The most important endorsement of Clinton other than Sanders’ and Warren’s came today … from Al Gore
Paul Waldman has a lengthy post today at the Washington Post’s Plum Line blog titled “Despite what you’ve heard, Democrats aren’t in disarray. Their party is under attack from the outside.” He argues that the Democratic Party itself isn’t that divided, and that the divisions really are between Democrats and the outsider Sanders supporters who are trying—Sanders’ efforts to thwart it, notwithstanding—to thwart Clinton’s election.
I agree with most of what he says, but not the ultimate point that the Democrats themselves are really very divided. Yes, he says, there certainly are many Democrats who supported Sanders and who are dissatisfied with Clinton’s level of progressiveness, but they will vote for her anyway, and that means that the party itself is not very divided. He lists the many platform positions that were forced by Sanders, and says that is insufficient to gain the support of many Sanders supporters, but only the ones who aren’t Democrats.
He’s right about the latter point, for the most part, but not about the former. As an ardent Sanders supporter and a Democrat, who is no Clinton fan but who nonetheless wouldn’t be caught dead not voting for her in this election, I can attest that the party is quite divided—between Clinton fans and Bernie supporters who nonetheless, like me, wouldn’t be caught dead not voting for Clinton in this election.
Sanders is one of them, although I guess he’s not really considered a Democrat. But Elizabeth Warren is a Democrat, who clearly favored Sanders but who will do all she can to help Clinton in this election. And Al Gore is a Democrat who, I’m guessing, favored Sanders, and who today endorsed Clinton.
He knows that earth really is in the balance in November. And he is the most powerful living symbol imaginable of the abiding harm that the Sanders supporters who are trying to undermine Clinton want to do, and can do.
But Waldman is wrong about something else, too: his dismay that the many major platform concessions to Sanders and his supporters doesn’t satisfy the hostile Sanders supporters. It doesn’t satisfy them not because they feel the concessions don’t go far enough—they do feel that, but then so do I—but because most of these folks fear that Clinton will backpedal on the policy concessions once in office.
But Sanders and Warren are current senators. So is Jeff Merkley. And Sherrod Brown. And Dick Durbin. And Sheldon Whitehouse and Jack Reed. And Tammy Baldwin. And so, hopefully, will Russell Feingold and Tammy Duckworth, and three or four others, be. They’re revolutionaries. And they will have real power. But only with a Democrat in the White House.
This is one of the unremitting messages that they need to drive home. Another is Trump’s genuine fascism. They need to educate the public about the specifics of that—what Trump has actually said. What he’s referring to. What he plans. As well as what his fiscal and regulatory plan is.
I would love to see Bernie Sanders campaign with Al Gore, and together run down the many ways this country and the world would be profoundly different had Gore rather than Bush been the one inaugurated in January 2001. They can begin with the Supreme Court, and move on to environmental regulations.
I can’t fathom the point of trying to help elect Trump in order to bring down Wasserman Schultz’s candidate. Least of all in the name of Bernie Sanders’ revolution—which if Clinton is elected is positioned to march through Georgia, with or without her push. Okay, well, through Washington.
As enthusiasm for Clinton goes, so Democratic turnout goes. As Democratic turnout goes, so Congress goes. As Congress goes, so a lot of progressive legislation goes. As progressive legislation goes, so the progressive movement goes.
It’s not rocket science. Actions have consequences. Words do too. The “hold your nose” philosophy is deeply anti-progressive.
Yep. That’s right. There’s only one conceivable way that a presidential candidate running against an obvious lunatic can win: with broad enthusiasm for her. The other guy doesn’t matter. And neither does it matter that there is nowhere near a majority of voters who are enthusiastic about him.
And, no question about it, Russ Feingold won’t beat Ron Johnson, and Tammy Duckworth won’t beat Mark Kirk, unless voters are enthusiastic about Clinton.
Look. I know that what you say is routine. But this election is the most un-routine of my lifetime. And if Clinton needs a majority of voters to be enthusiastic about her in order for her to win, we’re sunk. Because that ain’t gonna happen. But we’re not sunk, because in this election enthusiasm of a majority isn’t possible for either candidate, but fear of Trump can and probably will determine the election’s outcome.
Rocket science? Don’t even go there.
This is a sophisticated argument, that I think has a lot of merit. The problem (or one of them!) that I see is that there is a significant fraction of the electorate that does not share this level of sophistication. And I do rather feel that the threat is great enough to caution everyone who feels this way to consider making their arguments in a manner that helps to bring our less savvy compatriots to a similar conclusion. I don’t believe that the “enthusiasm” or lack there-of is something that is up to the candidate alone. If you think that you need to hold your nose to vote for Clinton I believe it signifies a profound misunderstanding of how change occurs in this country.
If you think that you need to hold your nose to vote for Clinton I believe it signifies a profound misunderstanding of how change occurs in this country?
Huh? And if I understand how change occurs Clinton suddenly will become popular? I had no idea I was so powerful.
For those of you who want change there is no question there will be more change if Trump wins. It will certainly not be the sort of change that Sanders supporters seem to want unless there are more racists and xenophobic facists among his supporters than I thought. I like to think that I am fairly far left of center at least for an old white guy, but sometimes I am ashamed to admit that given the idiocy of some on the left. Beverly I have a lot of differences with you but at least you are starting each post with the proposition that you will vote for Hillary but.., I think that is fair but at the end of the day if the left does not share your views AND actually vote in November, they may never have another chance to pursue a progressive/liberal agenda at least without heavy weapons
That’s true, Terry. The trick is to get the left to vote for her.
Terry,
Xenophobic, fascists? Bob Kagan PNAC endorsed Clinton not Sanders!
ABC simple!
For the ethics of the DNC I am voting whoever for HoR, not a democrat, and GOP incumbent for open senate seat. For president is anybody but Clinton.
There can be no doubt at all that a President Trump would be a disaster. Reasonable people can disagree whether or not he’d be as bad as a President Hillary.
Hillary, a known evil, contrasts with the “loose cannon” Trump.
As I’ve remarked elsewhere, it’s an odd situation in my family – long-time Democrats will be voting for Trump and ‘yellow dog’ Republicans for Hillary. Since both candidates are raving lunatics regarding Global Warming, I’m inclined to favor Trump on account of his claiming he’d damp down trying to lure Russian and/or China into a war.
BTW, at this stage in the game I don’t give a damn what Gore thinks about the election.
You don’t know why Al Gore is important? You don’t get the purpose of the reference to him? Seriously?
You must have been pretty young in 2000. Ever heard of Ralph Nader?
No, Ms. Mann, I was not “pretty young” in 2000. And yes, I fail to see Al Gore as being in any way relevant 2016. Nader was a useless ***** to have engaged in the 2000 election, but again, I don’t see the significance of that – or him – in this election.
The Supreme Court is the only place where I would prefer Hillary picking the people compared with the Heritage Foundation. On every other issue I’m aware of, Trump is either her match or beats her out totally. She even screwed up the VP pick – Trump’s choice of Pence was disgusting, but Kain is just another Corporate Neocon hack.
All that said, dying in a nuclear war or transferring the control of Government to Corporations aren’t trivial issue either. Hillary could have allowed a the platform plank about the TPP – she didn’t. The woman has essentially flipped her middle finger at all of us who supported Sanders. The most recent was her embrace of the DNC ***** who had her thumb on the scale during the primaries. What’s her name – Debbie somebody?
One or the other of those two worthless POS is going to become President. I’m screwed in either case, but I just might live through a Trump presidency. With Hillary poking Russia through the NATO encirclement OR her insane no-fly zone in Syria, my chances of seeing radioactive fallout in Indiana are substantially worse.
The problem here is not whether the Democratic party is divided. It is whether the group of people who elected Obama twice are divided.
One of those groups is a subset of the other, and won’t be enough on it’s own to get Clinton in the whitehouse.
geez
People, time to grow up.
FDR did not reinvent the world.
LBJ did not make black people real.
The Congress did.
The idea that people shy away in any way from the lesser evil to the greater evil is sheer insanity.
Fortunately, Sanders is smarter than all of you.
I wonder how many of the people who write such imbecilic remarks as those above have spent their entire lives living in a perfect world?
Nah.
I know the number.
It is zero.
I agree. I’d put it a bit more diplomatically, though. And have.
But a huge pet peeve of mine is this rote repeating of standard wisdom as though it were gospel. One thing I’ve learned, if nothing else, in this election cycle is that it’s all but impossible to teach most baby boomers new tricks. They flatly don’t believe that things change.
I expected a good deal of push back yesterday from Bernie’s supporters but I never expected such petulance and nihilism. When Bernie addressed them in person, they booed him. It was as if, having contributed to the construction of a movement so full of potential, they were ready to burn it to the ground; as if they’d never heard of “majority rules;” as if they were prepared to hang the author of the movement. Urban Legend is absolutely right; it was deeply anti-progressive. If Trump had secretly hired each and every one of them to disrupt the process and destroy Bernie’s movement, he would have been well-pleased with their efforts. Bernie has reorganized the movement into what will now be called “Our Revolution.” Their motto of the day was “Take Your Revolution and Stuff It.”
Bernie Sanders has galvanized a sea of unfocused discontent into a focused movement aimed directly at the predatory heart of Wall Street, which in reality is guided by an ethos only a pirate would respect and which has dramatically increased human suffering in a thousand different ways here and globally – and to which suffering Wall Street remains perfectly indifferent.
Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are two politicians of a kind that only rarely appears in American politics. They are far wiser than I am, with a far deeper knowledge of the mechanisms and levers of politics, power and governance. Each possesses an unimpeachable character; neither seems capable of telling a lie — or refraining from telling the unvarnished truth. Each has the courage to stand up to the powerful – and defeat them. They give me real hope. I feel real pride in supporting them. I’d follow them into the fires any day of the week.
When a Presidential candidate stands before a free people and exclaims “I alone” can solve a problem, he must have the political knife driven deep into his foul heart and his sclerotic brain. In this moment, Hillary, with the full-throated and dedicated support of Bernie and Elizabeth – and all their supporters — is the only vehicle to accomplish that fundamental goal.
Yes.
MS
just because i like to whine in public, here it is:
i discovered by accident (no genius here) a fact missed by the completely innumerate politicians and press. i tried to get my fact before the people, thinking i was on the side of “the left.” That left turned out to behave like the caricature of the “evil communists” i grew up hearing about in the standard american folklore constructed by the publishers who create the myths we live by. they were ill mannered and profane, playing “secret agent man,” and preferring their “revolution” against “the rich” to actually saving the only successful anti poverty program in America.
I’ll be sorry I wrote this. but the moral for me… and it’s pertinence here is that you can’t count on “the left” to be any more sane, or nice, really than the morons and thugs on the other side.
is hope then with the “radical middle”? almost certainly not. but if you hope to make this a better country, if not world, do not count on ANY group to be sane, or even nice if they get power.
good luck.
Coberly,
First, I don’t see your comment as whining at all.
If there is a “mistake” or a “flaw” in your comment, it’s in failing to distinguish between the petulant nihilists pitching a fit at the convention, who I assume are young (I haven’t been watching) and all those Bernie backers, as well as Bernie and Elizabeth and their other allies as well, who have the maturity to understand that the nomination was lost but that we haven’t been defeated, that the war continues, and that we have created a truly vigorous movement to carry the fight beyond the election. And that includes the maturity to understand that before that happens, Trump and the rest of his White Nationalists and all the reactionaries of the Tea Party must be thumped. No doubt the fit-pitchers see themselves as being of the Left – and they are – but they do not comprise “The Left” as a whole. They are an element of but not the totality. (I hope I’m being clear.) I have no idea whatsoever what they hope to accomplish. They boo Bernie. They march up and down the aisles screaming at the delegates “This Party’s Dead.” They interrupt opening prayers when Hillary’s name is mentioned. If they were active paid agents of Trump hired to undermine Bernie’s “Our Revolution” and destroy Hillary before she gets out of the gate they couldn’t do a better job.
The other part of your comment about the lack of sanity we saw with the GOP and are now seeing with the Dems is true. People – the Plebes – are righteously fed up with an economic system that has undermined and sabotaged their well-being, their hopes for some measure of prosperity and improvement in their lives. One aspect of that reactionary charter the GOP calls a platform that has been overlooked is it’s call to reinstate Glass-Steagall. I’m convinced part of Bernie’s rationale for getting into the race was the belief that he could convincingly appeal and win over at least some element of the working class because of their inchoate, unfocused anger at Wall Street. It is very, very real on both right and left among common citizens. It’s not so much insanity as pure emotion supplanting reason (which might just be the same thing). That fact is an enormous source of hope that the measures Bernie and Warren have in mind will happen, and that fact is why I find these fit-pitchers so galling and destructive.
And of course there is a perfect irony involved: without Bernie, without him, there would be no them. The supporters kill the leader and become a mob.
ms
i agree with you mostly, and would agree that it is not “the” left that i was calling insane, but only some who call themselves “left.” i don’t even bother to talk about “the right” because their insanity is well recognized in this forum … though i know some perfectly decent people who believe what they hear from that part of the right that sounds like their fathers.
still, i am far less optimistic than you are. i’d say that unless the sanders – warren supporters can build an effective “movement,” you won’t see any real changes. but i don’t think you are any more likely to get an actual hearing from even bernie or his staff than i have been able to get from my “representatives”.
Coberly,
fact is I used to live in VT and I’ve talked to Bernie 4 or 5 times at town halls and such…elementary school classrooms… he has built a really powerful movement in that state and is remarkably unusually accessible… and I’ve never heard anyone call him Senator Sanders… the last time I saw him was at a town hall that came about 2 weeks after Citizens United where he was already organizing to find a way to overturn it…
and if I’m not mistaken, there is still an arrest warrant for W should he ever visit the state…
Given the reality of politicians and their inaccessibility — I live in NYS now, have written Kirsten Gillibrand several times, who usually gets back to me with a form letter about 8 weeks later — I can understand your cynicism. I will tell you from first-hand experience — Bernie is unlike any politician you’re ever likely to meet, which is why I say I’d follow him into the fires any time anywhere.
cheers…
Coberly,
You point out another unbelievable irony. I’ve exchanged emails with Noam Chomsky, with literary scholar Harold Bloom — just yesterday I had an email chat with Andrew Roberts, an Oxford Don and author of this superb biography of Napoleon. All these folks are accessible, try and contact your elected representative and it’s a form letter 8 weeks later. Try figuring that one out.
Of course, I’m just a citizen. If I were a wealthy campaign contributor looking for a favor Gillibrand would drop everything and race to the phone. And if I were a big contributor my favor would be granted by the end of business that day.
Something else… I first heard it from Bernie and it was later confirmed on 60 Minutes — these pols spend 2/3 of their time dialing for dollars. Change the way we finance campaigns and these people would have to spend that 2/3 of their time answering your letters, you know, doing their job. If getting elected was a matter of satisfying their constituents instead of selling their influence and power, some semblance of actual democracy would return.