I found that this linked article crystallizes many of the things that made me a supporter of Sec. Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
While refraining from the pure nastiness that characterizes the present phase of the campaign, the author nevertheless presents a fairly withering criticism of Sen. Sanders and his campaign thus far.
It is a long read, but well worth it, because it is uses facts to construct an argument, which is always something worth considering.
It also raises interesting questions for me about the structure of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, and the composition of its elected officials– though these may be questions best left for a later time.
Please share widely!
I’ll hold fire, but I’ve thought many of the same thoughts as Robin Alperstein.
The media’s ignoring of Sanders is double-edged: his message doesn’t get out, but neither do his shortcomings. Clinton’s punches have been pulled so she doesn’t alienate his voters. The media is all-in on the GOP: the clown car that managed to become a train wreck.
It’s far more sophisticated than the name calling sophistry of Barney Frank’s “analysis” and actually dives into the political and financial limits of his proposed policy in a fairly wonky way. I think the other Frank, Thomas Frank, has done a good job showing why rhetorically this kind of nuanced politics fails to moves voters. Voters like easy explanations for complex problems and simple solutions to solve them. They dislike nuance and ten point policy proposals authored by think tanks. They want a populist fighter this year and Hillarh isn’t it. She’s an unrepentant wonk with an elitist insiders message. I actually love her for that, and it was on rare display with her confrontation with BLM. It’s how I know she will be a capable executive and legislative mover.
That’s the prose of governance and in reality it’s something Hillary is unquestionably more fit to deal with. Bernie’s record as Mayor and as an amendment King are undersold here, since they demonstrate a pragmatic streak that would alienate his own supporters when he implements them. As it already has in Vermont. She does a good job showing how his purity vs impurity campaign is a dishonest dichotomy and actually could cause either him or Hillary problems with his base if they are the nominee. It’s in that manner that the Trump comparisons make some sense.
If you are electing a President pick Hillary. If you want to move the needle on progressive politics and bring a grassroots focus back to this party than vote for Bernie. That’s always been the choice. If I knew my vote was decisive I would vote for Hillary. Since it’s not I will vote for Bernie and move Hillary leftward. Her caution is her undoing as is her reluctance to embrace her inner liberalism.
Funny how her exhaustive research that couldn’t find a single economist in support of Bernie’s program somehow missed that open letter from 170 of them. The tactic of pretending you were carefully weighing both sides is much more effective when everybody else on the Hillary Victory Fund payroll isn’t using it at the same time.
It’s interesting how Clinton differentially attracts advocates who are just like her: smarmy liars. I guess that’s all that’s available to her, since she is so thoroughly loathed across the political spectrum, with net negatives that shatter all records among Republicans, Democrats and Independents.
<img src="http://www.trollsonline.com/storefront/images/nyform/069_nyform_troll.jpg".
is a blogger who starts out professing not a dislike for Bernie Sanders, but down right hatred. I’m sorry his accomplishments either passed by her or were completely ignored.
But how do her views fair with the American public. Hillary Clinton has a 56% disapproval rating while Bernie Sanders sits at 40%.
The data presented reads more like opposition research(i.e. reverse engineering) than careful investigation.
How does someone become honored as one of the best mayors in the US, works well with colleagues, is called the Amendment King, pinpoints what has to change in this country, is savvy and correct on foreign affairs, gets elected by 71% of his state, and 83% in the Vermont primary change a lukewarm attachment to Bernie and an admitted Hillary supporter from the get-go to the position of hating someone on such flimsy assessments.
As Christopher Hitchens said, “Something presented without [good or reliable] evidence can be dismissed without [good or reliable] evidence.”
Sander’s disapproval was around 10% a year ago and now they are up to 40%. His negatives have gone up a lot during this campaign and that is without yet getting much attention from the Republican side. Does anyone believe that Sander’s would not get seriously attacked if he were the nominee or that such attacks would have no effect?
I know the polls often show him doing better than she against Trump now, but the onslaught is coming either way and I strongly suspect she’s better prepared to handle it than he is.
other sites. It’s just an internet meme, like a email chain letter. It has about the same veracity as one too. If she can’t find one economist who says his numbers add up, she needs a course on how to google pronto.
You can argue he’d have a hard time getting his agenda passed, as would Clinton. But to harp on this falsehood that “his numbers don’t add up”, that’s just propaganda.
Oh, and who is Robin Alperstein? It turns out she is a corporate lawyer charged with defending hedge funds. A lawyer that defends corporate interests, especially those of hedge funds, is against Bernie Sanders?!?!?! Shocking!!!
the Hedge Fund Legal Queen. What matters, however, is the validity of her arguments, not her job.
What she wrote resonated with me, however. I started out with a much more favorable opinion of Bernie. My opinion of him was bolstered by his response to BLM, which picked on him early on. Instead of rejecting them, he spoke with them. That took character, not just political chops.
My opinion of him and the fate of his movement rests on what he does next. Is he going to support Clinton or continue to tear her down? Is he going to start working for Democratic candidates who might benefit by his presence and support? Bernie’s supporters need to be integrated into partisan politics. It’s not enough to criticize the system. At some point, you have to join the system to change it.
I don’t envy Bernie right now. I’m sure he’s suffering emotionally, but he also has some momentous decisions to make. My guess is that he continues to campaign for the next round of primaries, and then suspends his campaign.
We don’t have to actually rebut anything she says because of who she is.
that purport to set the record straight about either Sanders or Clinton. They all seem to use cherry-picked facts and data, and it seems that the writers do have a personal political agenda in taking one or the other candidate down. They’re trying to boost their own candidate; they’re not really interested in performing a public service, which is the theme these pieces inevitably begin with.
To me, the great thing about Sanders’ campaign is that he is speaking to the middle class, which has gotten screwed by both parties. Whether he can keep his promises or not is almost secondary to the fact that at least he is talking about these issues.
Clinton’s strength lies in her political experience and knowledge of public policy. Both candidates tower in stature over the Republican field. Why spend time and ink trying to destroy either of these two excellent Democratic candidates?
That’s a straw man.
It seems to me that this article makes a number of fairly substantive arguments. The facts behind those arguments could and should be checked — especially, by the way, by those eager to agree with it. One is also encouraged to think through its logic.
most people I knew trusted the media. No, I’m not asking for trust anymore; but I don’t really see the benefit of takedown articles about candidates that purport to be objective, yet are filled with one-sided arguments, selective data, and not-so-well hidden political agendas. Why should I have to check the points made in these articles? The reason I read blog posts and MSM articles about candidates and their positions is because I don’t have time to do the original research on my own.
I’m fine with articles that do criticize a candidate’s proposals on economic or other grounds. Those are helpful. But I see these takedown pieces as much less so.
With Obama v Clinton there was a real difference in policy and a real expectation either of these candidates could be elected and be credible presidents. Here the debate isn’t about either policy or experience.
It’s about whether you think the last 8 years have been as good as it’s going to get or whether we should push for more. It’s about whether there is a hunger for something beyond tempering the market with safety nets but actually changing how the market itself operates to ensure more accountability and more fairness.
Hillary’s supporters tend to be older and more politically experienced. They were adults or near to being adults during the last Clinton presidency. There youthful idealist candidates were either figuratively or literally shot down.
Bernie’s supporters saw their youthful idealist candidate elected and then fail to deliver on all of his promises. Many Bernie supporters are adults for the first time this election and were not yet born during the Clinton years.
So there is a reason there is a generational divide. For Clinton supporter the social issues were hard fought gains that have to be protected from Republican counter revolutions. For Bernie supporters, they are done deals, they are ready for an economic revolution to go along with it, and they are uninterested in the battles of the past or the scars it’s past fighters accumulated.
It’s true among African American activists where we see a generational divide between the John Lewis generation and the Ta Nehisi Coates generation. It’s true among LGBT activists. It’s true among women (Gloria Steinem v. Sarah Silverman). And it’s healthy. We are seeing a torch pass from one generation of progressive to the next, and that is exactly how we build and expand this movement. So welcome it, if there is anything the Democratic party needs right now it’s youthful energy, especially when you look at it’s bench and the average age of it’s candidates for President versus the average age on the other side. Nothing the GOP stands for represents progress to anyone under 30, so I wouldn’t worry about Bernie’s people staying home. Embrace his agenda, embrace his supporters, and they will come out for Clinton. It’s not hard.