I’m proud of Sen. Jeff Merkley for coming out at this stage of the game, when he has a lot more to lose than to gain, and making the decision to endorse Bernie Sanders in the pages of the New York Times. I’m not all that surprised. At this stage of my life, I wouldn’t be interested in working on a senator’s staff, but I’d probably make an exception for Merkley, and probably only for Merkley. I have so much respect for him that I’m hoping that he’ll be Majority Leader someday, although his decision to write this column probably won’t help him in that quest.
The timing is probably designed to give a boost to Sanders in the New York primary, and it may be influenced by Oregonians, who will almost definitely support Sanders in strong numbers on May 17th. What it’s not designed to do is advance Merkley’s career in the Senate or within the Democratic leadership, and that’s what impresses me.
Merkley has absolutely nothing negative to say about Hillary Clinton who, he says, “has a remarkable record [and] would be a strong and capable president.” But he prefers Sanders, and this is why:
He has opposed trade deals with nations that pay their workers as little as a dollar an hour. Such deals have caused good jobs to move overseas and undermined the leverage of American workers to bargain for a fair share of the wealth they create in our remaining factories.
He has passionately advocated for pivoting from fossil fuels to renewable energy to save our planet from global warming — the greatest threat facing humanity. He recognizes that to accomplish this we must keep the vast bulk of the world’s fossil fuels in the ground.
Bernie is a determined leader in taking on the concentration of campaign cash from the mega-wealthy that is corrupting the vision of opportunity embedded in our Constitution.
And he has been unflinching in taking on predatory lending, as well as the threats to our economy from high-risk strategies at our biggest banks.
Merkley doesn’t mention foreign policy, which is interesting, because it’s Clinton’s foreign policy that concerns me the most and prevents me from being comfortable with her nomination. But my point here isn’t that I agree or disagree with Merkley’s decision to endorse or his reasons for doing so.
I simply admire people who take principled positions when it’s obvious that the safer and easier and more career-advancing option is keep quiet or hop on board the winner’s train.
Have to agree. Pretty gutsy move.
OT, but do you ever read Bilmon, Boo? He reminds me of a bizarro you, in some ways. I want to lock the two of you in a room and listen to you debate.
More on-topic … is it actually all that principled to endorse now? I mean, it’s too late for the endorsement to really matter. This strikes me as pretty much exactly the time, with polls showing Clinton winning NY by double digits, that an endorsement of Sanders presents no threat at all to Clinton. (Not that there was ever a time when a Merkley endorsement would’ve meant all that much, other’n to stop all the ‘not a single sitting senator!” blather.)
This strikes me as the endorsement-equivalent of a representative being released by the whip to vote against a bill that her party supports, because her vote no longer matters. No?
He could have kept his powder dry. Politically, he isn’t beholden to the DNC/Clinton machine, and it seems ridiculous to posit that the machine “gave him clearance” to cover his butt with Oregon voters. That machine doesn’t even recognize the existence of and reasons why there are liberals that don’t appreciate the public (and private) policies of the DNC/Clinton/Schumer/DWS wing of the party.
He has a strong track record of getting on the right side of issues and representing the majority of his constituents. Like Sherrod Brown (who has a much longer record of getting it right), Merkley unseated a sitting GOP Senator. Unlike Brown, he significantly improved on his winning margin in his reelection and that was in the 2014 election cycle when several DEM Senators lost. Also and unlike Brown, he’s signaling to his constituents that he’s not living in the DEM DC bubble and he still hears them.
But with Clinton winning Ohio by 14 points, would it not be correct to assert that, like Merkley, Sherrod Brown was also listening to and hearing his constituents?
Brown endorsed HRC last October. After all of one debate had been held and long before there were any OH polls. Unlike OR that welcomed Bernie early on, he never got much of a hearing in OH. Nina Turner endorsed Sanders in November and Kaptur held off until March. (Also note that she has long served with and knows Sanders better than most in DC.)
Brown is a progressive senator in a purple state, Merkley is a progressive senator in a blue state. It would have been extraordinary for Brown to endorse Sanders, and not necessarily advisable…
That’s rather recent and maybe, just maybe, OR DEM pols had something to do with turning the state blue. And they had to work without preexisting DEM voter blocs.
Yes, and yes. There are many factors that went into Senator Brown’s decision. Some on which people might look on with disparagement. People are free to judge him as they wish, but I know and trust my Senator and have no doubt about his liberal bonafides.
Many lefties would have crawled over glass to support Brown in a 2016 presidential bid. He ticks off more of the right boxes than Sanders does. Except one, not as articulate in making a traditional DEM argument. Good on the stump, but not so good in debate. Or maybe two, he didn’t have enough courage to put himself out there as an alternative to the “third way.” Thus, it was exceedingly disappointing/discouraging to see him rush to endorse HRC. His supporters would have been fine if he’d said nothing, but to endorse HRC was contrary to almost his entire record.
Within the democratic party, there are two ways to push the progressive agenda, from the inside (e.g, Al Franken) or from the outside (e.g Sanders). I think Sherrod Brown is just honestly trying to be the most effective.
Would have loved to see him run for president, though
a terrible candidate who made the stupid choice to have Clinton sit out of campaigning even his home state of Arkansas, which I believe with every fiber of my being he could have flipped for Gore thus rendering Florida a moot point.
WJC did campaign in AR for Gore in 2000, but don’t let that interfere with your often repeated lies about the 2000 campaign.
Donna Brazille has since acknowledge that as a mistake. The Gore campaign blew that election all on their own. It wasn’t some plot by the Clintons to keep him out of office.
Gore has stated the reasons why he used WJC sparingly. If your poll numbers declined anywhere a person appeared on your behalf, would you have made more use of that person on the campaign trail? Bill was toxic that year. AR had turned red and therefore, Bill couldn’t have done any damage to Gore there. If Bill was so magical, why couldn’t he have turned that state around? Gore had the same problem with his home state of TN. This has more to do with that point in time than either of those two men and this was known long before the 2000 election day. Gore knows and owns the mistakes he made and not once have I heard him say that one of those was not using WJC on the campaign trail. That’s a Clinton PR meme — that apparently Clinton fans still buy.
Brazile is DNC. She worked for Gore in 1999 and 2000, but has no allegiance to him nor is it in her interests not to highlight Gore’s campaign problems. She, Gore, and lots of others, including ordinary DEMs can cite a very long list of mistakes that Gore made. Every candidate for public office makes mistakes, but only those of the losers become objects of obsession. Yet, somehow he still won.
Have never claimed that the Clintons were pro-active in Gore’s “loss.” Although, we all know what GWB’s “restoring honor and dignity to the White House” was meant to convey and Gore did get saddled with that and it was “the kiss” that finally removed that handicap for him. A difficulty Gore did have was in raising funds and he’s spoken of how HRC made that more difficult for him. Funds were a major problem for Gore in the post-election period and the DNC under Rendell (a FOB) did as little as possible. A lot of the back story in this
Maybe Senator Sherrod Brown knows Hillary Clinton better than you do and has a better understanding of her full record.
Might he become a future candidate? I ask because the Senate and Governor’s mansions are where any future progressive candidate must come from. I was surprised that an open spot for POTUS attracted so few candidates. I know a few years ago when Bernie was kicking around running that he told Thom Hartmann that he wouldn’t run unless there was no credible progressive candidate other than himself. I really think he was reluctant to take that step.
The lack of challengers tells me that history is with the Right. Look how many clawed over the (R) nomination.
Is your conclusion that HRC scared everyone else off (or threatened them, her vindictiveness being legendary).
Merkley is in a good place as a Senator. Preferred that to aiming for Governor. Possibly because he does seem to like and is able at legislation.
Anyone that doesn’t recognize that the DEM decks were cleared for HRC ’16 must have fallen off the proverbial turnip truck yesterday. Politico 2014 Clinton favor files. Only idiots like me thought the “eight years for Bill and then eight years for Hill” was a joke instead of an agenda. Viewing it as an agenda, all sorts of things that seemed curious in real time become clear. Beginning with her appointment to head of health care reform that was supposed be turn her into the DEM policy icon to directly succeed Bill. That didn’t work out; so, they began working on other ways of raise her stature. Then boom — Lewinski hit. So, a different path forward was required.
Gore was supposed to lose. Freezing him out after he won the popular vote was a neat trick. Her IWR vote was to set her up for a 2004 run (opponents of the Gulf War had been hobbled in the 1992 election), but ’04 was out once it became obvious that DEM base voters didn’t like that decision and the war had turned into a debacle. With Kerry as the ’04 nominee, her vote wouldn’t be a problem in ’08. They were likely gobsmacked that there was a candidate other than Kucinich in the race that hadn’t supported the war. Still may not have been a problem if they still had one of their guys running the DNC to put a thumb on the scale. They learned the lessons well.
“Gore was supposed to lose”??
My understanding of the arrangement is that Bill Clinton had originally scheduled what became known as “the 9/11 terrorist attack” for early fall of 2000, but he got cold feet and aborted the mission when he got worried that it would give Al Gore a chance to act, like, you know, all presidential and stuff.
That sounds like an urban legend (and not one I’ve heard before). I only meant my comment in light of the fact that by 2007 there wasn’t going to be back-to-back Bill – Hill administrations and a Gore win could have resulted in HRC having to wait until 2008 and trying for a fifth straight DEM administration. But we can go back to earlier to see that Gore had been shunted off to the side in the WJC administration. Not denigrated as some VPs have been and nothing overt to suggest an opposition to him as a 2000 candidate, but doubt any tears were shed over the selection.
Get a load of that other response to your post.
Fine, fine sarcasm, sir.
It really is impossible to parody them.
Have you noticed how similar they are to die hard republicans?
Trump and Sanders are actually quite a bit alike, and it starts with their more fervent supporters being susceptible to grifters.
.
This strikes me as pretty much exactly the time, with polls showing Clinton winning NY by double digits, that an endorsement of Sanders presents no threat at all to Clinton.
What are the numbers you’re seeing? I see 50-37, or so, which doesn’t exactly bode well for Clinton. It is a state which she represented in the Senate after all.
NYC Transit Workers Union feels the Bern. Let’s hear it for infrastructure!
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/new-york-transit-workers-union-endorses-bernie-sanders-article-1
.2599202
I’m seeing numbers just like that, yeah. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that Sanders can pull it off, but … I don’t know. Boo would say, probably rightly, that I’m being way too jaundiced and unrealistic, but it seems to me that an endorsement five months ago would’ve been much more principled than one today.
If the Clinton camp starts going positive on Sanders, we’ll know that their internal polling is showing him as not even a tiny speck of a threat.
No, he dared to challenge the queen. Off with his head!
13% IS double digits, much as I hope it’s wrong.
“it’s too late for the endorsement to really matter.”
Only if you’re on board with the grand MSM narrative.
Billmon and Booman are among my favorite bloggers. Well Billmon used to blog – now it’s twitter. Respect them both immensely.
Me absolutely too. Them and Digby, though I’ve not been all that impressed with her this primary season. I mean, I disagree with Boo a lot, but he never doesn’t make me think, and in the end he’s often right. Digby is roughly 16 times smarter than I am, but she’s so neutral in the primary that there’s no there there, these days. I know how shitty the Republicans are, I don’t need to keep reading that.
Also, Boo’s comments section is full of people who are much better informed, and much farther to the left than I am, and I try to listen to the leftiest among us. That’s the lesson I learned from my Iraq War waffling, and my small-c conservative inclinations: I’m very often wrong.
OT, but great news.
The Department of Education will send letters to 387,000 people they’ve identified as being eligible for a total and permanent disability discharge, a designation that allows federal student loan borrowers who can’t work because of a disability to have their loans forgiven. The borrowers identified by the department won’t have to go through the typical application process for receiving a disability discharge, which requires sending in documented proof of their disability. Instead, the borrower will simply have to sign and return the completed application enclosed in the letter.
If every borrower identified by the department decides to have his or her debt forgiven, the government will end up discharging more than $7.7 billion in debt, according to the department.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-obama-is-forgiving-the-student-loans-of-nearly-400000-people-20
16-04-12
How did they identify them?
Comparing them through the SS Disability data base.
Thanks.
You write:
Maybe he doesn’t have anyting negative to say about HRC, or maybe he’s hedging his bets..he is a politician, after all…but Paul Craig Roberts (President Killary: Would the World Survive Hillary Clinton?) and Pepe Escobar (Hillary’s “I’m Not a Crook” Moment) certainly do in today’s edition of Counterpunch..
Read ’em and weep.
AG
From your first link:
Lockerbie?
Just another stain on the U.S. record. One of thousands.
AG
The initial investigation pointed to the Palestinian Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command cell in Frankfurt as making the bomb in the Toshiba boombox. The explosives pointed to Monzer al-Kassar, arms dealer for Iran-contra and at the time the biggest heroin smuggler in the world, working through Syria and Lebanon, with his labs in the Bekaa Valley.
Whether the McKee Team, the CIA team on the plane that left Beirut against orders and were on Pan Am 103, were the target or not has always been in question. Read the Interfor Report. If you read the early Steven Emerson reportage on the case he was sure it was the PFLP-GC until the US got behind the “It was Khadafy” story without any real proof.
I like Merkley and I have no doubt about his good intentions. But he is also an accomplished politician; he has to have gamed this out, no? It’s hard to see the political upside for this move, even from a progressive perspective. Some hypotheses, from crazy to less crazy:
All fine inferences. Also, Bernie is beloved in Oregon and will probably whomp Clinton here in a few weeks. There is already a little resentment about Kate Brown, our gov, for endorsing Hillary when it’s clear that she’s going against the Democrats of Oregon.
So, yes to your speculation, plus Merkley will not suffer here at home.
“Going against the Democrats of Oregon”??
And if she had endorsed Sanders, she would be, to use your words, “going against” the 45% or so of Oregon Democrats who are likely to vote for Clinton. Right?
All good possibilities.
Except #2. The phrases “dem establishment” and “fit of wisdom” should not be used in the same sentence, even accompanied by the qualifying adjective “unprecedented.”
This goes way back. To LBJ and Humpty-Hump-Humphrey days if not further. Post-FDR, probably. And pre-FDR as well.
AG
This is one Oregonian proud to have Jeff Merkley representing me in the US Senate and quite happy that he is, as you put it, “an accomplished politician”.
“I simply admire people who take principled positions… “
So do I. And I also think it shows leadership: Mr. Merkley may be the first, but I don’t think he will be the last.
Not much time for any others. A double digit loss would mean that he would have to take all of California, wouldn’t it?
Talk to me about that after the double-digit loss, OK?
OT:
By Opposing Obama, the Republicans Created Trump
Steven Rattner
APRIL 13, 2016
MEMO to Republican legislators biting your nails over the New York primary, wondering if you can finally derail Donald J. Trump’s candidacy with, gulp, Ted Cruz: You brought it on yourselves.
Not just by failing for too long to take Mr. Trump seriously or by lacking an effective response once you did. That’s well-covered territory. Most important, you created the anger that lifted his candidacy by years of systematically and effectively preventing passage of legislation that might have ameliorated the tough economic state of Mr. Trump’s core voters.
Mr. Trump’s biggest supporters are disproportionately white, middle-aged, working-class men without college educations, a group whose fortunes have flagged as globalization and new technology have rendered millions of jobs obsolete and cut into the wages of many more. While the trade agreements that Mr. Trump bashes have played a role, the mistake was not having entered into them, but having failed to sufficiently help affected workers adjust to the new dynamics.
For too many, those new dynamics have been painful indeed. In Michigan, where Mr. Trump won big, wages in manufacturing have fallen from a high of $28 per hour in 2003 to $21 at present, after adjustment for inflation, a stunning 25 percent decline.
Meanwhile, the number of manufacturing jobs in the state has fallen from almost 900,000 in September 1999 to just under 600,000 at present, a picture that is repeated across the country.
Throughout his presidency, Mr. Obama has put forward constructive proposals to help those displaced workers. For its part, the Republican Congress has been behaving like Nero.
Nice to hear some good news re Senator Merkley. Thank you for the update. Good to know.
My guy!
Good for you, bob. I’m stuck with Durbin.
Don’t complain. I’m stuck with Schumer!!!
AG
Ha ha – Joe Donnelly.
Every link in this thread gets worse!
Menendez
I’ll weigh in for mino who has all of you beat:
Cruz and Cornyn
Indeed, I do.
Got y’all beat, … sadly
McConnell and Paul
And my representative, Blumenauer, is fighting to get marijuana off the Schedule One List and allow legal grass shops to bank.
And my neighborhood is called “The Green Mile.”