I have already made what I consider a reasonable progressive case against a Clinton-Warren ticket, but there are some unreasonable progressive cases out there.
Even if Warren cut a deal to endorse Clinton and serve in her administration, it’s not clear whether all of her backers — or Sanders’ steadfast supporters — would automatically jump aboard the Hillary bandwagon.
“I find it highly improbable that a leading voice in the progressive movement, whether it be Elizabeth Warren or someone else, would want to be sitting in the vice president’s office or in the Cabinet,” said Jonathan Tasini, a New York-based Sanders supporter who isn’t ready to give up the fight for Bernie. “Would Warren or any true progressive be willing to make the obvious compromises that a moderate corporate Democrat Hillary would demand? I don’t think so.”
Politico might have mentioned that Jonathan Tasini ran in a Democratic primary against Clinton’s 2006 Senate reelection bid, but they didn’t. He got a whopping seventeen percent of New York state Democrats’ votes. Then he threatened to run against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in 2010 before deciding to wage a doomed House campaign against Charlie Rangel instead. I don’t begrudge the guy’s desire to challenge the Establishment in New York, but he’s lucky if he speaks for 17% of the people there.
Progressives like Tasini are so anti-establishmentarian, and so reflexively suspicious of power, that they don’t actually want any for themselves. Not really. If you want to argue that Warren is more valuable as a senator than she could be as a vice-president, or that Sanders could get more done as the Chairman of the Budget Committee than he could cooling his heels in the Naval Observatory, I think those are entirely defensible arguments. But this dismissal of the value of having progressive champions chosen to be first-in-line to the presidency is something to behold.
It wasn’t too long ago that there were no Progressive Caucus members in the Senate. The Iraq War and its aftermath has certainly changed that. Former House progressives Ed Markey, Sherrod Brown, Tammy Baldwin, Mazie Hirono and Bernie Sanders are all serving in the Senate today, along with folks like Brian Schatz, Martin Heinrich, Tom Udall, Al Franken, and Jeff Merkley who are pretty progressive in their own right. When Elizabeth Warren looks around, she doesn’t feel like she’s all alone.
But, still, nothing says you’ve arrived like getting put on a presidential ticket. That’s the opposite of the pariah status progressives have suffered under since the Reagan Revolution kicked into full swing. From a progressive point of view, Warren isn’t necessarily a better pick ideologically than any of the others on the above list, but she’s more famous and a more gifted politician (at this point) than the others. She’s also a proven success at the inside bureaucratic game, which she proved when getting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau set up in the face of withering opposition.
The idea that a “true” progressive wouldn’t sully themselves by association with a Clinton presidency is a rejection of the advances progressives have made, and it’s a recipe for continued marginalization and irrelevancy. What I object to is not the rational assessment that a particular progressive (whether Sanders, Warren or someone else) might be more influential in a role other than the vice-presidency. What I find galling is the idea that no good progressive should be willing to serve “in the vice president’s office or in the Cabinet” of a Clinton administration because it would involve making compromises.
As George W. Bush said, the president is the decider, and anyone who serves the president must accept that they sometimes have to salute decisions they didn’t recommend. This all-power-or-no-power no compromise attitude is Tea Party stuff.
It’s laughable.
“But relentless negativity is a turn off. It’s not what I’m about. So, remember…”
You think this post is relentlessly negative?
I didn’t take it that way, but maybe I’m wrong.
My point is that this relentlessly negative bullshit is a drag.
The negativity that is the biggest drag to me is the negativity that relies on people relying on bullshit to forward their ill will.
There are plenty of things about the political and social circumstances in our nation and in the Democratic Party which are true and which can be used to draw negative conclusions.
That’s just not good enough for some people here. Doesn’t sufficiently heighten the contradictions, apparently.
I started to write that the attitude you describe is not “Tea Party stuff,” then decided you have a point.
Success equals betrayal. How often I’ve read that here….
Holden Caulfield would be Bernie or Bust
And didn’t he tell his story from an insane asylum?
Exactly. But also, he’s a fundamentally good kid, with a good moral compass. It’s important that all the good Sanders has achieved in terms of progressive energy not be squandered in an overly aggressive push for unity. The Holden Caulfields can become either lifelong activists or cynical dissafected purists
I haven’t and I won’t try to bully Sanders supporters into doing anything. Don’t forget that I voted for him and called for him to stay in so he can win as many states and delegates as possible.
But, when it comes time, I want him to empower his movement by embedding it in the next administration, not disempower them by shunning it.
Agree completely (and, to be clear, I have never perceived you to be alienating Sanders supporters, quite the opposite; but your last comment did imply they were nuts). On that note, for example, I think someone like Xavier Becerra would make a good VP: a bridge between the Sanders wing and the Clinton wing, part of the progressive caucus but embedded in the establishment
There’s the set of Sanders supporters.
Then there’s the subset of lunatics.
No you won’t bully them, but you will continue to mock them, claim they have no desire for real power, and are too pure for their own good.
It’s this type of attitude, not so much from you but from Clinton and her official surrogates, that could cause many Sanders supporter to stay home or vote for someone else. Will it be enough to make any difference? Unknown. But the continued amazement that people would do this is nothing short of insane. When you demean and diminish people enough they will eventually react.
The Democratic Party is accustomed to insulting progressives and shitting on their ideals, secure in the assumption that they have nowhere else to go.
This behavior will not change if progressives decline to actually go somewhere else.
http://youtu.be/rW9-FOLG-iA
.
Unfortunately, I don’t believe that it will change if so-called “progressives” do decide to go somewhere else.
Why?
#1-Not enough progressives. Not real ones, anyway.
#2-As a subset of that idea, if those pesky progressives actually do decide to go somewhere else, the Dems will be able to lure an equal if not greater number of decidedly less pesky moderate Republicans into their vote hopper.
Win/win, in a losing sort of way.
Win short, lose long.
AG
To paraphrase my favorite president:
You can fool all the progressives some of the time, and some of the progressives all the time, but you cannot fool all the progressives all the time.
urd, you appear to want more power. You certainly want your policy agenda to gain more attention by the powerful.
Not voting guarantees that you will have no power and your policy agenda will have no chance of passing.
I don’t want you to sit on the sidelines and feel superior. Help the Movement! Get out and talk to people, learn how to organize effectively, and help us elect the most progressive President possible. You know that’s not Trump.
The plan you share here is terrible, and doesn’t help at all.
Are we not all living in an insane asylum at the present time? Has the U.S. not been a vast insane asylum since the rightful occupants of insane asylums decided to take over during the late ’60s? Was Nixon not insane? Kissinger? Cheney? Salinger was a prophet, and Holden Caulfield was his prophecy. The best thing, though, in that museum was that everything always stayed right where it was. Nobody’d move. You could go there a hundred thousand times, and that Eskimo would still be just finished catching those two fish, the birds would still be on their way south,… Read more »
This shit is getting old. Why don’t you educate yourself about what can be done with power? The Obama administration has been absolutely kicking ass virtually every single day, especially since they gave up on Congress. When I worked in North Philadelphia in what is a pretty crime-riddled black ghetto, the stuff the people I worked with cared about is exactly what the Obama administration has been addressing with a vengeance. Things don’t look remotely the same as they did two years ago, let along eight. All of it is invisible to you, despite you living in a… Read more »
Out of the mouths of babes… You write: The Obama administration has been absolutely kicking ass virtually every single day… Truer words were never spoken, Booman. Thank you so much!!! And thank you Obama as well. (Emphases mine): Thank You Barack Obama for Showing Us That Peace is War by GEORGE KATSIAFICAS Decades ago George Orwell warned us that in 1984, war would be peace, truth would be lies, and love would be hate. Over the years, I’ve caught glimpses of what Orwell had in mind. But it is not until 2016 that I feel I can say his prognosis… Read more »
What a jackass set of comments! You’re always telling us that the coup set in in Dealy Plaza, but what got his head blown off? His Cuba policy, which Obama finally, finally fulfilled. You talk idiocy about Iran, but it was the president who made a deal with them when Hillary Clinton stood by tut-tutting the whole thing and the Republicans were apoplectic. You complain when he does something that Europe demands of him, when John McCain wanted to go to war with Russia over Georgia. You fail to recognize the gigantic clusterfuck he’s had to grin… Read more »
Watch out Boo. I got excoriated a longtime ago for noting not everyone is living in a hell scape right now. Out here in Cali, in my little world, the real estate market has largely recovered and the economy is demonstrably better than it was in 2008. To my neighbors, including Republixan ones, Clinton isn’t a deadly witch out to commit the country to the fires, but someone who isn’t going screw things up by deporting millions of people or blowing up the banks. This election is an opportunity for the left–if we choose not to piss on our shoes.
You write: “Out here in Cali, in my little world, the real estate market has largely recovered and the economy is demonstrably better than it was in 2008.” I don’t doubt you. The same can be said for my little world, NYC. In spades!!! What is most often forgotten is the question of who suffered for this uptick in certain areas. Go to Camden, NJ, Philadelphia, the worst parts of Chicago, St. Louis and Detroit for the answer to that little quiz. Your little world is connected to the great big world, KC2669. It’s a gestalt, and Syria…let alone Detroit…is… Read more »
The “great” housing market is spotty. Travel through the towns of the great industrial Midwest. You’ll find a bleaker picture. I would embed my personal photos if I knew how to do it. I live there.
http://fortune.com/2016/01/11/real-estate-bubble/
BTW, how much of that Cali and New York real estate is being purchased by foreigners? I’m curious. Rents are getting sky high, too. Sorry to be such a party pooper.
You write:
No. What got his head blown of was threatening to close down the CIA. And JFK was no saint regarding Cuba. Neither is Obama. Both want(ed) to dominate it as part of the U.S. American hemisphere. The only difference is a matter of tactics> Buy Cuba out of shoot it out, the strategy remains the same.
AG
My favorite part of that long quote was Obama’s pivot to Asia…Japan…Korean sex slaves…Damn, old B. Hussein was part of that, too?
That guy left out one thing, however, that make me want to throttle Obama: the heartbreak of psoriasis.
Have you read Devil’s Chessboard yet? You should. JFK was eliminated, and when there’s a coup on Friday everything doesn’t return to normal on Monday. The people who killed JFK, and their offspring, still run the country. If you are willing to kill the president you are going to protect yourself from prosecution. And if your rationale for taking over the government actually means anything, you want to keep in power. Maybe a compromised LBJ or Nixon can be kind of controlled, and Reagan (working as spokesman for the CIA’s fascist import program, Congress For Freedom) and Bush I being… Read more »
Gentrification is on FIRE in North Philadelphia. Some excellent points made in the comments, esp on established renters could also benefit and not be displaced. Was that done up there? Homestead laws preserve mixed economy neighborhoods.
http://www.phillymag.com/citified/2015/02/17/insane-surge-philadelphia-gentrification/
It’s a trend that is remorseless–yuppies WILL retake the cities. The hedge funds are depending on it.
you obviously know nothing about Philly. It has almost twice as much housing as it needs because so many people have left the city. If you want a cheap apartment and don’t mind the occasional rat, there are a million hellhole apartments to be had. Whole areas of the city are abandoned with the housing depreciating at a frightful pace. What’s going on in parts of North Philly (broadly described) is that people are saving whole blocks of housing and turning the neighborhoods into something inhabitable again. The alternative to this is what? This isn’t gentrification like in… Read more »
Did you read the article? It does discuss the different definition of “gentrification.” As I said, some smart comments from locals.
In the real world, that is the only way that urban infrastructure can be financed under our present austerity rules–increased revenues and voting blocs that turn out and demand it. Blocs that cannot be taken for granted. Cities will become less monolithic, I suspect. To the good.
And it is remorseless because the financialization of our economy puts the jobs economy there. Increasing childlessness and single parent families are demographic trends that mitigate against suburban choices. Against SFD overall. Restoration architecture is a big trend and I really love that.
At what point does well-meaning bi-partisanship morph into Vichy-level collaboration?
What long-term good comes of local benefits that are absolutely predicated on an international, economic imperialist system that holds other areas in poverty-level thrall and in the process produces a world-wide terrorist war?
How long does this system hold up when confronted with its own inner contradictions and the enmiities…to the death…that they produce?
Inquiring…no, survivalist…minds want to know.
I want to know!!! For the benefit of my own offspring if for no other reason.
Later…
AG
And this shit is getting old as well. Why don’t you get out of your bubble and learn what real power is? No, the Obama administration has been doing some of what they promised to do from the very beginning, since Obama started worrying about his legacy. He has enacted some good policies, but he is hardly kicking ass. Great, so now we are supposed to cheer and praise Obama for things he promised to do at the beginning? No thanks. No they don’t. But mostly things are worse, not better. And the real situation for most people in this… Read more »
I disagree with every single sentence of your conclusive paragraph. There is much evidence that can be marshaled against it.
Would you have run nonstop attacks against FDR during his 1936 and 1940 re-election campaigns? Conditions in the U.S. were much worse then they are now. Much, much worse.
But those conditions had become better than the conditions FDR had inherited. That is what was most important then, and what is most important now.
We will have a choice in November. The choice will be stark. Refusing to recognize that would betray the vision of government you claim to care about here.
I think part of the clothes-tearing of Bernie-or-busters has to do with them having had an expectation of a complete revolution of american politics within a year. As if it could ever be that easy. Fundamental change is achieved through long, persistent and arduous work; even if Sanders had been elected president, it would only have been the beginning of a revolution, and the hardest part would be yet to come. In fact, Sanders himself is an example of that. He is not the first “pure progressive” to run for office, only the most succesful. Why? Because he has a… Read more »
But if so, we’re fucked. We’re in ecological crisis NOW. “Fundamental change” addressing that crisis is needed NOW (when it’s already too late to avert some of the disruptions/catastrophes already in the pipeline; some indeed already occurring), not delayed for “long, persistent and arduous work” or “perhaps ten or fifteen years down the road” for merely “a moment in national politics…” for one guy. (That said, I do support and applaud everyone still motivated to try.) Speaking personally, the urgency (“panic” would probably be fair) of at least some Bernie supporters (e.g., me!) flows from this assessment of the direness… Read more »
I sooo hear you. The thing is, even in a moment of urgency, if the only way of achieving something is going slow, you have to go slow. The really hard thing is being both a realist and an optimist; looking at things as they are (not, for example, as the mainstream media presents them) can be really depressing. But the only thing to do is march on.
Please don’t shut up.
That’s precisely it. Sanders has had whatever success he’s garnered by playing a long game with regard to his own career. As a result, he has some measure of influence. There hasn’t been a particularly organized left in any meaningful sense (I tend to think democratic socialist and onward) for over a generation. We’ve seen some attempts to rebuild, in fits and starts, since the Occupy movement had its day in the spotlight. The best we can hope for is to plant seeds, do whatever we can in any capacity we can to grow a movement that can actually move… Read more »
Exactly! It is key that Sanders supporters don’t become passive cynics but rather real activistis. In order for them not to be disappointed into pasivity, they need to be realistic about what it takes to change the world
the way I view Presidential elections is that you maybe get 2-3 candidates that you’re fully onboard with, for me my first one is President Obama. I understand his thinking, I agree with his ideas and I believe he acts in good faith. Every other election is a choice. There was no one I got the same connection with so I had to choose who I thought would be the best one for me. I actually eliminated Sanders fairly early and was leaning towards O’Malley for when he came to my state but that wasn’t my choices when I voted… Read more »
I don’t “want” Hilary any more than many who “feel the Bern.” However it looks as though want I want, and what we’ve got are two different things.
If it’s Hilary vs Donny, as a left leaning guy, I have no option but to support her. The other side is too dark to even contemplate. I don’t like it, but I’ll support the best the Dems put out there. There is simply no other choice, at least to this guy.
Booman, I can’t find the post but I think you recently said something to the effect of (sorry if this is a distortion), “When I saw Bernie wasn’t getting organized like Obama, I knew he couldn’t win and/or wasn’t serious about winning.” Without getting into the question of Bernie’s organization or lack thereof, my question is this: Is Bernie’s success in this primary notable? Surprising? Important? Some say, there is always a challenger from the left. Is 43% of the vote total nationally, for a 74 year old, quasi-atheist, avowed socialist from tiny state with nothing like the charisma of… Read more »
Read that Bernie got something like 15% more votes than most insurgent challengers. He’s also lasted a lot longer than most. I think that’s significant on its own.
It seemed pretty meaningful to me.
But perhaps they’re all just those obnoxious “Bernie Bros” I keep reading about.
Yeah, that must be it.
Yeah, it’s hugely meaningful. Look at it this way. I tried to point out the progress progressives have made in the last ten years. I used the example of getting actual progressives into the Senate, but getting nearly half the votes in the primaries is a bigger sign. What’s it’s not, at least not yet, is as much power as getting Senate seats. Bernie is rightly focused on the platform, but getting this administration staffed up with as many progressives as possible, from the veep, to other cabinet positions, to the folks getting hired at the Commerce Department….all of that… Read more »
High level bureaucrats make little decisions everyday that, added up, change the world.
For example, it’s not a “formal” requirement that judges selected for The Patent Trial and Appeals Board have a minimum amount of private practice, but because of the people leading the agency, it’s an effective requirement. 84% of them come from private law firms, and a large percent have no practice from within the agency itself. This then leads to regulatory capture, since it’s not the regulators who are moved to that level, but private practitioners who are biased in favor of patent applicants.
I think that would be a counterexample, actually.
How do? The agency at the high level is staffed by people who love the private sector. Penny Pritzker is the highest head, but Obama’s pick of Kappos (now Lee) to head the agency entrenched this idea of wanting private practitioners to head regulatory bodies even more entrenched. The decisions to staff the agency at the highest level with these people is what makes those “little things adding up”.
Right, but in this case in a negative sense.
Indeed, which is why I cited that example of why it’s wrong to cede control to the Penny Pritzkers of the world.
I don’t know as much about the inner workings of the Commerce Department as you do, but in general it’s a problem when there is capture of the regulatory apparatus, and there are always termites eating their way through any roadblocks you put up for them.
With the GOP, though, the termites just sit at ALL the desks and no one even needs to tell them to be assholes.
Right. This entire thread is me agreeing with you. I think there are times when it’s better to refuse a seat at the table because there are better terms to be had. But until the revolution comes, ceding power to the conservative elements of Obama/Clinton’s coalition is a net-negative. That’s especially true in institutionally conservative cabinet positions like Commerce and Treasury. Tangentially, this discussion is why I’m pissed at Clintons’ partisans defending her speeches as no quid pro quo as if that’s the problem. Like, does anyone think these previously private attorneys turned judges are being paid by Apple, Samsung,… Read more »
As you say, it is a feature, not a bug. They DO think private business should regulate itself. It is too obvious to be overlooked.
This exactly. Listened to a debate last night Sam Seder had with a big Bernie or Bust guy and his point just seemed to come down to the-world-is-badism, lets blow it up to start a revolution.
Booman stated that there is a list of Sanders supporters, then there is a sublist of lunatics. To my eyes and ears, the sublist can barely be called ‘supporters’. Generally they don’t even talk very much about Sanders proposed policies or policy solutions, but rail about our general society. You are not going to convince many people to your side that way.
Somehow the Sanders campaign has collected some very unhappy, bitter people, who are projecting personal bias and dissatisfaction on his campaign. It really has little to do with politics or policy to them.
.
I submit that if American politics hasn’t left you unhappy and bitter, you haven’t been paying attention.
The Sanders people I talk to think we are in the negotiating phase. I don’t now whether Tasini is. It is kind of interesting though that you attack him for running anemic campaigns. Since Sanders spent a decade doing just that. That is the road to power. You challenge the incumbent, and in doing so you hope you can get across to people that there are policy choices beyond those that the Party types offer. It is the only way I know to build a separate liberal/left movement that is not tied to the Democratic Status quo. The problem I… Read more »
Extremely well said. But why is it so hard to create a progressive identity to the left of a Democratic President and so easy to create a reactionary identity to the right of a Republican President? Because the reactionaries have bottomless pockets? Also, I keep giggling at all the pragmatic, realist Democrats swooning in horror because the idealistic, starry-eyed, airy-fairy Sanders campaign plays hardball when it comes to fighting for every last ounce of leverage. The Sanders campaign, and even people like Tasini making (intentionally or otherwise) unsupportable arguments, aren’t “so anti-establishmentarian, and so reflexively suspicious of power, that they… Read more »
One thing Sanders has to be thinking about is naming an heir…. if his revolution is tied to his name, it will necessarily be short lived
Running against Charlie Rangel in Harlem is not how a guy named Tasini builds a political career. I don’t want to laugh you out of town, but you gotta bring an argument better than that.
Later asshole.
Look, the truth hurts.
Guys like Tasini are little better than trolls. A guy like Rangel needs primarying, but from someone who has some hope of winning.
You know, in 2012, Adriano Espaillat lost to Rangel by 990 votes after a recount. Maybe Tasini could have cleaned up some corruption by lending more weight to that campaign or an earlier one rather than wasting everybody’s time with his own vanity campaign.
When I talk about the triumph of rhetoric over organizing, this is what I’m talking about.
Yeah. And I am sure you realize that finding quotable gadflies is a proven method of minimalizing and infantilizing your opponents. As Billmon pointed out, we are in that stage.
Yeah, I “found” him in the most linked story in the political blogosphere talking to a Politico reporter as a prominent “Sanders supporter.”
No. Politico found him for you.
He wasn’t hiding. Dude sits by his phone bitching at it until it rings.
LOL Indeed.
Market solutions are every bit as much a religion with business Dems (or neoliberals) as trickle-down is to Republicans, evidence notwithstanding.
It is even capturing the bureaucracy of the EU through these supra-national trade deals.
I largely agree with Tasini about the Vice Presidency, depending on the definition of ‘leading voice,’ but making the same claim about the Cabinet strikes me as dubious in the extreme. Although, on the other hand, I’m not convinced that ‘nothing says you’ve arrived’ is as compelling as you seem to think.
I’d love for progressives to take Cabinet positions in a Trump administration, but I wouldn’t want one to become his running mate.
Bernie’s run and success is significant. It represents the very left part of the Democratic coalition. But the party is big and broad. Many are incrementalists, not revolutionaries. Bernie’s ideas are aspirational, but not particularly immediately achievable. And so the folks who are Bernie supporters would be well-served, I believe, to continue in government and politics so that their voices are heard in ways big and small. And it seems to me that Bernie has a significant obligation to help make that happen. He has said that Hillary has to come to his people. Yes, that’s part of the story.… Read more »
This “you’re stupid if you don’t think it would be valuable to be Clinton’s Vice President” hectoring reminds me of a kid trying to convince his younger sibling to trade him a dime for a nickel because “the nickel is bigger”.
If the price of “relevancy” is standing by silently when Hillary participates in her next war crime, then we should choose not to pay.
SO…is the idea here that “well, no Sanders progressives ought to be part of a CLinton administration, because inevitably Hillary will commit a war crime”? Just punt from the outset?
I’m guessing that many Sanders supporters would be thrilled if the US had proportional representation in our elections instead of a first past the post system. Hint: systems with proportional representation almost always have coalition governments.
Yes, that is the idea. At least as far as I can tell. Add the logical extension, that it’s better that a Clinton administration fail, so a true blue member of the Sanders ‘movement’ or ‘revolution’ can be elected in 2020.
Of course what would actually happen if Clinton failed, is that we would get Cruz or someone like him.
..
Does Biden have enough clout to moderate her? I think he is over his warhawkery. Could we see him at State?
What do you make of these two statesments? I have no idea how to read this, except that Biden may not fit well in the Clinton cabinet. Obama picked Joe Biden as VP, not HRC, whom I believe wanted it. 1. Joe Biden–“I would have been the best president.” “http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/joe-biden-best-president/story?id=39023077 2. Joe Biden talking about income inequality– “Bernie is speaking to a yearning that is deep and real. And he has credibility on it,” Biden said to CNN chief political analyst Gloria Borger. “It’s relatively new for Hillary to talk about that,” Biden continued, acknowledging that Clinton has “come… Read more »
I think the Democratic Establishment is getting nervous about Hillary losing to Trump.
Doubt it. They haven’t put all their chips on a single candidate like this since 1964. They’re groupthink has become so rigid that they can’t see the differences and so arrogant that they expect nothing short of a presidential landslide.
My take — Joe is hoping that his long held (and well known) desire to be POTUS can still come true. As he couldn’t actually run in 2016 (that have meant defying TPTB), he had hoped a draft Joe movement. Now he’s merely reminding the public and PTB that he’s available should anything materialize that stops HRC.
I think you read the tea leaves correctly.
Now if I could just learn to type or proofread.
Should add that I doubt anything is in the works that would facilitate Joe having to step into a vacuum. But Joe can still dream.
While Bernie and his supporters are making a few mistakes along the way, keep in mind Booman that he’s not killing Iraqi’s, black folks on the streets of the USA, or trying to toss 4-5 million families out of their homes via deportation…they are just a bit shell shocked at the way they’ve played by the rules and been sort of ridiculed by folks similar to you for long stretches of time. I was a Hillary delegate in Nevada in 2008, until she couldn’t get 15% inside my caucus group. I am also a lifelong defender of Bill, Hillary, Monica,… Read more »
And the Tea Party basically took over the GOP, so I fail to see the condemnation here. Would it not be a wonderful thing to force Schumer (D-Israel) from leadership?
I’m guessing this won’t matter, but anyway. Why do you write “Schumer (D-Israel)”? There are lots of senators who are strong supporters of Israel, but I’m going to make a guess that you don’t describe them all using the “D-Israel” tag. If that’s a correct guess, then please explain why you used “D-Israel” to describe Schumer.
Vote on the Iran deal.
He was the only senator to oppose it? Did you call the other ones “D-Israel” or “R-Israel”?
All republicans are R-Israel.
The other D senators were Manchin, Cardin, Menendez. Manchin gets a pass because West Virginia. Menendez is already scummy for a lot of other things. Cardin I don’t know much about.
But none of them are going to become the leader of the Senate Dems are they?
Thanks for the clarification.
PS: I am pretty sure I’ve called Menendez D-Israel in the past.
Because sometimes Chuckie Boy acts like he doesn’t remember that he’s a member of the UNITED STATES Senate and not the Knesset.
I assume you know that accusation of divided loyalties is a standard anti-Semitic trope.
Senator Warren is such a plus – IN THE SENATE.
Don’t want her to leave there. Want her to have at least 3 more terms, and for her to keep on bringing it for the people.
ot:
VoteRiders is making sure that no eligible citizen is denied his or her right to vote for lack of ID.
VoteRiders focuses on states with government-issued voter ID laws or that require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. Our current priority state is Wisconsin, and we are also supporting efforts in AL, AZ, FL, GA, IN, KS, MS, NC, ND, NH, RI, SC, TN, TX, and VA…
this sounds great, we have to win first so we can fix these ridiculous laws and the only way to win is to find a way to help people vote
Awesome
by-fraud ACORN?
Good on ya!
Kaufman would carry a lot of credit, too. He knows his bankers. Nice to see a mention of him. I really am not worried about Warren. She was not born yesterday. I would imagine she and Sanders are pretty clear-eyed about their influence at this point. They see the sausage as it is being made. The best we might hope for would be someone with labor chops, imo. Don’t think Castro will pan out, but are a couple others with Hispanic backgrounds I’ve seen mentioned. If one is serious about minimizing the POV of neoliberalism in legislation, I think you… Read more »
There are a number of things that the Clinton Presidency did and attempted to do which argue against the claim that “The Clintons really DO NOT WANT FDR domestic policies.”
Two which Hillary had a prominent place in moving was the broad health care reform pursued during Clinton’s first term, and the successful passage of the SCHIP program which gave much better health access to millions and millions of American children.
These absolutist statements about Bernie and Hillary are quite bothersome.
SCHIP is classic kludge compromise that neoliberals LOVE. Because it was not federalized and block granted, it allowed Republican states to nullify it through setting qualifications and failure to aggressively enroll. Texas was notorious for its under-enrollment. (http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2007/08/22/schip-analyzing-the-insurance-programs-hot-button-issues/)
Don’t try to teach me to how to suck eggs.
…not federalized, but instead block granted…
The money for SCHIP/CHIP is block granted, but you are wrong to claim that it is not “federalized” as a program. It is administered by HHS through the Department of Medicare and Medicaid Services. Each State submits its CHIP plans to HHS/MMS, which must approve the plans before the States receive their block grants.
If, as you infer, States run by Republicans have CHIP policies which result in inferior outcomes to States run by Democrats, it’s beyond peculiar to feebly attack the Clintons or “neoliberals” for that.
center, I greatly admire your fortitude in fighting the good fight. But certainly even you must acknowledge there is no ‘beyond peculiar’ that they won’t lower themselves to. When you’re in love (or an addict) the bottom can be very deep.
.
We have lurkers here. It’s damaging to people’s understanding of policy to let falsehoods and slanted re-tellings of history and policy outcomes slide.
I’ve got a job which occupies a ton of time, and turning every thread into pure skirmishes is not the atmosphere I want here. It feels worthwhile to fight the fight sometimes, though.
Ah!
I never looked at it from the perspective of lurkers. Yes, they could get the idea the place is loaded with anti-vaccine types, and not bother. I know some old timers don’t bother anymore. I know the anti-vaccine types have effected me, and how I react.
Thanks.
.
Are you saying that anti-vaccine types are strong HRC supporters not grounded in reality?
Read and comprehend…http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/26/5/w608.full From a policy and political perspective, SCHIP offers a small but classic illustration of how competing visions and values are reconciled in law. The legislation was designed to accommodate all sides in the debate over the proper role of legal entitlements, federalism, and markets in U.S. health policy. To satisfy those who oppose legal entitlements for the poor and favor broad state flexibility, the law provides states with an alternative, nonentitlement pathway for insuring a group of children whose coverage already was a state Medicaid option at the time of SCHIP’s enactment.6 Unlike Medicaid, whose status as… Read more »
Good Lord. Yes, you’re sooooo right. This would be a better United States if we didn’t have SCHIP. Hard to respect arguments like the one you forward here. It’s extremely hostile to good faith argumentation, particularly where the claim is smeared with the “neoliberal” classification. Essentially, that boils it down to this: Me: SCHIP has helped and is helping millions and millions of children, almost all from low- and middle-income families. You: SCHIP is flawed legislation created by horrible people who serve the 1%. I mean, come on. That’s weak. All domestic U.S. government policies come from compromise. That’s our… Read more »
No, dear. I claim that it is neoliberal policy to look for those types of public/private solutions. Did you read the Manifesto linked here a week or so back? They are not shy about saying so–they are proud of it.
Here you go….http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/1983/8305_Neoliberalism.pdf
More absolutism.
Most importantly, this is completely unresponsive to the question of whether children and their families in the United States have been helped by SCHIP/CHIP.
Make the case against the law and its policies as they effect real people, if you can.
So you would be fine with privatizing VA and Medicare because OUTCOMES are not important, only the politics are. And I see you do not understand what federalized means.
A poorly-performing program sure does not help show voters that govt can do things properly, does it? I wonder why I bother to link–you don’t bother to read.
“…are so anti-establishmentarian, and so reflexively suspicious of power, that they don’t actually want any for themselves.” As usual, you miss the point of why it is now highly likely we will inaugurate President Trump. There is the entrenched power of the establishment, a truly powerful force and then there is the power of the people whose voice is only effectively expressed by their vote. The power of the vote of the people is the only power the Establishment is truly afraid of. There are two ways to vote. You can vote for something or you can vote against something.… Read more »
You laud Sanders when you say “vote for a way to make the economy of the richest country in the history of the world work for all of us.” Maybe I don’t pay enough attention, but so far all I’ve heard from Sanders are shouted complaints, but no solutions that seem feasible in as divided a country as this. It all seems idealist to me, and as an aging hippie that’s wonderful. But where’s the beef? How would anything at all that he rails against change? Are there steps? Is it overnight? What are the numbers? What alliances need to… Read more »
I can see as a fellow aging hippie where an idealistic vision could seem both wonderful and futile. I felt that way as well until Bernie came onto the scene. We all were surprised including Bernie with how the simple message that we do NOT have to accept the status quo and there is nothing we can’t accomplish if we all stand together can resonate with an overwhelming majority of people under 45, the future of our country and the Democratic Party if the Democratic Party is wise to enough to have a future. Yes, there are steps. No, it… Read more »
I respect what you say. I’m nowhere near schooled enough to give an educated reply. Can’t quote people. But I’ve listened enough to Sanders and I like the ideas, but can’t fall in behind him. He’s a good messenger for what’s wrong, but not much of one for what’s right. So it’s hard to be enthused just on the negatives. And I don’t think he would be a competent or effective president. I’m not enthused about Clinton either. But, as I’ve said here before, there is no person in the country who knows what the job is better than she.… Read more »
Well said, my positions exactly.
.
The needle never moved to the left and it will never move to the left with Hillary for one simple reason, she does not believe in it. FDR famously said to the conservatives in the Democratic Party when they were opposing his choice for Henry Wallace as Vice President; you can’t have it both ways. You simply cannot be the darling of neoliberal Big Money and be progressive at the same time. There are many people who are qualified with executive experience to handle the mechanics of the office of President but very few posses the judgment and leadership skills… Read more »
A bit nihilistic. I imagine there is nothing anyone could say to convince you. If there were, please tell me what it is. My preference is to approach all this by thinking about what right and what has moved us forward, not what’s wrong. I want people/politicians to do more of what’s right, what works. That is always a question of perception and priorities, which are influenced by our prior experiences in life. I’d also add that I hear the conspiracy theories, the stacked deck, the “machine,” from the Sanders campaign and it turns me off. It sounds like sour… Read more »
Thank you for that because now I know who you are, my mistake. I’m sorry I wasted my time.
Maybe you can get that congress critter you know to get you a ticket to President Trump’s inauguration ball.
Well, since anegadagino is willing to work to keep Trump out of the White House, it doesn’t appear that they would be interested in going to Trump’s inauguration. However, since you have explained here your odd “plan” to revive the progressive movement by helping elect Trump to the Presidency, it appears you would be extremely excited to celebrate your “victory”. But sorry, it’s just not in the cards for your boy. There’ll be no President Donald inauguration party in your future. But if you want to go out there and organize your portion of the tens of millions… Read more »
Well centerfielddj, you should be happy now that you’re finally out of your Hillary closet, no longer required to profess your support for Bernie. Maybe you can get anegadagino to contact his congress critter to get you both tickets to President Trump’s inauguration ball. You could go as a couple; maybe even take nalbar and janicket along for the ride. One thing is for certain; you and your newly found friends seem to really bristle when I make any mention whatsoever of a President Trump. If you didn’t want a President Trump, why did you support the nomination of the… Read more »
At this point there’s an advantage to having a % of Bernie or Bust Sanders supporters; if everyone was tossing in their chips right now, from what basis can Sanders negotiate? if this were August, a different matter.
the Warren for prez and Warren for vp position I find completely ridiculous. she never expressed interest in running for prez and is doing a great job in the senate. a whole lot of armchair progressives wanted her to waste the past 14 months on a campaign that didn’t interest her.
the Warren for prez/ vp is just what, in a different time, would be called the cult of personality. I disagree w. Booman that it has anything to do with progressives not wanting power since it’s coming from armchair progressives in the first place
Purists are usually pure idiots, and Jonathan Tasini doesn’t break that mold.
As Democrats we have a rather well known problem with keeping our collective heads in the game after we’ve won the election–to both advocate for the policies we want as well as to keep our elected officials honest. Tasini here rather proudly says no a progressive would want to be on the next President’s cabinet–a position where the chances to directly influence policy abound.
First, Hillary hasn’t offered it and I don’t think she will. Second, VP is generally a dead end and I don’t see either Warren or Sanders triangulating in Hillary-thinking. So progressives need to understand the terrain and try to figure who’s preventing progressives from being chosen by the Democratic Party for various offices. (Hint: It’s not progressives) Clinton is a right-of-center Dem whose foreign policy is identical to PNAC. Her political allies are the 1 %. I don’t see much of substance coming from Hillary. By the way, why was Kissinger getting a lifetime achievement award from Obama? That would… Read more »
From a pragmatic standpoint, why would you expect any give from Sanders supporters before they see what comes out of the convention.
And especially before the last primaries.
Being seen to be cutting deals before the real tally is known depresses GOTV turnout, does it not?
The pressure seems to be toward the Sanders voters getting nothing at all out of a full-throated primary fight. And accepting that nothing at all just because…what? Trump?
guess I’m late to this edition of DFH bashing. Not sure what a “purest progressive” is, but tend to doubt that any political faction doesn’t want power. The questions are always how to get it and how to exercise it. It’s pretty f**king difficult to get any power at all with so many so-called liberal voices continuously calling for progressive to STFU and fold on the mighty alter of pragmatism which is where all good or decent ideas from the left go to die and crap ideas from the right are nourished. Seems to me that so-called progressives that want… Read more »
Google search: “Senator Markey present” to find how many different ways to say “gutless”.
You may name Sen. Ed Markey a progressive by virtue of being from Massachusetts, but he represents all that is rotten with our entrenched and privileged political class.
While all of his senate colleagues somehow muster enough courage to vote “Yes” or “No” as a regular part of their job, he pulls down $181k per year by regularly voting “Present”. Nice work if you can get it.
You don’t even need to do that. He was an Iraq War supporter, too. The choice between him and Lynch wasn’t much of a choice at all. At least in Jersey we had Rush Holt challenging Booker.