and not get it, than to vote for what you don’t want and get it.”
The quote is attributed to Eugene Debs, but oddly the first time it ever came to mind for me as a voter was when I cast my vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary.
Hillary is no Debbs, but she was running to the left of Obama. Although I doubted she would govern that way, I felt that was best for such a campaign to succeed as strongly as possible—that appeals to progressive values ought to be rewarded.
Of course Debs meant something very different when he said this, and I am in some respects guilty of turning his argument on its head. But it is clear to me that we often are faced with such choices, sometimes made more fraught by strategic problems created by our winner-take-all primary system.
I do not believe that Bernie Sanders has much of a chance to win my party’s nomination for president, in fact I doubt that he believes it either. But I am grateful for the chance to vote for what I want, and am at least open to the idea that Bernie’s campaign can open up some progressive anti-corporate space in the political discourse of this country.
My sentiments exactly
Other than Social Security, on which he talked about tinkering and she wouldn’t touch it, I can’t recall a single position where she was on his left.
You might want to google “Hillary Clinton obliterate Iran” when you get a chance.
My recollection is she ran left on that one. As for her wanting to obliterate Iran, those comments appear to be in the context of if they attack us or Israel first.
he was more centrists.
Not everyone can afford to buy health insurance; Obama’s original proposal recognized that. The game changed when it was time to do the law.
It would also have been an easier sell Constitutionally, if some people could opt out.
Oh and one more thing … she wouldn’t have done it. She would have brought it up, written a bill, etc. But she wouldn’t have plowed through and gotten it done like Obama did. I know I can’t prove that, but with Ted Kennedy ailing, there wouldn’t have been anyone to force the issue.
And to be fair, HE got it done partly because she had failed before, and he didn’t want to repeat that. So she might have done the same thing … but sorry, I don’t believe it.
I see her as MORE likely to fight and bring something she wants over the finish line than Obama.
at least for a news cycle or two at a time. Clean coal, for example. I don’t know where HRC was at that moment in time, I just know that I was frustrated with Dem Primary 2008 Candidate Obama more than once on climate change issues.
As POTUS, I think that he’s done a great job moving America in the right direction, and I hope and pray the next POTUS keeps moving the needle.
Morning Edition went to coal country to cover the transition and the funny thing is, the laid off miners knew it wasn’t Obama that killed coal. Some of them even voted for him, and the one asked about 2016 was torn between Sanders and Cruz (huh? You might say, but the average low info voters is a populist by default, a lesson Hillary would do well to learn IMHO). Most knew climate change was real and knew coal was part of it, they just thought the focus on coal was hypocritical. The coal company spokesperson repeated the same war on coal bullshit, but you could just tell his heart wasn’t in it.
Bernie’s focus on union drives and empowering workers and Hillary’s susprisingly detailed transition plan for the region should be emphasized over and over again. These folks know the jig is up, we just have to offer them more than a pat on the back.
Were they thinking that oil and gas were not as big targets as they should have been?
Steve Inskeep mentioned signs and bumper stickers that said sarcastically “wanna stop climate change? Don’t use electricity”. Their is pride that their product once fueled America and a lingering feeling that they are being left behind. I guess the thought behind it was that yes, oil and gas get a free pass.
Because of liberal grassroots activists like the fine folks here, we have a nominee in 2016 forced to run against more war overseas, unequivocally for gay marriage and choice, unequivocally for gun control, and unequivocally against Wall Street and Big Business. Look at any of the candidates in 2004 not named Howard Dean, and you find a reticence to take on the war, business, and the religious right. Even Dean wanted the Confederate flag voters and bragged about his A rating from the NRA. We are living in a radically different political environment, than even 8 years ago.
You are looking at a nominee prepared to go toe to toe with the Republicans and concede nothing to them. None of this post-partisan, bipartisan stuff, just a recognition that we are living in an increasingly liberal country, structural impediments to our majority governance aside, we are the new majority. Bernie Sanders is unlikely to win the Democratic nomination, but by getting 30-40% of the primary vote and winning NH and some other states, he will be sending a signal that socialism is no longer a dirty word and laying the ground work for the post-Hillary nominee, perhaps a woman of color like Kamala Harris, or a re-incarted Humphrey liberal like Kirsten Gillibrand, or our own senior Senator if she wants it, to be nominated and to win the presidency as a severely liberal nominee. I am more hopeful than ever that this is the case.
“Look at any of the candidates in 2004 not named Howard Dean”
How quickly we forget Kucinich. Though he is pretty forgettable.
I agree with the diary’s premise. I didn’t mean to sidetrack it on a minor point.
Yes, everyone should vote for what they want.