Home / General / The Platform

The Platform

Comments
/
/
/
827 Views

1936-Dem-Platform-1

We are well into Democratic Party post-primary healing mode. There are still diehards who were determined that the FBI would charge Hillary Clinton and allow Bernie Sanders to take the nomination, but these are people who simply would never support a mainstream Democratic candidate for president anyway. Susan Sarandon and Mark Ruffalo can go ahead and vote for Jill Stein, feel good about themselves, and we will go on. I don’t really care anymore about the HA HA Goodmans of the world. But of course this doesn’t mean that Sanders and his more reasonable supporters aren’t still having a positive impact on the party. Now, I am not one to think that party platforms matter all that much except as general statements of principles. So despite a million articles on US Uncut, clearly the model for Salon circa 2016 with its half-truths and conspiracy theories, it seems that a) Sanders and his supporters had a positive impact on the Democratic Party platform and b) Sanders and his supporters had no good reason to think they could simply dictate the platform given that their candidate lost.

Basically, it seems that they won on a lot of the smaller, wonky issues around banking regulations and hedge fund loopholes and either lost or had marginal victories on the bigger issues. I would have liked the party to endorse the $15 minimum wage, yes. But I’m not angry that it only endorsed a $12 minimum wage and had a lot of language about higher wages. $12 would still be a huge improvement over where millions of workers are now. And as for the Sanders supporters wanting a statement that the Democratic Party opposes the Israeli settlements, that’s just a complete non-starter, not because I disagree but because it would divide the party. I’m more dismayed on the TPP, which the party should clearly reject and the carbon tax, which it should clearly support. But if Hillary Clinton wins the presidency, these positions can be won by electing people who believe the right things on them. But in any case, Sanders has had a very positive impact on the platform, as he had through the whole election cycle. However, he does need to endorse Hillary Clinton before the convention. He must do this before he is persona non grata in the party.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Quite Likely

    “However, he does need to endorse Hillary Clinton before the convention. He must do this.”

    Why? I can see the argument for it being important to do so before the general election, but it seems like a no-brainer for Sanders to stretch out his leverage for as long as possible, which certainly includes action around the convention.

    • With the platform set, I’m not sure he really has much if any leverage left unless he actually chooses to endorse Jill Stein or not endorse Hillary, at which point he would have caused civil war in the party.

      • slothrop1

        One hopes that he never does. She demonstrates all the moral acumen of a Nixon. Trotsky was a communist, but as far as I know, he never endorsed Stalin.

        The platform is a joke – the TPP issue basically codifies one of HRC’s many campaign lies.Everything about Israel is just disgusting.

        Then anyway, you should know, party platforms are merely symbolic. And in the hands of a pathologically insane liar like HRC, completely pointless. To think otherwise is naïveté.

        • So Hillary is Stalin to you? OK.

          • slothrop1

            You actually believe what she says, even when she changes her story 180° in one news cycle.

            • I don’t care what she believes. I care about her policies. Why are you complaining when left pressure forces her to change those policies?

              • tsam

                I FUCKING TOLD YOU MOM, WRONG COLOR PONY. NOW GTFO, I’M BOWFLEXING

              • slothrop1

                The platform is completely nonbinding. Utterly pointless. Grand rhetoric.

                She flatly said that she opposed TPP. Now?

                She’s completely contradicted herself on a number of “policies.” I don’t understand why people actually trust anything she says. But a lot of people don’t – and this is why a baboon is only six points behind.

              • cleek

                (the troll has set the hook. let’s see if he can land this fish.)

                • slothrop1

                  Can you recommend any good Judas Priest records? I have a sleepover tonight.

              • Rob in CT

                It’s nice to know it’s not just we peon commenters who respond to trolling.

                • NonyNony

                  The bloggers are totally allowed to play with trolls in whatever manner they want on their own blogs. It’s their prerogative as the people who run the place.

                  Plus this is Loomis – who excels at trolling his own commenters. If he wants to play smack-the-troll-around for a while, who am I to argue?

                • tsam

                  I don’t know that this one is considered a troll, given that the admin has never (to my knowledge) wiped out all of their comments on a thread.

                • so-in-so

                  Erik trolls his commenters? Have we forgotten the Campos’ “But Did You know the leader of the Missou Protestors was Well Off?” post?

                • jim, some guy in iowa

                  did Campos ever come out with the magnum opus on race that he hinted about writing as a response to the response he got for that post?

                • did Campos ever come out with the magnum opus on race that he hinted about writing as a response to the response he got for that post?

                  No.

                  I presume someone talked him off the ledge. Thank goodness.

        • Murc

          Trotsky was a communist, but as far as I know, he never endorsed Stalin.

          You know? I’m going to say that if Hillary Clinton had ever put a hit out on Sanders, that it would be okay for him to not endorse her. Yes. In that situation? That would be totally okay.

          • slothrop1

            The only platform that never mattered was the one that Lenin stood on at the train station in Helsinki.

            • Linnaeus

              I think you mean St. Petersburg.

              • Helsinki, Helsinki Station, what’s the dif?

                (Also, it was technically Petrograd at the time.)

                .

                • TroubleMaker13

                  what’s the dif?

                  After all, it *is* “the only platform that never mattered“.

                • Manny Kant

                  Finland Station in Petrograd, yes.

              • Warren Terra

                The St. Petersburg station in question was named “Finland Station”, the confusion is understandable.

                • sharculese

                  If this were the first fuck up this kind, maybe…

            • tsam

              Your grasp of history is Wikipedia level. I suggest investing in some ability to parse nuance.

              kthxbai

              • Hogan

                You just don’t understand the dialectic.

                • Malaclypse

                  So soullite was the tragedy, and slothrop is the farce?

                  I can go along with that.

                • tsam

                  I never did figure out what virtue is. I figure it’s a good rail of coke, a good beer and a med rare porterhouse.

        • Too much Mena Ark blow destroyed your brain cells.

        • AcademicLurker

          Trotsky was a communist, but as far as I know, he never endorsed Stalin.

          And look what that got him; an ice axe in the head.

          Although Trotsky lingered for a day after the attack. I’m sure the assassins that HRC sends after Sanders will be more efficient.

          • Her M.O. is to leave them in a park with a bullet in the head. It’s her calling card.

          • tsam

            Depending on whether she orders a clean kill or wants to send a message, of course.

            • Warren Terra

              What’s really scary is all the people she’s made disappear without a trace, like they never existed. The proof is that you’ve never heard of them!

              • Hogan

                “I know you like to point the finger of scoff, Sarge, but there’s a lot goes on that we don’t know about.”

                “Like what, exactly?” Colon retorted. “Name me one thing that’s going on that you don’t know about. There— you can’t, can you?”

              • tsam

                THERE COULD BE MILLIONS

        • paulgottlieb

          It’s cute how the Berniacs manage to turn any comment thread into a stopped up toilet.

          • ASV

            You should see what they do to actual toilets!

      • He may stretch out his leverage so far and so thin that it disappears into the ether.

      • mcarson

        Sanders voters are watching his every move to see when he “gives up”. Waiting until mid convention to keep them engaged is best strategy. He wants a fight & a win to drag them over the finish line. Free state U tuition now seems like win to them, prob. more to come.
        Establishment Dems hate him, most voters ignore until convention, so the smart play is for the 40% of primary voters. If HRC can’t beat Trump without a pre convention endorsement she won’t win with one.
        He’s herding cats here, stop worrying and let it play out.

        • That’s an interesting argument. I guess it’s possible? Conventional wisdom suggests that conceding and starting to surrogate for her would be the best move…but maybe not?

    • Dilan Esper

      +1

    • Why? I can see the argument for it being important to do so before the general election, but it seems like a no-brainer for Sanders to stretch out his leverage for as long as possible, which certainly includes action around the convention.

      I tend to think he’s weakening his leverage and certainly spinning away good will.

      • Lasker

        Theres very little evidence he has ever cared about goodwill from his fellow legislators. This was apparently less of a liability than one might have expected as a Senator but it seems increasingly clear that it hurt him a lot as a candidate.

        • Theres very little evidence he has ever cared about goodwill from his fellow legislators.

          Given his history, that seems false. He was able to work well in the Senate and House and seemed well regarded by people.

          However, we’re also talking about different things. If he wants to have ongoing influence after conceding, a lot of that will depend on good will. Sure he can threaten to try to spoil the election, but that’s the death of influence, not the start.

          • petesh

            He was able to work well in the Senate and House and seemed well regarded by people.

            That does not seem entirely accurate, given that almost none of his colleagues endorsed him, and he just got booed by House Dems. Barney Frank (with whom the loathing is mutual) loudly disagrees. More and more of his colleagues seem to be rolling their eyes and telling him to get with the program.

            • That does not seem entirely accurate,

              Do you have evidence that prior to this primary season people in Congress thought ill of him?

              given that almost none of his colleagues endorsed him,

              You can like and work well with someone and not endorse them. I mean, this really says nothing. Politicians don’t endorse presidential candidates on personal amicability.

              and he just got booed by House Dems.

              For what he’s doing *now*.

              Barney Frank (with whom the loathing is mutual) loudly disagrees.

              This seems to be a clash of long standing. But so? Frank was able to work well with others and seemed well regarded by people *and had conflicts with some people”.

              More and more of his colleagues seem to be rolling their eyes and telling him to get with the program.

              Yes. But this is because of his current behavior. What I don’t see is that there’s a long standing history.

              Contrast with Nader who was a hard to work with jerk from well before 2000.

      • Dilan Esper

        OTOH, today Hillary announced a much better plan for free college than she had ever proposed before, and MSNBC was reporting the impetus for this was specifically to appeal to Sanders supporters.

        Which to me indicates that he still has plenty of leverage.

        As in many issues, I think there’s a lot of substance masquerading as procedure here. Not with Erik, who is clearly to the left of both Sanders and Clinton, but certainly with many Hillary supporters who DON’T WANT her to be forced to the left by Sanders and are packaging that concern inside a bunch of procedural condemnations of Sanders for not endorsing soon enough.

        • cleek

          Which to me indicates that he still has plenty of leverage.

          Clinton likely gives very few fucks about Sanders. what she wants are voters and she knows she can speak to them directly, without that finger-wagging asshole’s help.

        • OTOH, today Hillary announced a much better plan for free college than she had ever proposed before, and MSNBC was reporting the impetus for this was specifically to appeal to Sanders supporters.

          It’s possible, but to me unlikely, that this wouldn’t have happened but for Sanders holding out. I think that some move on college debt been baked in for a while now.

          I think the fraction of people who are worried about her being pulled to the left is probably small. A lot of people that I encounter are *offended* by his behavior, but that’s a different story.

          • Dilan Esper

            I agree that some Hillary supporters are “offended”, but I am glad you put that in quotes. I don’t think it’s justified offense. It’s perfectly obvious that (1) Sanders is going to endorse Hillary (he already basically has, just not saying the exact words) and (2) he wants her to make moves to the left in exchange for the endorsement. That’s just 100 percent obviously what’s going on.

            And yet some Hillary supporters are offended by what is completely normal political behavior. (Indeed, some have called it sexism, as if Sanders would not do the exact same thing if a male candidate was in Hillary’s position.) I mean, the same thing that this blog often tells leftists also applies to centrists– politics isn’t some pure discipline where everyone does exactly what you want them to do or else they are a bad person. Politicians try to advance their agendas. In Sanders’ case, it’s 100 percent obvious that this is what he is doing. There’s just no basis whatsoever for offense.

            • Me:

              A lot of people that I encounter are *offended* by his behavior, but that’s a different story.

              Dilan:

              I agree that some Hillary supporters are “offended”, but I am glad you put that in quotes.

              I didn’t put it in quotes, I put it in asterisks which generally mean emphasis. I used emphasis to highlight the fact that the main driving reaction that I’ve seen at all levels is offence, not his policies (by and large).

              Just can’t get anything right, can you.

              It’s perfectly obvious that (1) Sanders is going to endorse Hillary (he already basically has, just not saying the exact words) and (2) he wants her to make moves to the left in exchange for the endorsement. That’s just 100 percent obviously what’s going on.

              Nope. It’s obvious that for a long time is was he couldn’t let go and that some percentage of what’s still going on is not letting go. The Obama meeting caused him to let go of a lot, but it’s clear that some part of all this is having trouble with losing and not having a real plan.

              It is however pretty reasonable to think that this is a poor strategy to achieve influence.

              And yet some Hillary supporters are offended by what is completely normal political behavior.

              Er…a lot of normal political behavior is offensive? And I’m not sure what’s normal about his clinging. The normal, to the degree we have enough incidents to establish a norm, is to at least verbally concede, even if you keep your campaign running to retire your debt. The last time this happened, Clinton conceded rather quickly.

              In any case, whether or not people are right to be offended, it’s clear that they *are* (<– see! emphasis! Not quotes!) offended. He's not a good politician if he doesn't take that into account.

              • Dilan Esper

                Nope. It’s obvious that for a long time is was he couldn’t let go and that some percentage of what’s still going on is not letting go. The Obama meeting caused him to let go of a lot, but it’s clear that some part of all this is having trouble with losing and not having a real plan.

                If this is obvious to you, I’d say that you are an idiot. Seriously. This is basically the complete opposite of what is going on. He is clearly trying to force Hillary to move to the left. There are a whole bunch of journalists who are reporting on the Sanders campaign who say this is going on. There are a whole bunch of people on the platform committee who say this was going on. But it doesn’t matter– you’d rather psychoanalyze Sanders, a man you have never met and do not know. You’re some prick.

                He’s not a good politician if he doesn’t take that into account.

                He’s 74 years old and has a safe seat. I don’t think there’s any particular reason he should give a shit whether Hillary die-hards are offended by him. The question is whether he can get Hillary to move farther left. He already has.

                • If this is obvious to you, I’d say that you are an idiot.

                  I’m not surprised.

                  This is basically the complete opposite of what is going on.

                  Nope.

                  He is clearly trying to force Hillary to move to the left.

                  Thats part of it yes. Some part of it is also having trouble losing. Which is natural.

                  There are a whole bunch of journalists who are reporting on the Sanders campaign who say this is going on. There are a whole bunch of people on the platform committee who say this was going on.

                  That’s clearly part of what’s going on, no doubt.

                  But it doesn’t matter– you’d rather psychoanalyze Sanders, a man you have never met and do not know.

                  I’m basing most of this on this Politico article which was discussed on LGM (including by you).

                  Now, maybe it’s wrong, but I’m not basing my belief on random psychoanalysis, but on some reporting.

                  But, speaking of psychoanalysis, that’s much more your shtick.

                  You’re some prick.

                  Whatever, dude.

                  He’s 74 years old and has a safe seat.

                  So? Did I say his seat was at risk? No.

                  I don’t think there’s any particular reason he should give a shit whether Hillary die-hards are offended by him.

                  If it affects his ability to get what he wants, it should.

                  The question is whether he can get Hillary to move farther left. He already has.

                  So, if you weren’t such a poor interlocutor, you would have noticed that my consistent argument has been that he could have done better. Frankly, just moving Clinton to the left shouldn’t have been a primary goal compared to moving the *party* to the left and getting down ticket folks elected and building the movement. He seems to overvalue the nomination and influencing the nomination overmuch. This led to what I think are both tactical and strategic blunders.

                  You can think this analysis wrong, but you should try to at least grasp it before mouthing off in your typically illformed and illinformed way.

                • you’d rather psychoanalyze Sanders, a man you have never met and do not know

                  Oh then there’s this hilarity:

                  Nobody knows for sure, but my guess is that Blair, and a number of other British politicians, think the “special relationship” with the US is so important that they would basically do literally anything the US pushes hard enough on them to do no matter how bad an idea it is.

                  This seems to be about on par as my speculation above. Your hypocrisy is…as unsurprising as it is silly.

                • MilitantlyAardvark

                  Zounds, Bijan, I do declare you’ve hurt little Dilan’s feelings something cruel with your facts and fancy logickal argumentifications.

                • The Temporary Name

                  Your hypocrisy is…as unsurprising as it is silly.

                  There’s a 50% chance he isn’t a hypocrite.

                • MilitantlyAardvark

                  50% chance Dilan Esper is screaming at the TV right now and telling it that he knows perfectly well that a hypocrite is half eagle, half horse.

        • JMP

          “certainly with many Hillary supporters who DON’T WANT her to be forced to the left by Sanders”

          Yeah, we have to worry about all those straw men.

    • junker

      I have heard this a lot, from here and elsewhere that waiting as long as possible increases his leverage but I think the case has to actually be made. I think there is good reason to believe that he has already passed the moment of maximum leverage sometime ago, especially as his supporters are starting to drift over without him.

      • Brien Jackson

        It kind of depends on whether you’re thinking of “leverage” as if it’s a hostage situation or something or if you’re thinking of it in terms of maximizing Sanders long-term influence in Democratic/liberal politics.

        • if you’re thinking of it in terms of maximizing Sanders long-term influence in Democratic/liberal politics.

          The latter is what I care about.

          I mean, the 7000 future dogcatchers/school board members thing was awesome…but I’ve not heard much since. His moment to movement build is dwindling as his campaign dissolves.

          Maybe Clinton will be clever and Sanders flexible and they’ll be able to roll him into the campaign for the youth vote. But then he ceded his independent power base.

          • Brien Jackson

            That’s the thing: Bernie Sanders doesn’t do movement building.

            • petesh

              No, but he’s real good at saying someone else should.

    • celticdragonchick

      He had leverage 2 months ago. Now, he looks like a crank and a spoiler. Whatever Bernie curiosity I had 6 months ago is gone. He can fuck off and go back to yelling at clouds in Vermont.

      By the way, I am all for a primary challenge to his seat and getting an actual Democrat installed.

      • Linnaeus

        As I understand it, Sanders is pretty popular in Vermont, so it’s hard to see a primary challenger defeating him. He’s also still, technically, an independent, so there’s also the chance that a Democratic challenger would split the vote in Vermont enough for a Republican to sneak in (someone who knows Vermont politics better than me might have a better understanding of the chances of this happening, though).

        • junker

          I seem to recall that this is how Sanders started his state level career – running as an independent, which would split the vote, until the Democrats eventually gave up and let him have it.

          I wonder what those who responded to complaints about Sanders not being a Democrat with “he really truly is one now!” will say if he goes back to running for Senate as an independent.

        • Murc

          He’s also still, technically, an independent,

          … no! No he isn’t! He registered as a Democrat! You have to be a Democrat to run in the Democratic primary, which he just got done doing.

          I’m sorry to be shrill but this has come up in every fucking comment thread about Sanders for the past year. You can argue about his sincerity or the degree to which he is or isn’t an ersatz Democrat; that is a matter that can be debated. But he is, currently, a Democrat. He could therefore be primaried as a Democrat. I think that would be a shitty thing to do, but it could be done.

          • Linnaeus

            To clarify, I was referring to his status as a senator and as a candidate for the Senate in 2018. Sanders’s FEC candidate information lists Sanders as an independent. Maybe that’s changed since he filed (or I’m misreading it) and if so, I stand corrected.

            Let me also add that since Sanders caucuses with the Democrats, his independent status doesn’t mean all that much when it comes to his day-to-day functions as a senator. So as long as he’s a reliable vote with the Democrats, it doesn’t really bother me that he’s not a “real” Democrat. I was speaking only in terms of an election.

            • Jean-Michel

              Note that filing as an independent with the FEC doesn’t prevent you from receiving for a party’s nomination—Sanders actually won the Democratic nominations in 2006 and 2012 (thanks mainly to the Party machinery rather than his own efforts), then “declined” those nominations to run in the general as an independent. I suppose it’s possible that Sanders will actually run as a Democrat in 2018, but I wouldn’t put any money on it.

            • twbb

              Right, I don’t care if there’s one Democrat in the Senate and a mix of 50 Whigs, Socialist Workers Party members, Optimates, whatever, just as long as they caucus Democrat.

              • ForkyMcSpoon

                I want them to caucus with Democrats and be a team player when appropriate.

                Joe Lieberman was a Democrat (until Ned Lamont primaried him) but he was not a good team player.

                On the other hand, if Al Franken were an independent but otherwise behaved the same, it would make no difference to me.

                That said, being a Democrat isn’t meaningless, because there’s a connection between those qualities, I think.

          • But he is, currently, a Democrat. He could therefore be primaried as a Democrat.

            Only if he chooses to run in the Democratic primary in 2018. I don’t know of any law that would prevent him from running as an independent.

      • djw

        By the way, I am all for a primary challenge to his seat and getting an actual Democrat installed.

        That’s silly. There’s virtually no chance of success if he runs as a D, which he probably won’t–if he doesn’t, he can’t really be primaried by a D but challenged by a serious D candidate. Normally I’d say that would be really terrible idea because it could split the vote for an R, but in this case I’m confident Sanders could handily win a three way race against a D and an R.

        Besides, whatever one may think of him and his refusal to face reality, it’s not like he’s a problem in the caucus, like Lieberman. Improving the caucus should be the point of primaries, not exacting vengeance.

        • tsam

          not exacting vengeance.

          Except in the case of Lieberman. That incorrigible, opportunistic meathead deserved anything they might have thought to throw at him. The dirty look he got didn’t slow his roll much.

          • djw

            I supported Lamont’s challenge because I thought he’d legislate in a manner more consistent with my values and priorities, and not use his Senate seat as a platform to undermine his own party in various ways. Vengeance was just a salutory side effect. (Had the primary challenge worked out as planned, that is)

          • Rob in CT

            I’m second to no man in my loathing of Joe Lieberman.

            But, despite fucking around and killing a proposal that would’ve made for a better law, he did ultimately vote in favor of the ACA and that vote was absolutely necessary.

            Once Lamont lost, the only play was to hold Holy Joe’s hand.

            • The Lorax

              Suck it up and feel the Joe-mentum.

      • witlesschum

        I don’t really understand the hostility. He hasn’t indulged in any sort of threats to campaign against Clinton, he hasn’t argued she wasn’t better than Trump in every way and he’s said he’d vote for her. He’s just said that his endorsement has a price and is trying to negotiate to get Clinton to pay it. In other words, politics and not particularly hardball politics.

        There’s a point where him not endorsing becomes a problem, but I don’t think that’s yet.

        • The Temporary Name

          He’s just said that his endorsement has a price and is trying to negotiate to get Clinton to pay it. In other words, politics and not particularly hardball politics.

          A politics in which his influence declines as people start booing him for being an obstacle.

          I’d like people to listen to the guy!

          • witlesschum

            Maybe he’s playing this wrong, I’m honestly not a very good judge of that, but it seems as if people are pissed at him far out of proportion of just disagreeing with his tactics.

            • Some Clinton supporters I’ve seen are just plain offended. You can say that they are wrong to be offended, but they are offended. This doesn’t make them want to get along with Sanders. That weakens his hand.

              *I’m* pissed off at him because I think he’s missing opportunities to do a lot more toward his agenda. He’s not being taken more and more seriously as a force, but less and less (afaict). He should be laser like focused on movement building but instead he can be read as petulant and ego driven.

              That’s dumb!

      • AndersH

        You want to get rid of one of the top three liberal Senators (by votes according to NOMINATE) since 2007? With the risk of blowing up the liberal electorate in Vermont?

      • MilitantlyAardvark

        I am all for a primary challenge to his seat and getting an actual Democrat installed.

        Or you could, you know, try to defeat an actual Republican. Less melodramatic, but more likely to achieve something.

    • EliHawk

      What leverage? The circus left down a month ago with Warren, Obama, Biden, and most of his voters, while Sanders is going around doing a Chrissy Hynde act trying to get people to keep paying attention to him.

      • Matt McIrvin

        cannot un-imagine

        • Just_Dropping_By

          I liked Sanders better when he was with The Pretenders.

      • The Lorax

        He’s being precious?

        • Ahuitzotl

          better that than him being a tattooed love boy…

    • Alex.S

      What does Sanders gain from waiting? His followers have moved on. The Democratic party has Elizabeth Warren (a progressive favorite) enthusiastically campaigning Hillary Clinton. Hillary also has Obama, Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden on the campaign trail for her. Sander’s supporters in Congress have endorsed the Democratic party’s platform and it is a very liberal platform compared to previous ones.

      Right now, his leverage is tied up in revenge — he can still credibly threaten to endorse a third-party candidate or not voting. Which is an ok place for Sanders, but seems to be a terrible spot for his positions or goals or his supporters.

      If he had endorsed earlier, he would have been seen as a key component in the winning Democratic coalition. Theoretically, he could still get there… but the longer he holds out, the less important he becomes for winning the White House. And less important for the bill writing that comes later.

    • TroubleMaker13

      Yeah, no, as others have said. A big part of negotiating successfully is knowing when to cash out and take “yes” for an answer.

    • JMP

      What leverage? Sanders pissed it all away weeks ago in refusing to acknowledge that Clinton beat him, he has no more leverage left than he has credibility.

    • Fish Pimp

      It’s not Sanders endorsement that Clinton wants, it’s his list of small dollar donors. If I were Sanders, I’d have seconds thoughts about how much I shared after the attitude displayed about this platform fight. If he wants to play Clinton-type games, he could just sell her a partial list of donors. Maybe keep the Glengarry leads.

    • Manny Kant

      As others have said, what leverage? But, more than that, what is that leverage supposed to get him? Clinton needs to make moves to appeal to his voters no matter what he does, personally. So all he’s doing at this point is hurting his own personal standing, and keeping open the possibility of trying to screw over Clinton by endorsing Stein, or whatever.

      What good consequences are supposed to come out of him holding out?

  • Ahenobarbus

    Does America even appreciate gallantry any more?

    • Hogan

      Only the Doctor Who fans.

      • wjts

        #BorusaOrBust

    • tsam

      I always appreciate art. Why?

  • Susan Sarandon and Mark Ruffalo can go ahead and vote for Jill Stein,

    But Jill Stein thinks Clinton should be prosecuted!

    I’m convinced!

    • Matty

      I have to say, my first reaction when I saw that was “you’ve got to be fucking kidding me!” I guess I’m glad that the Green Party is capable of engaging in dishonest political bullshittery on a national level, at least.

      • Ken

        I’m sure Stein would realize her mistake sometime during year one of the Trump administration. Whether she’d ever admit it is another matter.

        • JMP

          I don’t know, even after the invasion of Iraq, the creation of the Guantanamo gulag, fucking torture, give away tons of government money to the wealthy in tax cuts that destroyed a surplus budget, eliminating the ban on assault weapons, and doing absolutely nothing while Hurricane Kartina drowned New Orleans, Ralph Nader still refuses to admit his mistake, so his successor in spoiling purity trolling probably will never do so either.

          • Malaclypse

            Ralph Nader still refuses to admit his mistake

            Assuming his intent was not to elect Bush in the first place, of course.

            • ForkyMcSpoon

              I think he knew that his activities were increasing that probability.

              His mistake was in thinking that electing Bush was a good or at least neutral outcome.

          • The Lorax

            And Citizens United and Heller.

    • D.N. Nation

      Counterpunch chickenshits still don’t allow comments.

    • Hogan

      Hillary Clinton’s failure to protect critical security information is not the only thing in her tenure as Secretary that deserves the term reckless, including her decision to pursue catastrophic regime change in Libya, and to support the overthrow of democratically elected governments in Ukraine and Honduras.

      HER decision.

      And Ukraine was 2014, a year after Clinton left office. But what the hell, let’s blame her for Brexit too. Oh wait, Brexit was a mighty blow against neoliberalism. Never mind.

      • so-in-so

        Does it go both ways in time? Maybe we can blame her for the Bay of Pigs too!

      • D.N. Nation

        I can’t tell if Stein is always playing to the rubes, of that she’s every bit the dunce she seems to be. Her response to Brexit was Trump-level herpa derpa doo, and this is even more ridiculous.

        • Pat

          She’s probably angling for some of that sweet, sweet, conservative blogosphere cash.

          • Pseudonym

            Does Freddie know that Dr. Jill Stein is trespassing on his “alleged leftist who only criticizes other people on the left” schtick?

            • Ahuitzotl

              has anyone seen them both in the same room?

      • JMP

        Don’t you know that America has complete control over everything that happens in the world, so obviously a revolution in another country is the result of the actions of the US Secretary of State?

        • witlesschum

          It smacks to me of The Nation was publishing pro-Putin spin under the guise of anti-U.S. imperialism.

          It’s all connected, man, see here…

        • Ahuitzotl

          and the Secretary of State makes all foreign policy choices, not the President

      • ASV

        Hillary did Katrina! Never forget!

        • tsam

          Jet beams can’t melt steel fuel

          • Redwood Rhiadra

            You think you’re joking, but I know a couple Bernie-or-bust folks who think Hillary ordered 9/11 (supposedly there was an office in Tower 7 which contained evidence of unspecified Clinton crimes which had to be destroyed.)

            And these aren’t conservative trolls, either. (The primary one is a folksinger who mostly sings Phil Ochs, Woodie Guthrie, and Billy Bragg songs – he’s about as leftist as it gets.)

            • tsam

              Hopefully the couple you know is a large percentage of them because holy yikes

    • Dilan Esper

      This isn’t a defense of Stein– I’m not voting for her and don’t think she’s qualified to be President– but if you think in purely instrumental, political terms, she basically HAS to contend that the e-mail scandal is a big deal and should lead to prosecution.

      That, after all, is exactly her constituency– the people on the left who think that Hillary Clinton is too corrupt, dishonest, etc., to be President.

      One of the real favors Sanders did Clinton during the primaries was to rule the e-mail issue off limits. He did not have to do it, many on the left wouldn’t have, and the issue was a real concern among at least some Sanders voters (who, again, included people who feel the Clintons are dishonest/corrupt/etc.). I think Sanders was right, as a matter of principle, to do that– the e-mail scandal is a very small scandal. But as I said, he didn’t have to, and the natural position for any politician attacking Clinton from the left to stake out is the one Stein did.

      • D.N. Nation

        Stein’s wiffle-waffling on vaccines plays to her ditz-white-schmuck base, so I guess she HAS to contend that in purely instrumental, political terms too. I can still call her a glib twit who’s deserving of a good pie to the face before this is over, Lord willing.

      • The Temporary Name

        This isn’t a defense of Stein– I’m not voting for her and don’t think she’s qualified to be President– but if you think in purely instrumental, political terms, she basically HAS to contend that the e-mail scandal is a big deal and should lead to prosecution.

        No she doesn’t. There are all sorts of issues for her to truthfully attack Clinton on (not that I give her any credit for that). She doesn’t have to rely on a story that her crowd has probably figured out is bullshit compared to Hillary’s various other doings.

      • so-in-so

        But this is the problem with deciding to run as a third party in an election with Trump as one of the two majors (or any present day GOPer for that matter). The better you succeed, the more likely you throw the election to somebody further away from your positions. Unless you really think you can somehow win (in which case she is delusional) or somehow think that a Trump victory will be immediately followed by a massive, left wing revolution against him; what are you accomplishing?

        Locally, many smaller parties cross-endorse for the higher ticket people. That would seem to make more sense, even on a national scale.

        • Hogan

          Priors. It’s all about the priors.

          • Dilan Esper

            The priors are definitely why Stein is running. Stein doesn’t agree with Hillary Clinton on any relevant aspect of her political philosophy, despite her agreement with Hillary on some binary political issues. There are plenty of political systems in this world where liberals and leftists are political enemies (or where liberals have to make specific concessions to leftists to form coalitions).

            You guys make fun of this argument over and over again, but let’s put it this way– if you guys were right that there was no such thing as relevant intellectual priors, there would never be any political systems with meaningful cleavages between leftists and liberals. And yet we see this all the time.

            Third parties in a two party system serve the dissenters from the system. People who are fundamentally against the idea of America as currently conceived and who do not think that current system can address the fundamental flaws.

            That idea may very well be wrong on the MERITS. (Indeed, in general, I think it is, actually.) But it’s an actual idea, and when you guys assume that the only reason anyone could ever go third party is narcissism, you are thinking about the problem through your intellectual framework and not theirs.

            • Hogan

              if you guys were right that there was no such thing as relevant intellectual priors, there would never be any political systems with meaningful cleavages between leftists and liberals.

              Because politics is an entirely intellectual activity.

          • Ahuitzotl

            Priors or Prions ?

        • junker

          See her tweet from a few weeks ago where she agreed on 98% of the issues with Sanders and implored him to run as an independent – in spite of agreeing with something like 94% of the issues with Clinton.

          If Stein has a coherent strategy it must be “elect Trump and await the revolution.”

          • so-in-so

            I suspect it is more “it is all about ME”. Recall her boast of being the most successful female candidate for president? The twenty others who also didn’t win, some (Shirley Chisholm) with much better political resumes and name recognition, might want a word.

      • JMP

        So? The people who claim that Clinton is corrupt and dishonest are, you know, wrong. Stein could just not lie and use Fox News talking points to slander a very honest and ethical politician.

      • but if you think in purely instrumental, political terms, she basically HAS to contend that the e-mail scandal is a big deal and should lead to prosecution.

        That, after all, is exactly her constituency– the people on the left who think that Hillary Clinton is too corrupt, dishonest, etc., to be President.

        This just doesn’t follow. She can argue that what HRC did wasn’t prosecutable but still awful, dishonest, wrong, or immoral.

        In other words, she could just run with what the FBI statement actually said. By pushing for a ridiculous prosecution, she sounds like someone who doesn’t know what she’s talking about and a bit desperate.

        And really, the left position is “state secrets must be protected”? I remember Cockburn on the the Plame case:

        Thirty-eight years ago Scheer was one of the editors of Ramparts, and in February 1967 that magazine ran an exposé of covert CIA funding of the National Student Association, prompting furious charges that it had endangered national security, which, from the foreign policy establishment’s point of view, it most certainly had.

        The CIA’s covert wing is not in the business of advancing world peace and general prosperity. The record of sixty years is one of uninterrupted evil. So we should drop all this nonsense about treason and clap Rove warmly on the back for his courageous onslaughts on the cult of secrecy. By all means delight in the White House’s discomfiture, but spare us the claptrap about national security and treason.

        Sanders move was the right thing to do pragmatically was well. You don’t appeal to most democrats by going republicanesque on Clinton scandals.

        • witlesschum

          This.

          I’m not going to start pretending I have deep respect for the preferences of the U.S. national security state just to score cheap points against Hillard Clinton. Especially when, personally, my biggest problem with her is her closeness to said national security state and her competence in dealing with it.

          If Stein’s running for anything, it’s to improve the visibility of leftist ideas in U.S. politics. That’s a project I like, though I think she’s going about it deeply stupidly by using a third-party presidential campaign. But if you set that disagreement aside, trying to accomplish that, somehow, by attacking Hillary Clinton from the right is both unforgivably stupid and wrong.

        • Dilan Esper

          Sanders move was the right thing to do pragmatically was well. You don’t appeal to most democrats by going republicanesque on Clinton scandals.

          True, but Stein isn’t trying to appeal to most Democrats.

          BTW, I agree with you on state secrets. I think I posted in the other thread on this that the Clinton e-mail issue was really just a record keeping issue. It had nothing to do with national security. I DO think she deserves condemnation (but not prosecution) for trying to circumvent the public records laws (which are important), but I don’t give a shit if she accidentally e-mailed some classified information.

          • True, but Stein isn’t trying to appeal to most Democrats.

            1) If she isn’t then she’s even more irrelevant. Does she think she’ll peel off some republicans? 2) That’s why I said *Sanders* (<– See! Empahsis!) did the *pragmatically* right thing (as well as the morally right thing).

            In both cases, there no campaign tactical argument that the only move is to call for prosecution. It's also not the case that the only left position (or even the dominant left position) is to call for prosecution.

            • Dilan Esper

              Bijan, she’s trying to appeal to a group of left-wing voters who might vote for the Green Party.

              To understand this issue, try to understand what third parties in America are all about. I know, you’ll say “narcissism”, but try to understand what ELSE they are all about.

              They are not about winning elections, except in rare circumstances. They are about building social movements, increasing the number of dissenters to the two party system, forcing the two parties to cater to disaffected voters, getting into the debates, moving the Overton Window (which you say doesn’t exist, but which they believe exists, rightly or wrongly), and maybe even blowing up the American system.

              So what voters is Stein trying to attract? Ordinary Democrats who support Hillary as the lesser of two evils and fear a Trump presidency? No way, she can’t get those. She’s trying to attract left-wingers who hate the Clintons so much they can’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary. That’s her constituency of voters. That’s how she gets her percentage up. And calling for prosecution certainly COULD, at least in theory, attract those voters.

              • Bijan, she’s trying to appeal to a group of left-wing voters who might vote for the Green Party.

                I understand that.

                To understand this issue, try to understand what third parties in America are all about.

                Perhaps you should have some success in argument, factual recounting, or, really anything, before condescending.

                I hung out with the Greens in 2000. I’ve read a fair bit of the literature on the 2000 election as well as of Perot’s various runs and even Anderson’s run.

                I know, you’ll say “narcissism”,

                Well, your wrong streak continues. Most of the Greens I was friends with weren’t narcissists.

                Nader was, but that’s a different story.

                They are not about winning elections, except in rare circumstances.

                Please cite where I said that they were.

                However, many are. Perot and the reform party. The greens. (The greens wanted to win!)

                The rest is silly and a weird mismash. None of them is furthered by Jill Stein calling for Clinton’s prosecution, and to the degree they can be furthered at all by Stein, she can do as well without that call by focusing on the other aspects of the FBI report.

                Your claim that “if you think in purely instrumental, political terms, she basically HAS to contend that the e-mail scandal is a big deal and should lead to prosecution.” it just doesn’t follow.

                So what voters is Stein trying to attract? Ordinary Democrats who support Hillary as the lesser of two evils and fear a Trump presidency? No way, she can’t get those.

                But she should go out of her way to alienate them? This gets her into debates…how? This increases the number of dissenters…how?

                I mean, dude, you gave a mismash of goals none of which are furthered by *alienating* more mainstream voters.

                She’s trying to attract left-wingers who hate the Clintons so much they can’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary. That’s her constituency of voters.

                But…who else are they going to vote for, to the degree they are going to vote at all? What benefit does she get for going for prosecution?

                That’s her constituency of voters. That’s how she gets her percentage up.

                Again, who else are they going to vote for? Why would they vote for *her* on this basis?

                And calling for prosecution certainly COULD, at least in theory, attract those voters.

                Sure, it is *a* strategy. I think it’s a dumb one, but people can differ. But it’s clearly not a REQUIRED strategy or so obvious and natural a strategy that it’s a no-brainer. Which was my point.

                And she claims to be targeting Bernie voters. A lot of Bernie voters aren’t going to be happy with this. Some busters…sure.. The HA Goodman vote, sure. But you really think that’s the vote rich area?

                • Redwood Rhiadra

                  ABC poll just last week showed 58% of Sanders voters *still* want him to run as an independent. That’s the crowd she’s going after, and it’s a significant chunk of votes.

                • Sure, but are they “prosecute HRC” types?

                  I mean, they are committed to Bernie.

    • TroubleMaker13

      Hey, since we’re bagging on Jill Stein, can I just point out how precious that smug, self-satisfied smirk looks in her Twitter avatar photo?

    • TroubleMaker13

      Kinda funny how Stein and Greenwald instantly become security hawks when the subject is Clinton emails.

      Bold, principled stance you’ve got there.

      • ColBatGuano

        Yeah, the idea that the left ideal is firm fidelity to the national security state seems off.

  • MPAVictoria

    Basically agree with Erik on this. Was so heartened to see Cornel West there fighting the good fight and speaking truth to power. Everyone should take a second to watch him speak about the Israeli Settlement issue.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPDNeMi2Cco

    • Warren Terra

      so heartened to see Cornel West there

      Never. Ever.

      • MPAVictoria

        Your loss. Every word he says in that video is true and the people listening needed to hear it.

        • random

          It’s not his loss. Cornell West is a giant fake and a fraud. Nobody needs to hear anything he has to say.

          • MPAVictoria

            Watch the video and see.

            • random

              Watch the video and see.

              No.

              • MPAVictoria

                k

                • slothrop1

                  You’ll notice the reflexive defense of HRC. It’s a kind of madness. Anyone who opposes her is the subject of ridicule among these zealots.

                  The hatred of Cornell West is the most baffling. He failed the purity test.

                  These Democrats deserve to lose.

                • tsam

                  You’ll notice the reflexive hatred of HRC. It’s a kind of madness. Anyone who defends her is the subject of ridicule among these zealots.

                  This works both ways, chief.

                • Malaclypse

                  These Democrats deserve to lose.

                  It isn’t about whether Clinton deserves to lose, it is about whether the human race deserves to live on a planet where “President Trump” is an actual reality.

                  And yes, I know you are too stupid to understand this.

                • sharculese

                  The tantrumming about purity tests is most ironic, given what happened upthread.

          • Warren Terra

            Or, to rephrase slightly: Cornell West is a giant fake and a fraud, and if in this instance he’s saying something worthwhile then it’s a missed opportunity because that worthwhile message would be vastly better conveyed by someone who isn’t a giant fake and fraud.

            • Breadbaker

              When I first saw this from some Sanders supporters, my reaction was, and still is, that this was not an issue that was extensively part of the debate between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders during the primary campaign. Banking regulation? Yes. Minimum wage? Yes. College? Yes. But Bernie absolutely did not stand up and push this. That he has supporters who want to push it now is quite interesting, but has nothing to do with what was dividing Sanders and Clinton during the campaign that just ended.

              • ColBatGuano

                There’s a reason Sanders didn’t push this during the campaign. Because he knew it would be a huge loser.

          • It’s worth reading Michael Eric Dyson’s long (critical) essay on West.

            (I can’t remember if I got it from here or elsewhere. Well worth the read, though. I do wish he’d gone more into detail a about the content of the early work. As I recall, one of my grad school profs didn’t really care for much after his Marxism book. (Bernie Boxill, IIRC))

            Ah, djw beat me to it below.

      • sharculese

        Yeah, I’ve tipped over from “Cornell West is losing all credibility” to “Cornell West has no credibility” at this point.

        • djw

          I appreciated this piece. He really was a serious and interesting scholar, once, before he was swallowed by his own ego and celebrity and beclowned himself.

          The real tell was how he was all in for Obama, up until the moment that Obama didn’t give him the VIP treatment treatment he imagined he deserved, then suddenly Obama didn’t care about the little people enough for his taste.

          • sharculese

            That’s a really good article and basically sums up the whole argument of ‘why West is a really smart person who is hard to take seriously anymore.”

            • tsam

              When he’s not giving Obama a bunch of undeserved or maybe even deserved guff, (I don’t even know, I quit paying attention when it happens), I still do love to hear him speak. I think he’s still an exceptionally brilliant person, and hopefully will return to spreading intellect rather than contrived talking points.

              • I tend to agree with Dyson that this isn’t going to happen. West is the kind of thinker who really need to temper his thoughts in writing (at least some of the time), he struggles to write (for which he has my entire sympathy), and there’s no institutional incentive to write (for real).

                Which I do think is a shame.

          • PJ

            So, West was someone I had to read in HS. So he is a fond memory for me as one of the first “real” contemporary scholars I read on race relations.

            So seeing him over the last decade has been sad.

            That said, hiring him as the de facto “Black people” surrogate was one of the giant own goals of the Sanders campaign, because they were told from the moment it happened (by other Black people) that he had next to no credibility among Black Americans as whole at this point specifically because of what he’s said about Obama.

            • djw

              That said, hiring him as the de facto “Black people” surrogate was one of the giant own goals of the Sanders campaign, because they were told from the moment it happened (by other Black people) that he had next to no credibility among Black Americans as whole at this point specifically because of what he’s said about Obama.

              Yes, this. A real “not ready for prime time” moment for the Sanders campaign. (Also puzzling because Sanders handled the “how do I run as a system-is-corrupt insurgent outsider when the sitting president is well liked by the primary electorate” question pretty well himself.)

              • so-in-so

                Wasn’t that a sort of panicked reaction after the BLM incident? Suddenly the “class, not race” line didn’t work, and I suspect the campaign was looking for a quick fix.

                • Davis X. Machina

                  They had a shared connection through DSA-USA that made the move a no-brainer.

        • Just_Dropping_By

          I’d have thought his appearance in The Matrix Reloaded should have been the tipping point.

    • slothrop1

      Right on!

    • witlesschum

      He is right and correct about all of this, but I liked him in The Matrix, too.

      I don’t buy that I have to disregard him on this because he’s kind of a buffoon on other issues.

  • Warren Terra

    If Sanders hasn’t gone mad and disappeared entirely up his own belly button – witness the report of his meeting with House Dems, at which he was supposedly booed for telling them it was more important to be pure than to win an election – he’s doing an awfully poor job of getting out the message that he isn’t in fact crazy.

    He’s been pretty consistently hurting his credibility for months now, and he really needs to get control of the situation.

    • Oy. That’s not good.

    • Murc

      If Sanders hasn’t gone mad and disappeared entirely up his own belly button – witness the report of his meeting with House Dems, at which he was supposedly booed for telling them it was more important to be pure than to win an election

      Is there context on that?

      Because frankly I’ve been edging back towards that view myself a bit, in certain situations. Sometimes, a responsible elected official should maintain an ideological stance even if that means they get their asses handed to them in an upcoming election. See: Brexit. If the Tories really wanted to do the right thing for the UK they’d repudiate Brexit and never bring it to a vote even if it means in 2020 the UKIP picks up 75 seats at their expense.

      That said, context really, really matters on that.

      Also, if Sanders is pushing that line its a direct repudiation of what he was saying in June. Hell, he just swung through New York and California in support of downticket candidates giving long speeches in which the importance of kicking the shit out of Trump was emphasized.

      • Warren Terra

        The context is that he needs to combat the perception he’s a sanctimonious prick who sees himself (and not his policies) as being the one true path, they way, and the light. And although you’re not wrong that there are times it’s important to defend your principles at a political cost, hectoring the Congressional caucus about this while you’re being accused of not being committed to the party’s electoral success is a dumbass move. One of many.

        Sanders has a lot of great supporters. I really don’t see that he deserves them.

        • MPAVictoria

          “he’s a sanctimonious prick”

          You seem like a fair and unbiased observer. Please tell me more.

          • Warren Terra

            Okay: I’ll tell you to read the preceding six words.

        • EliHawk

          The context is that he needs to combat the perception he’s a sanctimonious prick who sees himself (and not his policies) as being the one true path, they way, and the light.

          This. It’s worth pointing out that the fellow lecturing us on the importance of changing America, not winning elections, has spent pretty much his entire adult life trying to do the latter and not the former.

          • Murc

            It’s worth pointing out that the fellow lecturing us on the importance of changing America, not winning elections, has spent pretty much his entire adult life trying to do the latter and not the former.

            Yeah, all that time he spent in Congress and the Senate, that was allllll about winning his next election and not getting anything passed. That’s why he formally joined the Democratic Party and started tapping the corporate money train to the maximum extent he could.

            Oh. Wait.

            • EliHawk

              Yeah, all that time he spent in Congress and the Senate, that was allllll about winning his next election and not getting anything passed.

              And all those years before that, what were they about? Sanders’ entire adult life has been running for office. He’s been doing it, in one way or another, for 44 years. He’s been doing it since before Hilary Clinton, no spring chicken herself, graduated from law school. He was trying to Nader Pat Leahy as far back as 1974. He was running vanity third party campaigns for Governor and Senator throughout the 70s. The fact that he’s not gone through the revolving door doesn’t rebut the fact that it is, and always has been, entirely about gratifying his own ego.

              • Murc

                Do the goalposts make a noise when you move them that fast?

                • EliHawk

                  It’s worth pointing out that the fellow lecturing us on the importance of changing America, not winning elections, has spent pretty much his entire adult life trying to do the latter and not the former.

                  Sanders’ entire adult life has been running for office. He’s been doing it, in one way or another, for 44 years. He’s been doing it since before Hilary Clinton, no spring chicken herself, graduated from law school. He was trying to Nader Pat Leahy as far back as 1974. He was running vanity third party campaigns for Governor and Senator throughout the 70s. The fact that he’s not gone through the revolving door doesn’t rebut the fact that it is, and always has been, entirely about gratifying his own ego.

                  This is shifting the goalposts how, exactly? He’s always been an ego trip.

                • witlesschum

                  I don’t think you get the legislative record he amassed by being constantly on an ego trip, but I can’t peak into his frizzy head.

        • Murc

          The context is that he needs to combat the perception he’s a sanctimonious prick who sees himself (and not his policies) as being the one true path, they way, and the light

          Warren, I’m trying to be polite here, but your response to me seems deeply non-responsive, the equivalent of “it wasn’t what he said, but how he said it.”

          • random

            “It was frustrating because he’s squandering the movement he built with a self-obsession that was totally on display,” said a senior Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

            Warren is not off about the context. The people who have actually worked with BS on a daily basis for years generally have this opinion of him.

            • Murc

              Oh, well, if an unnamed senior Democrat thinks Sanders is bad, that must settle the issue!

              • Barney Frank has had similar things to say about Sanders.

                • The Lorax

                  I finally flipped on BS when Frank eviscerated his take on Dodd-Frank and banking. I thought, oh right, that’s what someone serious about policy sounds like.

              • random

                Prior to the publication of this article which describes these people as booing him for being a sanctimonious prick, it was already well-established that they generally don’t think highly of him and won’t endorse him for President or vote for him as super-delegates.

                • Murc

                  Yes? And?

                  I don’t see how that’s germane to my actual, initial question, which was “Well, what’s the context of Sanders saying that sometimes ideology is more important than winning, if indeed he said that at all? Because sometimes, in fact, that’s true.”

                  And what people have come back with isn’t “Well, this is the context of his remarks, here’s what he specifically said, this is why it is specifically objectionable” but rather “Sanders is a big jerk.”

                  And that, to me, is non-responsive.

            • Aaron Morrow

              Isn’t that a POLITICO quote about House Democrats, and not Senate Democrats?

              Even-the-center/right-POLITCO managed to say that “Sanders did have some support among House Democrats,” so even they do not generally have that opinion of him.

              The Senators who have actually worked with Sanders on a daily basis for years applauded him when he returned to work. (That’s not to say they don’t want him to endorse Clinton sooner rather than later, of course!)

              • Murc

                Thank you for actual links, Morrow.

                I find little objectionable about what Sanders was saying, if indeed it is accurate. He’s correct; the goal isn’t to simply win elections, there has to be more to politics than that. I would have thought that would be an uncontroversial statement but evidently it is not.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Because, of course, keeping the current incarnation of the GOP out of power isn’t itself a fundamentally important aspect of “changing America.” Seriously, there’s no real defending this statement, at least in this current cycle. Winning the election is central to “changing America,” and filling the Supreme Court vacancy alone will almost guarantee that a Clinton Presidency is transformational, even if you think she’s a horrible sellout squish.

                • ForkyMcSpoon

                  To be fair, replacing Scalia will merely flip the court to liberal, but it will not cement a liberal court unless we get two more young liberals on the court. It won’t be transformational if HRC replaces Scalia and then Paul Ryan replaces RBG and/or Breyer after the 2020 election.

                • djw

                  He’s correct; the goal isn’t to simply win elections, there has to be more to politics than that.

                  This is a truism. He’s not particularly special or unique for thinking it or believing it–many of Democratic legislators he routinely implies are insufficiently risked and in some cases probably lost their seats voting for a health care reform bill associated with a then-unpopular president fairly recently.

  • Murc

    However, he does need to endorse Hillary Clinton before the convention.

    I would say that should be “before or during the convention.” I frankly would prefer seeing him endorse during the convention, when the maximum number of cameras will be focused on him doing so for maximum impact. That would go a much longer way than a regular news conference.

    • Turangalila

      I would assume “both” is an option, and likely the preferred one. Hopefully it’s at or near the stage-management phase at present…

    • Warren Terra

      You don’t usually get to speak at the convention (from the podium) unless you endorse the nominee, so if he makes his endorsement in a speech at the convention it will be by prior arrangement, meaning he will already have endorsed her at least privately.

      • Murc

        Yeah, but we will have no way of knowing that prior to it happening.

        • Warren Terra

          Unless he pulls a switcheroo at the convention, his appearing on the schedule will mean he’s endorsed.

          • ForkyMcSpoon

            If it’s meant to be a surprise, he won’t be on the schedule though.

    • Aaron Morrow

      Since I’d like to see him give a prime-time speech, I’m rooting for him to endorse (or support!) before the convention.

      Nothing could possibly make the media leave from the Cleve, so I’m hoping for an announcement timed for Thursday before the Republican convention.

      Why have one speech when you can have two?

    • TroubleMaker13

      No, definitely before the convention so as to minimize (to the extent possible) the scope of the shitshow that his supporters will bring.

    • cleek

      i don’t think he’ll endorse her at all.

      think of him as if he was one of his own dead-ender supporters…

      if he endorses Clinton, he’s going to feel like he’s on the hook for every single thing she does, good or bad. and he would rather be a martyr (so much delicious attention!) than to be publicly associated someone who isn’t as pure as he is. he’s going to maintain his purity pose, because that’s what’s precious.

  • Thom

    He tweeted his enthusiastic approval of Clinton’s partial adoption of his tuition proposal.

    He might still be angling for a prime speaking spot, unless that has already been approved. In any case, I am confident that he will endorse at the convention, if not before.

    • Pat

      I’m kinda curious about the tuition proposal. As I understand it, people can sign up for a program where a percentage of their salary is deducted to pay their tuition costs, which continues (a) until their debt is paid or (b) for twenty years. After twenty years, they’re clear.

      Who eats the difference? Is it the federal government? Or do they make the college pay back some percentage? Do they have a threshold, where most colleges are in the clear but if they have a lot of defaulting students they get scrutinized?

      If the college isn’t on the hook for any of the money, I imagine that this becomes like the program where the feds cover the costs of providing health care to the uninsured: costs will continue to spiral. People will be encouraged to go to college because the costs will be manageable, yes. College debt is at unsustainable levels, yes. It’s a great idea, but how does it change the system?

  • Gregor Sansa

    You didn’t mention the climate change issue. I trust Jim Hansen, and if he’s not happy with the platform, I expect he’s right. (I do NOT feel the same way about West, Sarandon, or Ruffalo.)

  • ForkyMcSpoon

    The platform says this on the minimum wage:

    Democrats believe that the current minimum wage is a starvation wage and must be increased to a living wage. No one who works full time should have to raise a family in poverty. We believe that Americans should earn at least $15 an hour and have the right to form or join a union. We applaud the approaches taken by states like New York and California. We should raise and index the minimum wage, give all Americans the ability to join a union regardless of where they work, and create new ways for workers to have power in the economy. We also support creating one fair wage for all workers by ending the sub-minimum wage for tipped workers and people with disabilities.

    “$12” does not appear in the platform draft anywhere.

    The Sanders committee members were blocked from changing the language to contain explicitly the sentence “We should raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and index it to inflation.”

    Quibbles. I would say that it endores $15/hr, but yes, the language is written such that it’s not considering $12/hr unacceptable either.

    • Gwen

      Quite right. I read this when it first came out a few days ago, and was wondering if Erik had.

      In addition:

      * This is the first platform to explicitly call for transgender rights.

      * Specifically calls for repealing the Hyde Amendment.

      * Support states opting for legalizing marijuana.

  • Gregor Sansa

    How set in stone is the current draft of the platform, anyway?

    • NonyNony

      My understanding is that they use paper these days.

      *rimshot* I’m here all week folks – remember to tip your waitress!

      • EliHawk

        Hey, not in the case of the Labour Party. Surprisingly, it turns out the Ed Stone was only the 2nd stupidest decision made in the run up to the 2015 election.

        • Matty

          What happened to that stone? I imagine Miliband took it home and has it sitting in his back yard, and just looks at it and laughs uncontrollably any time he thinks of David Cameron’s momumental fuckup.

    • Aaron Morrow
      • Gwen

        I’d say all the big compromises have been made, any changes at this point will be to smooth over any differences or flatter minor interests.

        For example, I am pretty sure Zogby’s proposed amendments re: settlements is dead, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some vaguer language to the effect of “We expect our ally Israel to respect human rights” might get inserted.

        • Hogan

          Typically, the larger platform committee, which will meet July 8-9 in Orlando, Florida, adopts the final language approved by the drafters, and the platform’s ratification at the convention is largely pro forma.

          But should he choose, Sanders has enough power to bring the more controversial language to Philadelphia as a minority plank, which could force a debate on Israel-Palestine on the convention floor.

          Sanders has said he will vote for Clinton but indicated he will not formally endorse her until his key demands are met.

          It would be like a Crooked Timber comment thread LARP.

          • Gwen

            Indeed. A floor debate over Israel-Palestine could turn into a giant clusterf**k. I don’t like the current draft language, but I’d rather have a blatantly pro-Netanyahu platform than a public spectacle over this.

            • twbb

              Right, overt resistance to Israel is a nonstarter I think, unfortunately.

          • Malaclypse

            Christ, who would play mcmanus? And do we have a bench deep enough for a Belle Waring?

            • Hogan

              And do we have a bench deep enough for a Belle Waring?

              Not since Molly Ivins and Anne Richards died.

            • Rob in CT

              Dilan might be able to do a so-so faux McManus.

              Slothrop wishes he could hold McManus Sensei’s jock.

              • Malaclypse

                I don’t think either of them are delegates, though.

                • Aaron Morrow

                  Wait.

                  Can you actually join the Democratic Party?

                • Malaclypse

                  That’s like asking the square root of a million – nobody will ever know.

    • Murc

      Theoretically, nothing is settled until the platform is adopted at the convention.

      In a practical sense? Pretty set in stone.

  • Mike in DC

    The platform draft gets voted on by a larger committee this weekend. And then it’s set until the convention. A floor fight there strikes me as profoundly counterproductive. I would expect Sanders to privately give his agreement to endorse next week, in order to be scheduled for a speaking slot at the convention. I don’t think he wants to be blamed for a loss in November.

  • Duvall

    However, he does need to endorse Hillary Clinton before the convention. He must do this before he is persona non grata in the party.

    And, infinitely more importantly, before he does substantial and lasting damages to the prospects of preventing a Trump presidency that would result in serious suffering for countless Americans.

    • tsam

      I think this overestimates his power by a lot.

      • Duvall

        I think this overestimates his power by a lot.

        If so, then it’s hard to see why Sanders endorsing or not endorsing matters at all. I mean, who cares about whether he is persona non grata within the Democratic caucus?

        • tsam

          I don’t know that it does matter. I’m guessing his followers have their minds pretty much made up, or maybe just need some time to cool off after the primary. Sanders himself might care if he’s persona non grata–he’s still in the Senate and caucuses with the Democrats and wants to get things done. He certainly isn’t going to make any inroads with the Republicans.

          I want him to because I want to see a united party, even if HRC wasn’t my first choice for candidate. I think his endorsement now, and help with campaigning will gain him some administration influence, if nothing else.

    • cleek

      no, he will not endorse her.

      he’s a pure little snowflake and will not besmirch himself by affirming his support for someone who could do something less than pure in the future. he’s above compromise and politics, just like his pure little snowflake supporters.

      it’s all about maintaining that veneer of purity.

      • MilitantlyAardvark

        Sanders has already said repeatedly that the important thing is beating Donald Trump. He’s done enough that the screeching about purity is tedious nonsense.

        • Alex.S

          In the last three weeks (since the DC primary), what has Sanders done to beat Trump?

          • MilitantlyAardvark

            What have you done, Alex S? Sanders has publicly given Clinton his support, which ought to be enough. Let’s remember here that Clinton said far more egregiously stupid and inflammatory things late in her defeat by Obama than Sanders has come close to saying, so advocates of purity need to take a hard look at her record and then reflect on just how silly their denunciations of Bernie have become.

            • Alex.S

              Thank you for answering my question in the way you have done. It was very educational.

              • MilitantlyAardvark

                I am sure you find most of the answers on here educational, Alex.

            • Duvall

              Let’s remember here that Clinton said far more egregiously stupid and inflammatory things late in her defeat by Obama than Sanders has come close to saying, so advocates of purity need to take a hard look at her record and then reflect on just how silly their denunciations of Bernie have become.

              *Late* in her defeat, maybe. *After* her defeat she endorsed Obama in glowing terms, which what we are still waiting for Sanders to do.

              • MilitantlyAardvark

                If you want to play the technical angle, Bernie could wait until the convention calls the final play of the game before endorsing.

  • The Temporary Name

    However, he does need to endorse Hillary Clinton before the convention. He must do this.

    It’s a really freakish game. I don’t understand it at all.

    • MilitantlyAardvark

      Eh, it’s been nonsense for months, but it’s the poutrage drug that some people need to make up for the fact that Bernie scared the crap out of them.

      • The Temporary Name

        I don’t really see withholding his endorsement as a big deal for the convention or for the election; if Hillary partisans are mad oh well. The big deal is that he’s angling to be a cranky troublemaker instead of someone Democrats will take seriously. It’s a stupid frittering away of his influence.

    • ForkyMcSpoon

      I guess I understand the pretending not to understand, because we must pretend that there’s a real debate as to whether he will or should endorse.

      But to put it another way: Bernie knows that they really want an endorsement before the convention.

      Once the convention passes, that bargaining chip is gone, forever.

      So uh… why not cash that chip in while he still has it?

      At the same time, once the RNC is on, the longer he waits, the higher the chance is that

      1. Hillary won’t need his endorsement, because Trump is losing (this has already reduced his leverage)
      2. his supporters will have already come home to the Democrats (this is still in play, there’s more room to grow there)
      3. his endorsement won’t be effective, either because his supporters have hardened, or the ones more inclined to switch have already switched, or, if he waits a really long time, because it looks insincere coming so last minute

      which leads to a higher chance that

      4. he won’t get any credit for Hillary’s victory (if she didn’t need it and/or if it didn’t result in a noticeable increase in her support)
      5. he will get credit for helping her lose (this will be a great scenario for him if the Democrats retake the senate, I’m sure it’ll help him get a great committee assignment)

      I’m not sure what the benefit is of waiting until after the convention.

  • TribalistMeathead

    “Clinton is charged and, consequently, Sanders receives the nomination” is wish fulfillment along the lines of “Obama is determined not to have been born in the US and, consequently, McCain/Romney becomes President.” There was a 0% chance the former would lead to the latter. The Democratic Party would’ve convinced Biden to run before they gave the nomination to Sanders.

    • Murc

      The Democratic Party would’ve convinced Biden to run before they gave the nomination to Sanders.

      … what, really?

      In the hypothetical case that Hillary Clinton got perp-walked yesterday and a new candidate is needed between now and the convention in a couple weeks, if the Democratic Party establishment had decided to draft a guy who didn’t run in the primary to knock down the second-place finisher who got over 40% of the vote, the party would have fucking imploded. It would make what’s happening to the Republican’s now look civilized.

      I think they’re smart enough to know that, and I think Biden wouldn’t want to run anyway, so I would say that the likely response to “Clinton actually is indicted” is a 50/50 between “Clinton runs for President while under indictment” or “Sanders gets the nod.”

      This is, thank god, purely hypothetical. I’m glad Clinton wasn’t indicted both because nothing she did rises to that level and because it would be a political nightmare.

      • EliHawk

        The idea that the distant second place finisher would get the nomination by default despite being about a thousand delegates and several million votes behind the (now-indicted) winner is highly doubtful to me. And plenty of the vast majority of Democrats that actually voted for Clinton would be more comfortable with a Biden unity ticket than a Sanders consolation snatch.

        • Brien Jackson

          In a counteruniverse where such a thing happened, my assumption is that the DNC would try to come up with some way to gaugue actual voter preferences before nominating, and when you combine Sanders voters with whatever number of Clinton voters would think the runner-up should get the nomination you’d have a majority.

          • MilitantlyAardvark

            the DNC would try to come up with some way to gaugue actual voter preferences

            Given the DNC’s incompetent fuckwitry on a good day, the nomination of Joe Manchin Fearless Progressive would not be surprising.

            • jeer9

              +10

              Actually, a serious Clinton health issue, rather than the trivial e-mail scandal, is my nightmare scenario for this general, especially as I can’t imagine, even in a counter-universe, the DNC thinking, “Okay, Sanders is our guy.” But then it is a counter-universe and YMMV.

              In any case, it seems to be the only way Trump could win.

              • Actually, a serious Clinton health issue, rather than the trivial e-mail scandal, is my nightmare scenario for this general,

                Thanks, I guess, for front and centering new nightmare fodder for me!

                • MilitantlyAardvark

                  “..do not calle up That which you can not put downe…”

                  H.P.Lovecraft

            • ForkyMcSpoon

              Yes, this is why Jim Webb got so many endorsements.

              Of course, he would’ve had even more had Clinton not been running to Webb’s right to gobble up all those DNC establishment endorsements, before Sanders took off and forced her back to the left.

      • witlesschum

        The argument would be that the majority of primary voters chose “Not Sanders” which is as fair as the argument he received the most votes among candidates who can still run.

        There’s not a good way to deal with that situation, assuming they can’t redo a national primary, so I’d assume the delegates at the convention would first vote to give themselves the power to pick someone old school and then do so. If Sanders could convince enough former Clinton delegates to switch to him, then he could get the nomination, but Biden or Martin O’Malley or Jim Webb or whoever would have the same chance to convince Sanders delegates to switch to them.

        • Murc

          The argument would be that the majority of primary voters chose “Not Sanders” which is as fair as the argument he received the most votes among candidates who can still run.

          I’m not sure about this. By this logic Trump and Romney’s nomination weren’t legitimate, because the majority of primary voters chose “Not Trump” and “Not Romney.”

          ETA: Actually, I hit post and I’m suddenly unsure about both of those.

          • EliHawk

            I’m not sure about this. By this logic Trump and Romney’s nomination weren’t legitimate, because the majority of primary voters chose “Not Trump” and “Not Romney.”

            It’s the difference between a plurality winner in a large field and the distant loser in a binary one. In such a scenario, it would probably come down to whatever Obama, who would have enormous sway with these mostly regular delegates, would want to do. Which makes me think Biden, not Sanders.

          • Sigh.

            Romney got 52.1% of the primary votes.

            Trump got 45%.

            • ForkyMcSpoon

              And there certainly is room to argue that Trump’s nomination is less legitimate, because he was very much aided by the stupid GOP nominating rules.

              • Hogan

                That argument would depend on Trump’s being responsible for making those rules, no?

                • I would think that the argument wouldn’t be that Trump cheated, but that his nomination is less legitimate because the rules allowed him to win on a plurality.

                  It’s an argument :) One not wholly unreasonable. (You *do* need a majority of the delegates and you do need some distribution, i.e., winning 8 states…so it’s not like such considerations are foreign.)

                • ForkyMcSpoon

                  Trump’s nomination is less legitimate in the sense that it does not coincide as well with the will of Republican voters.

                  The majority of GOP voters even now are not particularly happy about the outcome. Back when he was leading the polls in 2015 and early 2016, he was never leading in terms of favorability rating, and he was always either losing or barely winning in hypothetical one-on-one polls vs. Rubio or Cruz.

                  If their system was based around approval/range voting, it is very doubtful that he would’ve won. It’s even possible that he would never have even led in the polls.

                  The Democratic Party system also would’ve made things much worse for him. However, the proportional delegate allocation method they use makes it less clear what should happen if there are more than two candidates who did well and nobody has a majority or what happens if the first place candidate drops out or dies, etc. The Democratic system would’ve ensured a brokered convention, which the GOP probably would also like to avoid.

              • Yep!

          • witlesschum

            Whether you’re right or not, I’d say it only applies in the specific case where we can’t just go with the person who got most votes.

  • TribalistMeathead

    However, he does need to endorse Hillary Clinton before the convention. He must do this before he is persona non grata in the party.

    He’ll already go back to designating himself as an independent in the Senate. What’s he gonna do, caucus with the Republicans?

  • Alex.S

    Basically, if Sanders endorses Clinton, Clinton would feel obligated to include Sanders’ voice in her campaign and the convention. The media would also continue to cover Sanders in some sense, since the Clinton campaign would be elevating his position.

    But until then, the only thing that the media cares about is if Sanders has endorsed yet. So they’re ignoring his policies, proposals, viewpoints, etc.

    The same thing is happening on the GOP side with Trump — the only thing the media cares about is the relationship between Republican party members and Trump (or what Trump has said). Because Republicans are not strongly endorsing Trump, they’re stuck with vetting individual ideas and statements from Trump or his campaign.

    • junker

      This is a great point. See also Warren, Elizabeth.

      • tsam

        That is a great point. It also might be some insight as to why he hasn’t yet.

        • EliHawk

          I generally think it’s Occam’s razor: A guy who’s been a stubborn prick his entire life doesn’t stop being a stubborn prick just because he’s lost a Presidential election. And, to be fair, being a stubborn prick worked for him for a long time! He just kept running his nuisance 3rd party vanity campaigns for two decades until he got enough votes that the Democrats gave up and let him have a House seat rather than elect a Republican again. And in general his legislative MO on things like Obamacare was to threaten to not vote for things until they gave him something he wanted(Community Health Centers in this case) to get him on board. It’s a view of politics that centers around being an ungracious, stubborn hold out until people give him things, rather than being constructive or collaborative. So that’s what he’s doing.

          • Hogan

            He just kept running his nuisance 3rd party vanity campaigns for two decades

            You mean in 1986 and 1988? Those two decades? Or are you talking about elections he actually won?

            • EliHawk

              I mean:

              1972: Ran for Senate. Lost.
              1972: Ran for Governor. Lost.
              1974: Ran for Senate. Lost.
              1976: Ran for Governor. Lost.
              1986: Ran for Governor. Lost.
              1988: Ran for House. Lost.
              1990: Ran for House. Dems clear the way for him. Won.

              The first time Pat Leahy ran for Senate, his margin of victory was smaller than Sanders’ total votes (which was ~4%). He nearly Nadered him.

              • UserGoogol

                I don’t think you can really lump together 1972-1976 with 1986-1988. His runs under the Liberty Union party were rather hopeless. But then he was mayor of Burlington for ten years and that made him a far more serious candidate, even if the stars had to align for him to actually win. His 1980s runs were still questionable, but they weren’t just a continuation of what he was doing in the 1970s.

                And apparently the Vermont constitution has the state legislature decide gubernatorial elections if nobody wins a majority, so there isn’t as much of a spoiler effect in 1986.

          • Karen24

            He’s an asshole.

            • MilitantlyAardvark

              An asshole whose vote in the Senate you were extremely grateful to have for years.

              Ah, what a short-lived thing gratitude is.

              • jim, some guy in iowa

                I don’t know about you, but all too often in my life it’s been possible to think 1) someone is an asshole and 2) they helped me

                • MilitantlyAardvark

                  Then perhaps an honest summary should include both aspects.

                  It might also be worth bearing in mind that if the Senate is as close as all the polling indicates, the Democrats are going to need Bernie’s vote on a pretty regular basis. It might, just might, be smart for the Clinton fanatics to ask themselves whether the wisest move available to them is to spend months trying to drive Bernie and his supporters from the party by repeated demonstrations of hatred and scorn. But hey, I am sure the Clintonites have a brilliant super-genius plan for that eventuality too.

                • nixnutz

                  You’re suggesting that if Bernie isn’t given enough respect he’ll vote against progressive legislation out of spite? I think the guy is a total flim-flam man who I wouldn’t vote for for the office party committee but apparently I still have a higher opinion of him than you do.

                • MilitantlyAardvark

                  mixnutz, I am pointing out that making every week Hating On Bernie Week is not the smart, mature or honest thing to do.

                  Apparently this was just a bit too complex for you to grasp.

                • jim, some guy in iowa

                  I don’t give a damn who does it I am sickandtired of this weak whiny shit about how “(my candidate) deserves respect, dammit!” There is only one thing more tedious on this blog than a whiny Sanders supporter and it’s a whiny Clinton supporter- but it’s *close*

              • witlesschum

                I figure anyone who can be a senator is an asshole. I still think I made the right choice of asshole.

  • heckblazer

    I’m not surprised that the platform doesn’t oppose TPP as that would mean going against the current party leader who supports it because he negotiated the dang thing. And from what I’ve heard, not wanting to embarrass Obama that way is indeed the reason why the platform doesn’t go after TPP.

    • jpgray

      This. Also, let’s see the 1932 platform and its heroic balanced budget plank for contrast!

      Platforms involving a first potential presidential term are bound to be kinda weird…

      • Yossarian

        This is it exactly. Obama isn’t just the sitting President — as sitting President, he’s the head of the Democratic Party. You can’t very well have an item in the party platform that explicitly contradicts what the current head of that same party is actively campaigning for. It’s got nothing to do with Hillary’s bona fides on trade, one way or the other.

        • EliHawk

          I can’t think of the last time a platform explicitly rejected their own incumbent President. Maybe the Free Silver Bryanite Democrats rebuking Cleveland’s Gold Standard in 1896?

          • Manny Kant

            That’d be it, I think. Cleveland refused to support Bryan, and backed conservative pro-Gold Democratic candidate John Palmer instead.

            In something of a coincidence, I believe that 2016 is the first time since 1896 that a party’s most recent presidential candidate refused to endorse the party nominee. (Romney vis à vis Trump)

            • bender

              How about 1912? Not only refused to endorse the party nominee, started another party and ran against him. (Taft, Roosevelt Bull Moose Party)

  • AMK

    What percentage of actual voters read the party platforms?

    Clinton’s hair and pantsuit choices during the debates will move more actual votes in this country than the policy bullet points on the platform. The timing and matter of Sanders’ endorsement will indisputably move more votes than the platform.

    • Aaron Morrow

      What if Sanders is telling the truth that the timing and matter of his endorsement is dependent on the platform?

      Then as long as 100% of U.S. Senators named Sanders read the party platform, then they are perfectly correlated.

  • Alex.S

    Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders camps talking about possible Sanders endorsement as soon as Tuesday in NH if no more hitches

    Andrea Mitchell’s Twitter

    • Yay!

      Still think he waited too long, but hey, if it got something good for the wait, I’m happy to say I was wrong about his timing.

      (It’s hard to imagine what would be good enough and couldn’t have been gotten otherwise…so…interesting!)

    • Davis X. Machina

      How can you be the class enemy on Wednesday, and cease to be so less than a week later?

      • MilitantlyAardvark

        Who will be more upset at the loss of their clickbait opportunities – the Clintonite poutragers or the Bernie loyalists?

        It should be entertaining to watch the spectacle unfold.

  • Redwood Rhiadra

    There are still diehards who were determined that the FBI would charge Hillary Clinton and allow Bernie Sanders to take the nomination, but these are people who simply would never support a mainstream Democratic candidate for president anyway.

    Literally all of the Bernie-or-busters I know voted for Obama, a mainstream candidate, and regularly work for mainstream House and Senate candidates. So this is utterly, utterly false.

  • Pingback: Encouraging | trentrivers()

  • addicted44

    TPP rebukes were not gonna enter the party platform. The party platform is not gonna adopt a stance contradictory to what the popular President is pushing right now. Why is anyone surprised by this is unclear to me.

    • DAtt

      I’m surprised by this because both of our party’s nominees to become the next President oppose the TPP along with the entirety of the labor movement and a huge chunk of our base. Donald Trump is going to tack hard to Hillary’s left on trade in an effort to win over voters in de-industrialized areas in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan etc. Clear Democratic opposition to TPP would help to defeat this effort.

      The idea that not contradicting Obama is a bigger priority is wrong. He already has a legacy; it’s the ACA, the Paris Climate Deal, the Iran nuclear deal, Sonia Sotomayor and more. Passing the TPP in a lame-duck Congress with Republican votes is not going to help his legacy, to the contrary. And the party deserves progressive policies in keeping with its candidates and its base, regardless of Obama’s unfortunate, misguided opposition.

      • so-in-so

        They can oppose it on the campaign path without putting it in the Platform, I’d suppose. Making it formally part of the platform would be rubbing Obama’s nose in it a bit.

It is main inner container footer text