Our BMG contingent of Bernie Sanders seems intent on loudly and angrily losing, rather than celebrating its HISTORIC victory in negotiations for the Democratic Party platform. After MONTHS of relentlessly repeated criticism of our nominee (who won by LARGE MARGINS of primary votes) about health care and minimum wage, now we hear crickets from her detractors when Ms. Clinton embraces the position of Mr. Sanders on those two issues.
Hillary Clinton has embraced the “most progressive policy agenda in modern history” (emphasis mine):
The Democratic Party is on track to ratify what is arguably its most progressive policy agenda in modern history, after the committee tasked with writing the platform document finished its final round of amendments and votes overnight.
The platform is expected to be formally adopted at the party’s national convention in Philadelphia at the end of the month.
While the document is nonbinding, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has been laser-focused on it since the primary season wrapped up and has kept some of his top staffers on board to fight for the inclusion of his ideas. The Sanders campaign views the platform as tangible evidence that his campaign’s efforts moved the party to the left and they hope the document will excite their fans and serve as leverage for lobbying policy details in next Congress and administration.
The document -– a formal declaration of the party’s positions -– includes language on breaking up “too-big-to fail” banks; reinstating a new version of the Glass-Steagall Act, which required that commercial banking and securities activities be separated; abolishing the death penalty; and fighting for a Constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizen’s United case, which barred the government from restricting political spending by nonprofit corporations.
Rather than celebrate this major accomplishment, our Bernie Sanders contingent chooses to focus on the one aspect where the compromise offered by Ms. Clinton isn’t enough for them
CNN reports that Mr. Sanders won on minimum wage, health care, and climate change:
Bernie Sanders’ campaign is declaring victory after striking deals with Hillary Clinton’s allies over climate change, health care and a $15-an-hour minimum wage as Democrats finalized the party’s 2016 platform.
It appears to me that “glorious” defeat is more appealing to at least some of our Bernie Sanders contingent than the historic progress Mr. Sanders himself sought and celebrates.
Since the animus against Ms. Clinton is apparently NOT based on issues, we are left to speculate about its true origin.
Debate and dissent are healthy and ought to be encouraged. TPP requires a lot more public discussion, for one thing – few people understand what it is about.
It seems to me that Mr. Sanders and Ms. Clinton reached enthusiastic agreement on a long list of formerly contentious issues. I’m not suggesting that TPP doesn’t require public discussion — and neither did Ms. Clinton, I might add.
In fact, the sticking point of TPP was the insistence that the Democratic Party categorically OPPOSE it. That strikes me as a stance that suppresses, rather than enhances, debate.
In any case, I suggest it is as important to celebrate areas of agreement — especially new-found agreement — as it is to disagree.
where do you draw the line Tom?
The party membership does. And it choose to be deliberately vague on trade deals and while moving to the far left on abortion. The reality is the Democrats for Life, as much as I admire their sincere attempts to reconcile their support for working families with their opposition to abortion, are no longer the force they were in the 80s and 90s.
While I personally prefer an open tent on this issue and the old “safe, legal and rare” formula which this platform rejected, there simply aren’t that many voters to be gained by moving to the middle on social issues. Hence why the GOP continues to oppose marriage equality, despite the fact that a solid majority of the country has either embraced it or moved on from disputing it.
…that the GOP plank calling for marriage to only be defined as between a man and a woman is out.
I completely agree Tom that this is the most progressive platform since 1972 and Clinton will be an even more progressive nominee than Barack Obama in 2008. Boldly running to the social and economic left, while wisely staying in the foreign policy center. The Sanders platforms that were rejected, divisive planks on Israel-Palestine, unrealistic binding resolutions on single payer, and the TPP piece were minor defeats on largely symbolic fronts.
The major wins were the commitment to free public college tuition, a $15 minimum wage, the strongest commitment to womens and gay rights in any major party political platform, a strong commitment to Voting Rights and criminal justice reform, and strong commitments to alliances and collective security. This is a party embracing a future, forgetting the defensiveness of the past, and seizing it’s moment. We will not see a similar document coming out of Cleveland.
Where I disagree is assuming that a few loud and noisy voices on a lefty blog in a blue state are representative of all Sanders voters or voices, or assuming that the NeverHillary folks on social media represent the campaign. Sanders will endorse Clinton on Tuesday in NH, the site of his greatest victory and her worst defeat, and a key swing state where she will need his supporters to win. I suspect she will pick a progressive VP nominee.
Most polls show 90-95% of Sanders supporters committing to Clinton. The few backing third parties are doing so in the luxury of blue states, and they can have their protest as is their right. The few backing Trump were the rare voters who are to the right of the party on immigration and race relations and to it’s left on economics. Enough to make a difference in PA and maybe OH, but not enough to shift the entire electorate.
I remain cautiously optimistic, and I will not shy away from criticizing Clinton on areas where I think she deserves it, as I have not been shy about criticizing Sanders or Obama, my 2008 and 2016 primary choices, respectively. I will never shy from criticizing Beacon Hill and the many ‘Democrats’ who regularly thwart progressive policies. Nor will I shy away from criticizing short sighted partisan stunts that are a poor substitute for substance like the no fly ban list. But this voter always knew Sanders in the primary, Clinton in the general. This primary hasn’t been the dramatic and earth shattering event for me it has been for others, and I haven’t lost my faith in this movement.
distance these days, but I’m not sure I would refer to a “Sanders contingent.” There are plenty of Sanders people who have expressed respectful dissent. I looked at some of the TPP comments, and though I don’t care to comment, I thought AmberPaw’s comments were interesting and informative. In general, she and Doubleman have been model Sanders supporters.
Two phrases we could do without for the rest of the primary season are “at our peril” and “snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.” Both grossly overstate the significance of our commentariat, and rely on this overstatement to suggest the future is endangered by our comments.
By all means, argue. Arguing is fun. It can also be edifying. BMG’s a good place to try out thoughts and opinions. But there is no peril here. And victory doesn’t depend on us. Our electoral votes are a given.
I meant to express my impatience with some of our participants here at BMG. I intended a degree of hyperbole in my title in order to be provocative.
I prefer to discuss the various aspects of the new platform that WERE agreed on. After seeing so many diatribes against Ms. Clinton regarding single-payer health care and minimum wage, I’m disappointed that neither of these was even mentioned the other thread.
I welcome discussion. I have little patience with complaining about increasingly marginal topics.
If single-payer health care and a $15/hour federal minimum wage were important enough to merit so much commentary prior to this point (especially when Ms. Clinton was a hairs-breadth away from Mr. Sanders on each), then it seems to me that they are important enough now to merit an acknowledgment of our progress.
While our commentariat here at BMG may not make such a difference, the personal animus against Ms. Clinton is more widespread. It seems to me that the knee-jerk hostility towards Ms. Clinton from some here is representative of a more widespread hostility that I think should not be ignored.
Unfortunately you beat me to the point, I was going to post a thread about my delight at Clinton “listening to Sanders and his supporters” and adopting these three easy wins on the platform. Where Sanders lost was on foreign policy, where he was quite frankly, wrong, and on the trade plank, which is irrelevant since Clinton always opposes TPP, but would’ve been an odd rebuke to a popular President who will be speaking in prime time.
It’s officially over on Tuesday, and those of us who found much to admire about both candidates can finally breathe a sigh of relief. It was always about bringing the issues Sanders cared for into the mainstream and making the national Democratic Party a safe space for bold policies (if only we could say that about the state party…)
His campaign was wildly successful beyond everyone’s initial expectations including his. Hillary is now committed to enacting this agenda, and if she can do this as President it makes all her past sins from Iraq to emailgate irrelevant. There is always a risk she betrays the left, which is why a Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders will keep her honest.
It’s downright insulting, Tom.
If you really feel the need to call someone out, please do so by name.
Every partisan camp has its assholes, don’t be one.
or is is this a shut-up and get in line sort of thing?
Not sure what you want here Tom.
“Is this a shut up sort of thing?”
Definitely.
Secretary Clinton wants to keep health care insurance as it is, controlled by private corporations whose fiduciary responsibility is a return on investment to their shareholders. Senator Sanders wants to maintain health insurance as a government managed system, provided to all at no cost to the individual and funded through taxes, much in the same way we provide so many necessary things in the USA (roads, schools, police). And you say these two are a hair’s breath away?
An immediate transition to single payer failed miserable in Vermont. That this well documented and studied policy pilot failed despite overwhelmingly favorable political conditions make me think it’s a pipe dream. Have you been on Obamacare? I am right now and was when I was unemployed, it’s basically a public option already in so far as the bulk of my plan was subsidized by the government.
Adding a real public plan on the exchange that’s cheaper and provides more coverage is a backdoor way to single payer. Most Americans will
opt in, like Jethro say no to “govnment” insurance and see if Aetna does a better job when a life’s worth of buds and Marlboros kick in.
You can choose plans in a controlled marketplace and I find the buying experience more hassle free on the exchanges where I have a ton of choices then I did on traditional employer insurance which usually offer one or two plans, usually from the same connected broker. This should finally kill employer based insurance which is a lousy model from the left on worker equity and from the right on worker mobility.
Costs will be contained and will go down on the demand side, it’s the supply side we have to control with reforms to Big Pharma and all payer rate control systems like the kind piloted in MD. The platform has that in it along with a robust public option. Adding a public option plan is the likeliest way we get nearest to single payer in the shortest amount of time. It can be built on ACAs policy architecture and easily implemented by 2020 when the House is taken back, now minus all the blue dogs who held it up in 2010.
I am a lot more optimistic about health care reform since it’s easy to build on this success rather than start from scratch. As a young married couple, we are super excited about family leave and that’s the single number one reason my wife voted for Clinton over Sanders since Hillary made that the centerpiece of her domestic agenda as it has been for decades. Was she the most progressive candidate in this primary? Hardly. Is she the most progressive nominee running on the most progressive platform since McGovern? Yes. This is not half a loaf we are settling for, but almost the whole thing.
Yes, public option is the same thing and yes, Vermont failed. But “never ever happen” still echos in the hallways and she’s still got too many financial ties to corporate health types.
Have I been on Obamacare? Yes, I am on it now. In a word, it SUCKS. Sure, it’s better than nothing, but if I lived in Canada, Denmark, France and so on, it would suck a lot less. But “never ever happen” is going to be in the White House….
So my crusade continues.
I’ve already made up my mind, don’t confuse me with the facts.
Your “crusade” sounds like a personal vendetta, utterly disconnected from the facts and from the statements and policies of either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
You sold out to Wall Street, sadly. That’s a fact.
Your words ” I don’t know whether or that means Wall Street money, but the money MUST come from somewhere.”….somervilletom @ Jun 13, 2016 at 18:19 EST
I’m not giving up on Hillary, or you. That’s a fact.
You may claim to be a “full time progressive Democrat with all the zeal of the newly converted”.
Your commentary here, such as this gem, is precisely what I expect from a “Rush Limbaugh right winger and 20+ year subscriber to National Review”.
At least admit it instead of attacking me.
Your words ” I don’t know whether or that means Wall Street money, but the money MUST come from somewhere.”….somervilletom @ Jun 13, 2016 at 18:19 EST
I’m a progressive. I’m a liberal, through and though. My parents were FDR Democrats and I am a Warren Democrat. I believe we need a message more than money, especially if that money comes from the .1%. You are a Goldman Sachs Democrat, and rather proud of it for reasons I do not understand but that decision is yours. While you are digging your heels in on this, my intent remains to convince you and Hillary to change, support the laborers of this nation, not the wealthy interests that have either bought you or someone hold onto you with cognitive capture.
I’m weary of ignoring your diatribes.
Put this on and wear it when you see one of JTM’s comments.
Somervilletom has now been bought off by guys from Wall Street. He has left the side of the pure, the pristine, the good, and have fallen into hands of evilness.
Simple as that.
Here, let me illustrate with my toy soldiers. It works like this….
Donate to candidates who want single payer in Congress and lobby your own members. If single-payer ever makes it to her desk, my money says she signs it.
Granted, she was on a second tier system for Visa holders and not the genuine article, but she found it took a lot less time to sign up for and was a lot simpler to navigate (which should tell you how hard their system is). Most European systems aren’t true single payer either. Germany, France, Switzerland and Ireland all have a mixture of basic preventative care and supplemental insurance. UK is a nationalized service and its rusting and showing signs of not adapting to changing medical specialties.
The same obstacles to single payer would be there no matter which candidate was elected or nominated, it’s important to remember that Obama voted for it as a legislator and ended up moving in a realistic direction once he was in office.
By an overwhelming margin, Canadians prefer the Canadian health care system to the American one. Overall, 82% said they preferred the Canadian system, fully ten times the number who said the American system is superior (8%).
And while most European systems aren’t true single payer either, that’s a red herring. They are much more public than private.
Their is only one obstacle and that is “money”. There’s a lot of it being made by the .1% on our system and we need a president willing (and able) to address this.
But, back to anecdotes….I receive monthly letters from the health connector telling me that my policy will be cancelled unless I send income verification, which I have done several times. Then call to see if they received the info, and they confirm, then I get another letter next month. I mentioned this to the billing clerk at my doctor’s office. She rolled her eyes and said “Yup, I hear this often. You have to keep sending it and eventually it will stick.”.
Talk to anyone who is using health insurance. Talk to anyone in a doctor’s office or other medical office in charge of billing. It’s a fuster cluck and it’s getting worse. And it takes an enormous amount of time AND it’s designed to limit health care (and increase shareholder profits).
Nothing will make health care as sexy or easy as buying an iPhone. It’s just the idea had in the US catastrophic illnesses drive good hard working people into bankruptcy or insolvency, and in other countries they don’t. Health outcomes tend to be better there too. It’s not really a policy debate we are having-single payer is clearly better.
It’s a political question-it’s the art of the possible. And I think anyone who has worked on this issue or understands it is honest when they say ACA was a fantastic foundation to start from, no one thinks it’s good enough. How do you improve upon it? With an all rate payer system on the supply side, with a robust public option on the demand side. Do those today and 20 years from now we look closer to Canada than to our reality today.
But to argue that putting a single payer believer in the White House is the only change we need ignores about 7 or 8 republican and democratic administrations alike that failed to make headway. Nixoncare is better than Obamacare, but Ted Kennedy died saying it’s the vote he regretted the most. He made the perfect the enemy of a good start. And I love Bernie but if both Roosevelts, all the Kennedy’s, both Clintons, Obama Ike, Nixon and Truman couldn’t get it done how would he?
Now where I disagree with Team Clinton on BMG and agree with you is that there’s always a chance she sells progressives down the road on any given important issue, no matter what the platform or her personal promises dictate. Which is why we need Warren and Sanders waiting in the wings in the Senate and not co-opted into the Clinton White House. It’s why we need new platforms outside the Democratic Party, not just within it, to begin pressuring those within it.
It should be pointed out that any healthcare system not run by and for unicorns is going to “limit healthcare”. There’s no way around that. It’s easy for patients and doctors to demand drugs more expensive than needed; it’s tempting for patients to demand expensive treatments that are unlikely to succeed — especially at the expensive ends of people’s lives. There simply isn’t a way around that. All systems have only so much resource.
The problem becomes regulating how the limitations are designed and imposed rather than attempting to do away with limitation altogether. In this respect, the ACA was originally going to do outcomes-based research, but a lot of that kind of stuff gets shot down with Republican campaigning. (Think “death panels”.) And yes, bad systems of regulation can lead to bad administration of stuff like, well, asthma medication. Fixing that is not necessarily going happen by shifting the administration of limitations from private to public bureaucrats. There’s certainly the hope that more public, democratically run systems will do a more humane job with limiting healthcare expenditures, but only the unicorns get to spend unlimited Unicorn Francs on their treatments of choice.
to express what issues are important to them, and to urge any responsible organizations to support them. Not accepting a position they do not agree with is their right. Both Single Payer and the PTT fall into such a category. Bernie Sanders respects the process and says he will back Clinton, and will work to defeat Trump. He is also putting in efforts to elect progressive candidates across the country. Hillary voters have nothing to be anxious about as far as Senator Sanders is concerned. He is bringing voters into the Democratic camp that otherwise would not be there.
Any opposition to HRC is based entirely on issues. Sure, there is some sexism, but it’s a trivial amount of the opposition.
Believe what you like, but she has a long record, and it’s really clear, ideologically.
For months now, johntmay focused on Ms. Clinton’s “opposition” to these two specific issues:
1. Single-payer health care
2. Raising the federal minimum wage to $15/hour
Ms. Clinton embraced the language offered by Mr. Sanders on each of these. The response, by johntmay, was to ignore that and instead focus on TPP. That strikes me as exemplifying those who, for whatever reason, refuse to take “yes” for an answer.
Meanwhile, another theme of several of our supporters of Mr. Sanders has been that Ms. Clinton is “wishy-washy” and “waffles” too much. That complaint strikes me as inconsistent with your assertion that her record is “really clear, ideologically”.
I agree that Ms. Clinton has a long record. In my view, what is clear to ME about Ms. Clinton — perhaps to a fault — is that she is NOT ruled by ideology. In my view, she has a history of taking positions that are incremental, that she prefers to sacrifice the “perfect” in exchange for the “better”, that she is anything but ideological.
In this primary campaign, the complaint about about Ms. Clinton has been that she is “too pragmatic”, specifically in comparison to Mr. Sander’s “vision”.
I disagree that the animus against Ms. Clinton is based on issues. Her differences, on the issues, with Mr. Sanders has been razor-thin during the entire primary season.
I’m sorry, but something else is going on here.
Johns definitely gotta get over it but so do you. I feel like you both are fighting yesterday’s battle with your thread. Your two candidates are literally embracing one another at the site of their most consequential battle ground, you two should consider doing the same. Maybe we can all split a round at the next Stammitsch?
I agree with Bob’s promotion comment, we all knew she was going to win but the surprise has been how much Sanders has really won despite the long odds. This is exactly what primaries are supposed to accomplish, the challenger moves the front runner in the right direction and makes her a sharper candidate. Couldn’t ask for anything better in my book. Onto the general, and more long term, onto the state houses which progressives have sorely neglected. I’ll have more to say on that in a forthcoming book review.
Sanders is reportedly set to endorse Clinton at a rally in Portsmouth tomorrow, but I certainly understand and share some of Tom’s frustrations.
it will finally begin.
as I posted earlier, maybe weeks ago.
I’m on a new crusade and that is (1) to move Hillary from her “pro-business all for the .1%” position on health care/insurance to a progressive position, similar to all nations in the developed world and (2) break Hillary from her deep and strong ties to Wall Street and the .1% and move her (and the Democratic Party) to return to its earlier alignment and support with working class citizens, something they abandoned years ago.
The question is, will she listen and will her supporters (like the gentleman from Somerville) admit who she is and that she needs to change.
Since she embraced Sanders on 1), and given up 3/4 of what he wants. That’s nearly an inversion of the Reagan standard of finding common ground on at least 20% of the issues with your opponent. The party doesn’t want to embarrass the President on TPP, but the next president is on record opposing it. This is the most progressive platform since 1972’s on a host of metrics.
Keep her honest certainly and hold her feet to the fire on these issues, but it’s hard to argue Sanders and his campaign didn’t get a great deal out of this race. That’s to his credit and the credit of his supporters. This is how politics is supposed to work, and I’m surprised to see so much pushback on it.
She is also halfway done. All she needs to do now is break the ties to Goldman Sachs and the rest, come out with full force for health care as a right (and drop “afffordable”) and follow the proposals on her web site for a shared economy.
She still gets to be president, which is all she really wants. I’m actually doing her a favor. If she follows the demands of people like me, she will go down in history as much more that our first female president, she will be remembered as the first progressive president of the 21st Century, a president who put the Democrats on a course that assured them countless victories in the years to come. If not, she serves one term, a “one hit wonder”….forgotten.
… besides you and her, there are some 300 odd million other people involved, some of whom (understand the problem space) others of whom don’t. If/when elected, Hillary Clinton will represent all of us and, therefore, it’s not possible for her to meet each and every citizen halfway: as one citizen’s ‘halfway’ might be a way too far for another. You might be right in your critique of the world, but the world doesn’t owe you anything for your perspicacity and, in fact, you owe a certain deference and regard to your fellow citizens as much as you do to any truth. Or, as we used to say in a church I no longer attend: “it is possible to be right, without being righteous…”
To quote Hannibal Lecter paraphrasing Marcus Aurelius of each thing, ask: what is it, in and of itself?” Do you object to the very idea of banking? If so, do continue railing against Goldman Sachs. If not, well, you’ll have to learn to do nuance, then. Do you object to the very act of making speeches? How many other speeches has Secretary Clinton made to, perhaps, much less objectionable groups? Do you object to the very fact of health insurance? If you did, you’d not advocate even single payer. Is this not so?
“What is it, in and of itself?” Is it perfect? If not, is it perfectable? Even if not perfect or perfectable in your eyes, do others think it perfect or perfectable? Congratulations, you’re now part of the great conversation. I’m fairly convinced that the present system of health insurance is NOT perfectable, — indeed, is unsustainable –but I’m fairly unconvinced that most people agree with me.
My only real criticism of Secretary Clinton isn’t really valid. I don’t like how defensive and wary she is. But that’s just a second order critique of the sheer amount of attacks (most being baseless) she has been made to suffer… nor do I expect to have behaved or engaged differently had I been the subject of such ruthless lies and vicious, unfounded, and continuous, accusations. Turning that around, on itself, I can commend her for courage and character when under attack: which virtues speak against a base desire for power only.
limb and state for the record Hillary Clinton has more important things to do to read the comments at BMG. Tom is important here, but last I heard, Hillary wasn’t taking his phone calls.
And I must say nearly all my interactions here have made me smarter and better more informed. But I do hope after today we can start focusing on critical local issues and the role we can play in making our supposedly bluest state actually forward thinking.What separates BMG from Kos is the M part.
This is supposed to be a Massachusetts blog focused on Massachusetts issues. The presidential race and gubernatorial election is important, but they are bright shiny objects compared to the abysmal record of our legislature, which has far too many apologists here.
Neither Hillary nor Bernie were the second coming, neither was Obama as much as I may have argued that in 2008. Neither is Jamie Eldridge, he’s not that effective by himself-he needs allies. So let’s start having those conversations. I’ll have a bigger thread on this, but progressives all but abandoned state houses to the far right which has had profound consequences that will take decades to reverse. MN and OR are doing awesome things at the state level, so is VT and CT for that matter. What are we doing? And what role can this community play?
Occasionally, in Deval Patrick and Elizabeth Warren, we’ve gotten really naturally skilled politicians who were catapulted into office. However, most of the time, the progressive choice is not going to be represented by a naturally skilled politician. This has gotten me almost disgusted at this constant effort to elect the next Joan of Arc. What we really need is a different state legislature. I’ve had enough quixotic.
Could I have a working MBTA instead, please? Or sufficient local aid?
Tom and John both dislike DeLeo, stop fighting each other and join me in trying to stop him. BMG and the very active Bernie grassroots can have a far greater impact. Let Robby Mook worry about Ohio, we got a lot of problems we can fix right here that we can be the solutions too.