The above title speaks for itself. It does not contain my interpretation of Sanders nor that of any Bernie Bro, or Berner or Millenial or Hobbit, either.
The title refers to a quote from a high profile Clinton supporter, Simon Rosenberg, the President and Founder of the NDN, a center-left think tank based in Washington, D.C. It’s mission is to understand and interpret a “new politics” – driven by enormous changes in demography, media and technology, economics and geopolitics” and “explain … and offer innovative solutions to help policy makers and elected officials meet the new challenges presented by these new times.” They are big into studying “globalization and macro-economic policy, clean energy, immigration and border issues, Latin America, US demographic change, and the impact of new mobile technology on civil society.”
Here is what Rosenberg’s bio at NDN has to say about him:
Simon Rosenberg is President and founder of NDN, a leading, center-left think tank in Washington, DC. Rosenberg, a veteran of two presidential campaigns, including the 1992 Clinton War Room, got his start as a writer and producer in network television. He is a leading political thinker and commentator with a unique ability to identify important trends and decipher changes transforming American politics well before others.
… Together with Dr. Rob Shapiro, President Clinton’s Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs and Chair of NDN’s Globalization Initiative, he has fashioned a unique set of messages and policies around focusing on the economic well-being of everyday people based on Shapiro’s early analysis that even as GDP and productivity rose during the Bush years, wages stagnated and incomes declined.
Rosenberg is a member of the Aspen Institute’s 2001 Class of Henry Crown Fellows, and the Advisory Board of the Jonathan M. Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service at Tufts University. He won the national election prediction contest held by the Hill Newspaper in both 2012 and 2008. In 2007, he was named one of the 50 most powerful people in DC by GQ Magazine.
Rosenberg and his wife, Caitlin Durkovich, an Assistant Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, live in Washington, DC with their three children and Tug, a spirited bulldog.
So Mr. Rosenberg has been with the “Clinton team” since 1992. He been named one of the most powerful people in DC. He’s a member of the gosh darn Aspen Institute whose members include Republican billionaires, multinational corporate managers in the finance, real estate, defense and high tech industries, as well as Walter Isaacson, CNN’s CEO and Bill Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, among others. His wife, Caitlin Durkovich, is President Obama’s Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection at the Department of Homeland Security.
Clinton supporters, he is “one of your own,” and to be honest I’m using that term loosely, since I suspect 99.999% of you do not run in the same political and social circles Simon does. So when he talked to the New Yorker about Bernie Sanders, I paid close attention. Maybe you should, as well. Here’s what he had to say:
Sanders “is tapping into something that is very deep and very profound inside the Democratic Party, which is this discontent with the system that is no longer producing for everyday people,” Simon Rosenberg, a Hillary supporter and the head of NDN (formerly the New Democrat Network), a liberal think tank in Washington, told me. “He has characterized Hillary as a champion of that system and as somebody who is actually a leader of the system, while he is the one that wants to change it.” Rosenberg added, “He’s not being perceived as a leftist. He is being perceived as somebody who is deeply in touch with a sense that something has gone wrong and that the system isn’t working.”
Obviously, he’s no idiot. He recognizes the enormous appeal Sanders has for many people who vote Democratic or lean Democratic in election years. He knows the demographics are shifting, and soon the young people, the same people you so casually dismiss as stupid, idealistic, easy to manipulate and be “scammed” kids are about to become a major force in American politics. Certainly if the Democratic party is to thrive, it will need to attract them in large numbers.
So slam Bernie all you want. Call him a far left Democratic Socialist, friend of Castro (yes, some of Clinton supporters have made that claim) and an outsider not in touch with the real concerns of real Democrats. Mr. Simon doesn’t view him that way. Rosenberg, quintessential Clinton insider, looks at Bernie Sanders and sees a threat to the very system in charge of the party that Rosenberg, the Clintons and other DLC/Third Way/New Democrats helped create in the 90’s, a system that controls the national party leadership to this day, as noted by the very same article in the New Yorker in which Rosenberg is quoted:
Clinton’s 1992 campaign and his Administration reflected two political strains that still define the Party: one is populist, anti-Wall Street, and pro-regulation; the other is more austere, more oriented toward the New York financial world, and more laissez-faire. Clinton’s Labor Secretary, Robert B. Reich, pressed for more government spending, but the top economic adviser in the White House, Robert Rubin, a former Goldman Sachs executive and later the Treasury Secretary, ultimately persuaded Clinton to abandon many of the liberal spending priorities that he championed during his campaign and to focus instead on reducing the deficit. Later, Rubin also pushed to deregulate the financial industry. That polarity remains. Hillary Clinton is surrounded by Rubin’s acolytes; Reich, an old friend of Bill Clinton’s from their days together at Oxford as Rhodes Scholars, recently endorsed Sanders.
It is the same system that allows Simon Rosenberg to hobnob with the wealthiest and most powerful people in America, many of whom support Hillary, but many of whom support Republicans, or who just hedge their bets and support both sides to insure that whichever party is in power, the “system” will keep running smoothly. A system that benefits people like Simon Rosenberg, who caters to policy makers and elected officials, such as — well such as Hillary Clinton who has been one in the past and hopes to become one again in November. No surprise that Rosenberg supports Hillary and has supported her and her husband for a very long, long time.
I can understand why Simon Rosenberg supports Hillary. He has much to gain if Hillary is elected, and a lot more to lose if Bernie becomes the new face of the Democratic Party. What I didn’t expect was for him to be so honest in admitting that, yes, his candidate, Hillary Clinton is perceived by a broad spectrum of Democratic voters as the “champion of the system” that is failing the very people whose votes she is counting on to win in November. I didn’t expect to hear him admit openly and on the record that Bernie Sanders has indeed tapped into the discontent among so many Democrats and Democratic leaning voters have with that very same system they believe has failed them.
So thank you, Simon Rosenberg for your honesty. It’s a rare commodity from anyone these days among our power elites and their courtiers.
Speaking of Robert Rubin…
Like Lanny Davis, I expect this criminal to be roaming the halls of power in some capacity if Clinton wins — official, or not.
DOJ sat on ALL of the few recommendations that were referred. Bill Black has a video on Real News discussing how it happened.
Man, this is sloppy: guilt by association, straw men galore, and prose that’s so wordy it looks like Steven is being paid by the letter — and for what? To make the point that a Clinton supporter understands and respects Bernie’s appeal.
That’s it?
I think this piece suffers from the same problem as Steven’s post from yesterday, in which he completely and utterly misread a really interesting NYT piece on Hillary’s problems reaching white men: he’s so busy grinding axes that he doesn’t have time to do real analysis.
Hmmm. Joined on March 8th. This is your second comment. Well, sorry new member that my writing style does not meet with your approval.
The point of the diary, had you taken the time to understand it, is that regardless of whoever wins the nomination, the Democratic party is in serious trouble if it keeps ignoring the needs and values of those who, under past circumstances would be solid party members and/or voters. Simon Rosenberg realizes that, which is why I wrote about what he said.
I would agree that the Dems will be in trouble if they keep ignoring the concerns that Bernie (and Elizabeth Warren) have highlighted. But that proves my point: you spent a lot more time grinding axes and attacking straw men than actually making that argument.
And, again, you completely misread that NY Times article.
And, by the way, I didn’t join on March 8 — that’s when I reset my password. I’ve been on this site for well over five years, but it’s telling that you would begin not by addressing my comment but noting (erroneously) how long I’ve been here.
Under what name? I’ve reset my password several times and this has never happened to me.
And what straw men arguments have I made? The article talks about the perception of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party in particular from the viewpoint of a Clinton insider.
You are the one raising arguments that do not hold water.
I should add the data I have access to, shows your account was created on March 8th of this year.
Oh, and I am unpaid. My writing here does not provide me with any remuneration in any form from anyone.
Speaking of that Times piece, to me the most interesting thing in it was the fact that she did very well with white men in 2008.
Could it be that something’s changed? Now what would that be? That these white men have become misogynists in the mean time? Or could it be something else?
Hint: 2008 …. ?
She did very well with white men running against a black man. Now, she is doing very well with black men running against a Jew. The answer stares one in the face.
But I am sure that the only color she personally cares about is the long Green from Goldman-Sachs, to whom she has pre-sold her administration.
That’s an interesting perspective, since it’s well known how much white men (and by that I don’t mean Jews), all around the nation, love elderly Jewish socialists from Brooklyn. Or Vermont, if you prefer.
fact (Huffington poll* results, courtesy digby):
By now it’s simply an established, objective fact that Drumpf “encourages violence at his campaign events”. The documentary evidence of him doing precisely that is so voluminous and already widely circulated that it seems pointless (despite how easy it would be) to bother linking any here. It’s true he has sometimes then immediately contradicted that incitement and pretended <wink/nod> to then discourage it. But he can’t unsay what he said any more than you can unring a bell.
Maybe more disturbing than that denial/ignorance (likely feigned by at least some respondents) of half the sample, though, may be this victim-blaming by the majority:
Yikes! Did you catch that? More (a majority!) blame the victims than blame the perps or the instigator.
That is some seriously fucked-up shit right there, that is.
*didn’t click through to assess methodological credibility, but phrase “Huffington Post … poll” suggests to me that that would be prudent, so caveat lector
Not a surprise to me.
There were no “bad” Germans until Hitler and the Nazi’s enabled them.
This si the same thing happening now, and the same phenomenon that always occur when violent right wing movements arise – economic downturns, lack of mobility, classism and the appeal of a strong leader to lay the wood the the designated scapegoats.
Of course, the Reagan Presidency and the rise og hate radio and Fox News set the table for Trump. Dave Niewart predicted this over years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Neiwert
http://prospect.org/article/how-hate-groups-went-mainstream
. . . those occasions when Drumpf says something outrageous (e.g., incites violence) then, within the same or a few sentences, directly contradicts it . . .
. . . amount to The Donald being . . .
. . . wait for it . . .
. . . Politically Correct!
You’re surprised? I’m not. But then, I was in college when Kent State happened.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
“horrifying”, and “UNsurprising”.
Yet two people now have implied I said I was surprised by something.
Weird.
You’re correct that the Democratic party needs to expand their base and get ready if they do not want to go the way of the GOP.
Yep…
However, that has no bearing on today when the choice is between Bernie and Hillary. I voted against Hillary in 2008 and wish we had a better candidate more like President Obama but we don’t.
I like Bernie but IMHO don’t believe he has the large and diverse coalition nor does he have the needed skills to win the presidency and that takes precedence over whatever else any of us may feel.
Hillary is not the same person she was 8 years ago and I think the American people recognize this. In my view she is better suited to lead us than Bernie…
So from my perspective I read your article as one more sour grapes complaint from team Bernie….
“Hillary is not the same person she was 8 years ago “
You think old people change so readily?
“So from my perspective I read your article as one more sour grapes complaint from team Bernie…. “
Up yours, troll.
So in response to a valid comment you start up with troll? Riddle me this Obi Wan…How did I troll anyone?
Hillary is winning voters and delegates this is not supposition…Its fact.
I like Bernie and think some of his ideas are great..Others not so much…
But back to the original post…it does make a good point that the Democratic party needs to change..
However that change will not come with this election and the Bernie folks need to face that reality…
The only thing that matters now is keeping the GOP out of the WH and away from SCOTUS…
Here are the latest polls regarding Hillary Clinton’s Favorability:
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating
As you can see by the chart, her unfavorability keeps climbing.
Hillary Clinton’s high untrustworthiness rating was brought up by moderators in the March 9 debate in Miami sponsored by Univision and the Washington Post. Likability and trustworthiness are important to the typical voter.
And yet she ran the table on the 15th…And yet she’ll most likely win Arizona…
And yet Bernie will continue to fall further and further behind…
Oh well, if a debate moderator brought it up, there ya go.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-liar-frequently-word-hillary-clinton/story?id=33361629
Sigh. Surely there must be a “word cloud” somewhere to provide even more “corroborating evidence.”
I assume you’re making an electability argument, right? If so, I’m sure you’ve also heard the argument that Hillary’s negatives are baked in (after all her years in the public spotlight and being attacked by the right), while Bernie’s have yet to be tested.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/democrats-debate-in-miami/473079/
“Later, Tumulty pressed Clinton again, asking if she bore any responsibility for the fact that just over one-third of voters found her honest and trustworthy.”
This statement from moderator Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post was based on the Post’s poll.
Yes, I heard that at the time the question was asked.
It is not news to me that this particular belief/assertion/meme whatever you want to call it is out there. I personally don’t find Clinton particularly untrustworthy, but that’s not really the point.
Which is why I said: I assume you’re making an electability argument, and that I trust you are aware there are electability arguments against Bernie as well.
Belief? Assertion? Meme? Whatever you want to call it out there?
I call it scientific results. These polls use sophisticated sampling methods and provide a margin of error with a confidence level. The alpha level is usually set at 95% or 99%.
Lol! Another “scientist”!
I meant to say the confidence level is set at 95% (alpha level = .05) or 99% (alpha level = .01).
You’re wasting your time correcting how you’ve described the confidence level. Again, we’re talking about what people “believe” to be true of Clinton, which is why I keep pointing out that you’re basically making an electability argument.
And for some reason you keep resisting that characterization.
No, you’re misstating what you’ve offered here. The “scientific results” you’re referring to are statistics ABOUT what people believe. I could produce “scientific results” about people who believe the earth is flat, but that wouldn’t make the earth flat.
Surely you see the difference.
The scientific results support the fact that about 2/3 of the people perceive Hillary Clinton as untrustworthy.
http://centeroncongress.org/what-makes-good-politician
“Chief among those qualities is honesty. The public may believe that politics is a dirty business, but effective members of Congress must be trustworthy. They understand that to work together over the course of years, they must level with their colleagues. The same is true in their dealings with constituents, who are on the lookout for hyperbole and misleading statements.”
Good night.
I don’t care how many people in a poll believe or say Clinton is untrustworthy. That’s an electability argument, one that I’m suggesting is “baked in” and already accounted for in polls that show her beating Sanders and, in the general, beating Trump — and one that will fall by the wayside if Clinton continues to win.
What a strange argument Lynn Dee has been making in the back and forths with you. It goes like this:
Evidence that Hillary has a long record of lying is blown off as silly and irrelevant. Evidence that within the public at large, a majority do not view Hillary as trustworthy is blown off as “not scientific” because it’s nothing but statistics. (As if statistics isn’t a critical tool in science.) Arguing with someone that is either delusional in a belief that most people are just like him/her or a peddler is a waste of time.
What I’m “blowing off,” Marie, is not evidence that Hillary has lied, but polling evidence that a portion of the electorate believes she has lied. And I’m saying that if you put that polling data up against polls regarding whom voters support, not to mention the actual primary and caucus results to date, you have to come to a perhaps more complicated conclusion than “Hillary lies and therefore can’t win.”
BTW, Marie, your video of 13 minutes of Hillary lying is just silly — or the beginning is, which is about all I could listen to. I saw where it was going, which is where I figured it was going, and it’s just so pointless. Yes, Hillary Clinton is cautious and endlessly hedges. As with Obama, I don’t believe she was ever really against gay marriage. I tend to think anyone who’s studied the law and isn’t a rightwing wack job understands marriage is a fundamental right, and it’s really that simple. For whatever reason, Hillary Clinton is more inclined than other politicians to try to claim she hasn’t “changed” on some point of belief than to simply say, “Yeah, I changed on that.” I don’t consider that so much lying — I mean, for pete’s sake, the record is out there — as I consider it stupid. She’s trying to say, in effect, “Well, my underlying principle is unchanged, so therefore I haven’t really changed …” For some reason, she seems to think that’s more palatable. I agree that it’s not. It’s a waste of time.
IMO, this is not all that different from Bernie’s statements about gun control, which I consider utterly baffling. He may have remained “consistent” in his opposition to gun control, so unlike Hillary he’s not trying to explain a change in belief as a non-change. But his attempts to characterize opposition to immunity against lawsuits for gun manufacturers and sellers as support for banning all guns is just false — and IMO, he’s smart enough to know it’s false. So is he lying? Or is he just being political and/or pointlessly and rigidly wed to remaining “consistent” with previously espoused positions?
Obama’s unfavorables spiked before the 2012 election, too. It didn’t predict a whole lot, and that was using the more reliable presidential approval polling.
The fact of the matter is, as soon as the Democrats coalesce around a candidate, the Republicans will coalesce around opposing that candidate. That’s how it goes, and there’s no reason to assume that it would be different if Sanders is the presumptive nominee.
I would be much happier if people stopped citing favorability ratings entirely; they’re just not that useful. And that includes those for Trump.
Actually, Obama’s approval levels were at their lowest in the middle of 2011. They climbed from there, and reached 50% and above by Election Day and afterward:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/151025/obama-job-approval-monthly.aspx
Your point around coalescence is true in the broad sense, but it’s not identical from election to election, nor is it complete. But even outside the partisans, there are Americans in this polarized age who have flipped from Party to Party from election to election, and there are others who are inconsistent voters due to apathy, cynicism, lack of civic education and other factors.
Much of the media does a very effective job in voter suppression. Look at this particularly nasty exercise from just this morning:
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/frank-luntz-on-focus-group-why-voters-wont-vote-for-trump-and-clinton/
And look at the conclusion Luntz, a candidate this and every week for Worst Person In The World, chooses to reach on behalf of All Americans:
“Luntz believes that the campaigns in the fall will not be about policy, but on the persona of the candidates.”
Just the way the ruling class wants it. As long as people accept that frame, the oligarchs will keep on robbing us.
As a rationale for supporting her candidacy this seems a rough start.
LOL.
I would welcome evidence of this proposition, if anyone cares to post it.
If those young people think that “the system” is failing them, then they haven’t been paying attention. That system produced Dodd-Frank, the Consumer Protection Bureau, saved thousands of jobs in the auto and related industries, spent $800 billion without on single scandal, increased alternative power, signed important environmental accords, created DACA and DAPA, elevated two women to the Supreme Court, voted for a carbon tax (but were blocked by the Republicans), spoke up and were rewarded with LGBT rights (first the repeal of DADT) and then marriage, and on and on and on. The implication that all they see is economics is folly. And if that is allowed to stand, then the older folks aren’t doing their job when it come election time. There are so many other areas of their lives and that of others near them that matter — and hopefully they are smart enough to see the big picture and, more importantly, to be open to the way the system has been serving them and can serve them better — rather than to tear down the system or to become disenchanted.
http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-poverty-figure-7b-poverty-rate-age-1959/
But Forbes says the real poverty rate is 4.5%.
I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to show with this chart. That young people (of voting age) are poor? Can you think of reasons for that? Going to school and not working? A great recession in which there were few jobs for them? Delaying buying a home, so lack of assets? Don’t you agree that income inequality is a real issue a long time in the making, and that it needs to be addressed, but that there are many other salient issues of importance to this group of voters? Isn’t it important to make those issues relevant in this campaign also? Or do you have an “economic theory of everything” that posits income inequality is the root of everything bad?
It’s possible income inequality is a result of the failure of “trickle down” which has been the Republican mantra since Reagan. It may be what those “working white guys” on the right are so disappointed about — and shoving their anger on people of color. Instead, you suggest we on the left should demonize the banks or bankers? I’d rather be on our side trying to do something about it rather than on their side blaming whomever. The key is to come up with creative solutions and push for them. Bernie has been great because he has identified and mobilized many young people about this issue. But I’m not so sure about the solutions being offered.
Let’s be clear that “trickle-down”, lift-all-boats, supply-side economic hocus pocus has not failed; it was always a lie; conceived as a lie and cheerfully promoted as a lie for at least three decades. In spite of being rightly characterised as ‘voodoo’ economics from day one it became a deeply ingrained narrative of modern journalism; so technically very successful.
That it has a shelf-life perhaps should have been noticed by its purveyors but bad luck for them now; it’s all spoiled on their shelves. The market has collapsed.
The remarkable thing is that they still don’t get it. They are still looking for the right messenger for this worn, empty lie. When it dawns on them that the Faustian bargain with their base has been thoroughly ‘unmade’ we will see some world class shape-shifting.
In looking around on that subject, I found an interesting factoid that under 44yr olds are the most indebted subset of USians. They are made up of Gen Xers and Millennials.
Coincidentally(?), they are the subset most open to Bernie Sander’s solutions. We will see if that holds in the rest of the primaries.
Why do you think more of same will solve structural economic problems? Financialization of our economy is in no danger from Hillary and Co, imo.
. . . er . . . “questionable”?
You seem to have morphed “the system” into Congressional Dems/Obama admin there.
Don’t think that really flies.
I’m seeing a calculated attempt to re-brand the candidate as a consequence of Sanders’ success; a triangulator’s survey peg.
The bearer of any resume that includes founder and president of a research organisation focused on “globalization and macro-economic policy” while enjoying a career as a Clinton insider is instantly suspect.
That the guy was formerly “a writer and producer in network television” suggests a pitch-man.
Personally, I think all these resumes are going to the shredder sooner than their authors can imagine. Some of them will probably count themselves lucky to escape the same fate.
The quoted article says Sanders has tapped into something “very profound,” not that he’s had a “very profound” influence.
But more to the point, after explaining why Simon Rosenberg is just another Clinton insider and member of the power elite, why would you suddenly find him a reliable, trustworthy reporter on this one particular issue? Why is he “rarely honest” on the question of what Bernie’s tapped into rather than either misleading or completely in the dark?
If you read beyond the quote to later on in the article, the Sanders influence on the party in general and the Clinton campaign in particular gets clearer. Rosenberg himself is quoted again at the very end:
It seems clear to me that Rosenberg is thinking here (a) that the Sanders influence is a welcome development and (b) that Clinton is well positioned to be an agent of the kind of change he’s talking about–that’s why he supports her.
This is also the view of other progressive Clinton supporters cited in the article, like Barnie Frank and James Clyburn. Frank notes,
I don’t think Steven meant to suggest that he in particular is a normally dishonest person. (Then again, I guess I tend to see a lot less dishonesty in the Clinton campaign than he does.) I’m certainly very glad myself at most of the aspects of the Sanders influence on the party. It will help me to feel comfortable and optimistic when it’s time to vote for Clinton in November. I can’t imagine why Rosenberg and Frank and Clyburn wouldn’t sincerely feel the same.
Heads up guys: Hillary is the worst person in the world! She is not a hardworking, successful woman who has been championing Democratic causes for years, but a money-grubbing, corporate stooge, who is at the forefront of all the worst things that have happened in politics over the last quarter of a century. I shouldn’t have voted for her husband in 1996–a terrible President–but written in somebody pure, like Nader. As you all know, times were easy for Democrats then; we were on the verge of enlarging our huge liberal majorities in Congress. It’s not like Clinton faced any opposition from Republicans–moderate guys like Gingrich loved him. As I recall, the G-man sent Hillary flower baskets all the time. They played no role in shaping policy.
If Hillary wins the nomination, we need to sit this one out. She’s horrible. I for one, need to stay pure. Once Republicans have the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Presidency, the Left can begin rebuilding from the ground up! It will be so easy and, well, who cares if we lose, right?
I’m guessing the Clinton campaign media kit Guide to Usage suggests avoiding phrases like ‘money-grubbing’ and ‘corporate stooge’ in the same paragraph with the candidate’s name.
havent we been hearing this about the youth for 40 years? i only say 40 years because thats all i remember. maybe its longer. and every time we see the youth not really get involved to the level they need to to make the change they want. the teabaggers managed to go local and take over the party. they did a very good job of remaking the party in their image. the sandbaggers arent that smart or committed or something. they just sit around and post memes on fb. they are good for some rabble rousing protests but they refuse to organize, educate themselves, and do any of the real work it would take to make change. you know who is making change on the dem side? the establishment. and the old timers in certain special interest groups. like the lgbt community. look how well organized they are. they have leaders and structure, they raise money, they get the vote out. they educate, they join the establishment and cocktail party their way to making real change. they took a lot of shit for it too but fuck they actually got change to happen. the sandbaggers could learn from them.
Looks like young workers out there getting the minimum wage raised in cities around the country. They aren’t waiting on Washington to do it.
No doubt true. But this is the essential question; is the establishment acting in the interests of their constituents, their members or both? Is the establishment not only ‘making change’ but blocking it?
Sanders supporters and Hillary supporters must have different answers to these questions.
Even if it is, is the change enough?
Intended for your interlocutor above.
they educate, they join the establishment and cocktail party their way to making real change.
That’s exactly why groups like Human Rights Campaign can go to hell. They don’t do shit. They fundraise, then they fundraise, then they fundraise some more. Then they tell trans-activists to get bent when their cocktail parties are interrupted.
You want assimilation. That’s what we disagree with.
See a lot of that in the BINGOs (Big Non-Governmental Organizations). Horrible bad in the humanities and conservation fields. A lot have been captured by corporate boards for greenwashing.
So you’re saying raising cancer awareness through fracking drill bits isn’t cool?
What about LGBT credit cards?
Where is the palm oil sponsor? LOL
HRC endorsed Mark Kirk over Tammy Duckworth. Anyone know why? Just to preserve their sheen of supposedly being non-partisan?
Do you have a link for this? I found almost nothing on the internet about Clinton’s endorsement in this race — and the one thing I did find was unsupported rightwing complaints back in September of last year that Clinton endorsed Duckworth “in exchange” for Duckworth backing off on requesting Benghazi hearings.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/272720-lgbt-rights-group-backs-kirk-for-senate-reel
ection
Oh! I did see that as well. But I didn’t realize you were referring to the Human Rights Commission when you wrote “HRC.” I thought you were referring to Clinton, and I was baffled to think she would endorse Kirk rather than Duckworth.
Human Rights Campaign . . . whom are we talking about here?
Seems there may be some confusion on that among the participants?
But Phil, what don’t you understand? Republicans are the problem, they’re the ones in the way of REAL change. Oh, wrong talking point.
Looks like Andrew Sullivan was right about these guys.
So he’s batting above the Mendoza line again.
Er, no one has ever raised money online like Sanders has. Ever. Not even Obama.
○ Introducing Simon Rosenberg, National Security By Matt Stoller on Dec. 24, 2004
Links to David Corn article: A Cheer for Simon Rosenberg [cached version].
I have not seen any comments here like that and I’m on this site a lot, unless those comments are in the member diaries. I don’t read those much
I’m more than a little confused about the point(s) being made here, but in any event I’m glad that someone who may have influence with Clinton can identify and potentially help rectify a weakness with her candidacy.
Yes, I think the operative word there is “potentially”. From a broader perspective, there are at least reasons to question whether that potential will become actual.
In this case Potential = a weasel word for Wishful thinking = Obfuscating = getting close to Deception.