job in Ukraine through Clinton is a dodge and far too simplistic, like looking at a Picasso and saying he left out a brush stroke. Besides working in Bill’s State Dept. and being Cheney’s foreign policy advisor, she is expected to get a high-level job in Clinton II. Kerry appointed her because a neo-con approach to foreign policy is the only game in town, the dominant, prevailing point of view – precisely the views Obama has done his best to resist. (His main regret is getting involved in Libya, where Hillary was involved up to her neck.)
I didn’t say the US started the uprising in Syria; but no one can deny that she saw it as an opportunity, then encouraged, armed and militarized it — in the fullest accord with the policy prescriptions with the PNAC. The Arab Spring was guided by non-violent action; no one on Tahrir Square ever advocated an armed uprising.
If anyone wants to back Hillary, be my guest. But you don’t get to pick and choose which parts you endorse and which you don’t. Hillary is a neo-con and a hawk. She will continue to act as one. If you embrace her, you also embrace that foreign policy. It’s hell but it’s true.
(P.S. – I can document everything I have said, but please don’t ask me to do so – it’s a lot of work. However, if challenged, I will.)
Ms 57,
What indications do you have that Trump will not be less, the same or more like HRC?
See, that’s the question.
We already know that on the domestic front Trump will decimate the economy; throw tens of millions of people off of healthcare; and work tirelessly to reduce taxes on himself.
Let me know when you figure out what Trump will do in foreign policy to make up for what he will actually do to Americans.
EMichael,
Hillary was the subject of my comments, not Trump. Those her support her without acknowledging that she is a hawk and a ne-con don’t do themselves or anyone else any favors. In fact, that attitude paves the way for more of the same.
By international legal standards established during the Nazi war crime trials, conspiring to commit and/or committing an unprovoked act of aggression is a war crime for which Nazis were hung and imprisoned. The US pushed to establish those standards, led the world to establish standards. The invasion of Iraq was a war crime leading to the deaths of nearly a million of Iraqis. Stalin said, “one man’s death is a tragedy, a million dead is a statistic.” Are you asking me to pretend such things didn’t happen, or hope blindly that she will not act in ways to cause them again? A million dead is not a statistic, it is a million tragedies.
What did she learn from Iraq? Let’s try it again in Libya. Let’s try it again in Syria. She boasts about having laid the groundwork for the Iran deal, yet yesterday the story came out that she did what she could o undermine it. She boasts about having ousted a leftist in Honduras, says it wasn’t a coup, denying the fact that the guy was picked up in the middle of the night by the military and flown out of the country in his pajamas. “He was ousted in accord with legal proceedings,” she said.
Brother, how long would you tolerate any of this committed in your very own backyard — an invasion by Iraq, the arming of Trump supporters by Assad, the Hondurans engineering a coup against Hillary? By what authority does the US derive the right to act thusly? There is no moral authority for it. There is none to be found in international law. “Our interests,” they say. Whose friggin’ interests are they talking about?
The people are sovereign in this country. Every invasion, every war, every, every atrocity, every act of torture — all of it, all of it is done in your name and mine. A million dead Iraqis is on your head and mine. And there more coming… How do you imagine you can escape that responsibility?
ms 57:
HRC did not claim the Iraquis caused 911. HRC did not make the decision to invade Iraq. HRC did not drum up WMD. HRC did not invade Iraq. She voted the same as many other pols including BO. Bernie I believe did not. I think you are taking this a bridge too far. Between Trump and HRC, she is head and shoulders over him. I would say the same for Bernie; but, he is not going to happen.
I have no control over what happens in Iraq and I already fought in one war where 58,000 of us died and many more after the war ended. Pre-Iraq, we reversed the life expectancy of Iraq. Both of these things happened and while she may have voted for the war, she did not cause the war and neither did I even though I played at war. I think you are taking this a bridge too far. If you want Trump than do nothing or vote for him. If you want something else far less despicable, than vote for HRC. I am sure there is much to be found on Bernie too which has not been said. I wonder why.
I got the idea that she is a hawk.
In my entire life I have said one non negative thins about HRC.. That is my belief that her plan to regulate the financial system is better than Sanders’ or anyone else.
I don’t like the woman. Never have.
But what you have to do is convince me that Donald Trump would not engage in her foreign policies, or even go farther than she has.
I have no indication that anyone can do that, and plenty of reason to think he might be worse.
But I am willing to listen.
Meanwhile, back in the US. Trump would cost us more than 20,000 American citizens a year to die an unnecessary death. He would cause millions more Americans to live a life with no medical care at all.
Sorry, I feel for the people in the ME. But not as much as the people next door.
I would love a candidate that would do everything I want to be done. In terms of the ME I would love a candidate that just plainly stated that we have done all we could, and at this point there is no reason to think our involvement can do any good and run away.
There is no such candidate.
And if you think Trump is that candidate, figure out the numbers of American dead and ME dead and tell me you want that.
Sorry to be so graphic.
Run,
The vast majority of American people have no idea of Sanders history. As much as I love all his policies, I doubt he could even beat Trump in a national election.
There are many such indications of his past, but the one I think would make the biggest difference in the presidential election is the fact that he was once an elector for a party that endorsed the revolution in Iran at the time that 60 Americans were being held hostage by the Iranian revolution.
That ain’t flying, even against Donald Trump.
EMichael,
Brother, when it comes to a million dead, there Is no such thing as a bridge too far. What good is it to extend life expectancy for a people one decade, then kill them the next? You cite the one and dismiss the other. Thanks for nothing.
“In the Milwaukee debate, Hillary Clinton took pride in her role in a recent UN Security Council resolution on a Syrian ceasefire:
‘But I would add this. You know, the Security Council finally got around to adopting a resolution. At the core of that resolution is an agreement I negotiated in June of 2012 in Geneva, which set forth a cease-fire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in Syria together.’
This is the kind of compulsive misrepresentation that makes Clinton unfit to be President. Clinton’s role in Syria has been to help instigate and prolong the Syrian bloodbath, not to bring it to a close.
In 2012, Clinton was the obstacle, not the solution, to a ceasefire being negotiated by UN Special Envoy Kofi Annan. It was US intransigence – Clinton’s intransigence – that led to the failure of Annan’s peace efforts in the spring of 2012, a point well known among diplomats. Despite Clinton’s insinuation in the Milwaukee debate, there was (of course) no 2012 ceasefire, only escalating carnage. Clinton bears heavy responsibility for that carnage, which has by now displaced more than 10 million Syrians and left more than 250,000 dead.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-clinton-and-the-s_b_9231190.html
“The Meeting That Never Was: One UN Weapons Inspector’s Effort to Educate Hillary Before Her Iraq Vote”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-ritter/hillary-clinton-iraq-war-vote_b_9350340.html
If you want to know, read. If you want to play the monkey’s “see no evil” game, be my guest. I cannot abide such yawning complacency, which doubles the complicity of the yawner when the next million dead roll to our doorstep.
Ms 57:
This isn’t emichael. Lets keep this simple. Who are you going to elect? Lets understand something here, economic sanctions hurt only one group of people, the citizens. So what do you do and how do you do it? I am all ears.
I may not agree with you; but, I like you here.
And by the way, for anyone who mindlessly or reflexively objects to the comparison of HRC to Cheney, take a bite out of this story:
“The candidate in the race most like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a foreign policy perspective is in fact Hillary Clinton, not the Republican nominee,” explained GOP strategist Steve Schmidt in an interview this week on MSNBC this week.
“One thing we know as we get ready for a general election contest is that Donald Trump will be running to the left as we understand it against Hillary Clinton on national security issues,” he added.
Schmidt is a longtime Republican operative who formerly served as the spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, a deputy assistant to President George W. Bush and a senior campaign strategist for John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. He is now a political analyst for MSNBC.
In the segment, Schmidt argued that Clinton is going to flex her extremely hawkish foreign policy stances to woo leading Republican figures.
“You’re going to see a concerted and organized effort by the Hillary Clinton campaign to go after senior members of the Republican foreign policy establishment,” he said.
“Big names,” Schmidt stressed, citing figures such as former Bush-era Secretary of State Colin Powell, former CIA Director David Petraeus, and Bush senior’s National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft.”
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/05/candidate_in_race_most_like_bush_and_cheney_is_hillary_clinton_says_gop_strategist/?source=newsletter
“I don’t like the woman. Never have.
But what you have to do is convince me that Donald Trump would not engage in her foreign policies, or even go farther than she has.”
As I plainly said before, the point in foreign policy is clear. I do not like HRC. At the same time, I have seen nothing from Trump to believe that he would not be at, the very least, worse.
Let me know when you can show otherwise. I will listen.
At the same time, it is a stone cold fact that Trump’s policies will kill more Americans than HRC’s policies.
One day people will come to the realization that the Constitution requires a choice between two, and only two, options.
But not this cycle.
Frightening to me that people have not figured this out by now.
Run,
Thank you for the welcome. Glad to join you.
Brother, I’d like to point out something. “Let’s keep this simple. Who are you going to elect?” you asked. With all due respect, that is a shortcut to thinking. Who I vote for will not explain what I wrote. Believe it or not, all that I have written is true. I can document it. It’s not just an off-the-cuff fly-by-night anti-HRC knee-jerk opinion.
When I say to you I’m voting for X or Y or Z, you will think to yourself — ah, now I understand; if he votes for him/her, he’s one of them; if he votes for her/him, he’s one of us. That saves you from having to confront – or refute – what I’ve written.
I’ll tell you what I think.
US Foreign Policy is dominated by neo-con ideology: a belief in the rectitude of applying US moralism to the world stage, support for the US to act alone, the promotion of American-style liberty and democracy in other countries, the belief in American hegemony, the confidence in US military power, and a distrust of international institutions. (Robert Kagan, founder of the Project for a New American.)
Now, does that sound like Hillary Clinton or not? If it does, then she is a neo-con. If you believe that way, that makes you a neo-con. Decide for yourself. I say it sounds a lot like her, and is a perfect predictor of how she will conduct foreign policy – a continuation of the same
You are offended or confused by the information I present. That’s because the content itself is offensive.
My point of view – “who I’d vote for” – is not ideological. My political North Star is not ideology but the shared history of Americans – the American Revolution, The US Constitution, the Civil War, the Great Depression, WW II, and on and on. For whatever strange reason, I’ve immersed myself in all that all my life – I mean since 5 or 6. My politics derive directly from the aims and the spirit of the American Revolutionaries, and from the writings of the Founders – each and every one of whom would have stood dumb-struck and slack-jawed by listening to a speech by The Donald. Then they’d be forced to conjure a mental image of him standing among them.
The form of governing they created is pure genius. Even now, in the midst of all this turmoil, democracy is working, it is churning and grinding but it working itself out, it is growing, it is going through a huge reordering, it is evolving – it lives.
Take a minute and look up Jeffrey Sachs. Decide for yourself what kind of man he is – honorable, intelligent, experienced, committed? Then read this:
“Hillary Is the Candidate of the War Machine”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html
He’s right.
Mike:
I am a product of the BOTF at Slate Mag back when it was less commercial. You sound a lot like my friend doodahman from the Grateful Dead. The HRC you discuss was formed politically long before she arrived on the scene. It is a well worn political trail which many have followed. You are not going to change it. The best we can do is skew it. Bernie is not going to get the nomination. He can skew it and he will. I watched the McCarthys and McGoverns do the same. You name it I have been there.
I am a part of the political policy put in motion. 58,000 of us died from the political policy put in motion. Timothy Gilson was my best friend who died of a political decision and I was not there to save him. So tell me about politics and I can tell you more of the results of those decisions if you like. I lived those decisions.
I know what I see. Bernie is a good candidate and the type I would have supported in the coffee houses of the sixties in Chicago. He is not going to win and the best we can see is HRC.
My historical family came on the Mayflower like the rest of half of this white country. My dad was a bricklayer who never finished grade school and my mom a pretty Italian who graduated high school as compared to the white English. I graduated Loyola with a Masters as well as my two brothers and sister from other schools such as Knox. I know the depths of poverty and was used to spaghetti with ground beef. And still, still we were better off than the Black American women I used to get up for on the CTA buses for and offer a seat to on the south side of Chicago. It is strange how we were set up to believe we were better by the upper class when we were at the same plateau except for color.
I understand what you are saying and it is refreshing. I lie in reality and spend a lot of time kicking the sh*t out of the Repubs in Michigan. Bev is a friend.
All,
HRC, twisted logic and humpty dumpty framing of words, sells the ‘body bags are progress’ strategy. All I need to vote for Trump.
My journey brought me to pacifism. Bottom line US* “morals”, “liberty” and “democracy” applied outside the US are the moral equivalent of sodomy not being sex.
Firing US military force is state sponsored murder.
For many years killing for the US is immoral.
The US’ military actions the last 70 years fail the “moral war” doctrine, shorter why the Franciscan Pope is not popular in the US.
*Goebbelsesque.
“Does not matter that she long ago declared that her Iraq War vote was a mistake.”
Perhaps if she had bothered to read the intel reports before casting her vote….