Friday, October 14, 2016
Saturday, May 21, 2016
Democrats Can’t Unite Unless Wasserman Schultz Goes
he Rep. Wasserman Schultz played games with the party’s voter database, restricted the number of Democratic candidate debates and scheduled them at days and times to minimize viewership all in favor to Hillary Clinton, who would be the presumptive Democratic nominee, but for Wasserman Schultz. At the height a disingenuousness, she told CNN’s Jake Tapper that super-delegates — almost all of whom are strongly supportive of the structural leadership establishment and overwhelmingly pro-Clinton — are more necessary than ever because the party must rely on currently elected and often high-ranking incumbent officials to ward off those pesky “grassroots activists.”
In Nevada, Wasserman Schultz jumped into a melee concerning what did or did not happen when Sanders supporters loudly and vehemently objected to the arcane and obscure rules at the Nevada State Democratic Convention.
To be fair, some Berniecrats behaved poorly at the convention, while some made aggressively negative and occasionally obscene threats to Nev. Dem state chair Roberta Lange via phone, email and social media. Such conduct cannot be excused and Sanders quickly and directly apologized for the behavior of the raucous and disruptive folks channeling their inner Trump.
However, one must ask why well-behaved Sanders supporters shouldn’t feel angry at the pervasive and clandestine political process by which Wasserman Schultz and the Clinton machine has manipulated the delegate-selection process to benefit of the former Secretary of State (which is an entire and lengthy topic in and of itself).
Wasserman Schultz has gone to great lengths to convince anyone who will listen that the rules over which she has presided and manipulated, are “eminently fair.” By attempting to quell unruly Sanders’s supporters so high-handily, her rhetoric has fallen flat.
A few days later and feelings still raw, the DNC Chair was said to not be, “helping her friend Hillary Clinton with her attacks on Sanders. … Wasserman Schultz’s defiant rebuke to the Sanders camp has made it worse.”
Another related matter at a time when money in politics is a top Democratic Party issue, Wasserman Schultz repealed the Obama-initiated ban on lobbyists and PACs giving money to the party.
In addition, it’s been revealed that a number of the members of the Philadelphia host committee “are actively working to undermine progressive policies achieved by President Barack Obama, including health care reform and net neutrality. Some... are hardly even Democratic Party stalwarts, given that many have donated and raised thousands of dollars for Republican presidential and congressional candidates this cycle.”
This is not just a slap in the face to progressives who have been calling for a halt to big money and allowing lobbyists to buy elected officials, it’s also contrary to what Hillary Clinton herself said about money and politics on the campaign trail.
Unless Rep. Wasserman Schultz steps down now or if Hillary Clinton has her removed, Philadelphia will be dominated by a person who represents everything that’s wrong with the Democratic Party and Washington. At the convention’s opening session, Debbie Wasserman Schultz will be bringing the gavel down squarely on progressive hopes of returning the party to its legacy as champion of working people and the dispossessed.
It’s past time for her to go.
In Nevada, Wasserman Schultz jumped into a melee concerning what did or did not happen when Sanders supporters loudly and vehemently objected to the arcane and obscure rules at the Nevada State Democratic Convention.
To be fair, some Berniecrats behaved poorly at the convention, while some made aggressively negative and occasionally obscene threats to Nev. Dem state chair Roberta Lange via phone, email and social media. Such conduct cannot be excused and Sanders quickly and directly apologized for the behavior of the raucous and disruptive folks channeling their inner Trump.
However, one must ask why well-behaved Sanders supporters shouldn’t feel angry at the pervasive and clandestine political process by which Wasserman Schultz and the Clinton machine has manipulated the delegate-selection process to benefit of the former Secretary of State (which is an entire and lengthy topic in and of itself).
Wasserman Schultz has gone to great lengths to convince anyone who will listen that the rules over which she has presided and manipulated, are “eminently fair.” By attempting to quell unruly Sanders’s supporters so high-handily, her rhetoric has fallen flat.
A few days later and feelings still raw, the DNC Chair was said to not be, “helping her friend Hillary Clinton with her attacks on Sanders. … Wasserman Schultz’s defiant rebuke to the Sanders camp has made it worse.”
Another related matter at a time when money in politics is a top Democratic Party issue, Wasserman Schultz repealed the Obama-initiated ban on lobbyists and PACs giving money to the party.
In addition, it’s been revealed that a number of the members of the Philadelphia host committee “are actively working to undermine progressive policies achieved by President Barack Obama, including health care reform and net neutrality. Some... are hardly even Democratic Party stalwarts, given that many have donated and raised thousands of dollars for Republican presidential and congressional candidates this cycle.”
This is not just a slap in the face to progressives who have been calling for a halt to big money and allowing lobbyists to buy elected officials, it’s also contrary to what Hillary Clinton herself said about money and politics on the campaign trail.
Unless Rep. Wasserman Schultz steps down now or if Hillary Clinton has her removed, Philadelphia will be dominated by a person who represents everything that’s wrong with the Democratic Party and Washington. At the convention’s opening session, Debbie Wasserman Schultz will be bringing the gavel down squarely on progressive hopes of returning the party to its legacy as champion of working people and the dispossessed.
It’s past time for her to go.
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Bernie Sanders lost four state primaries this past Tuesday and even a good showing in California won’t provide him with the number of delegates he needs to compete for the Democratic presidential nomination. It’s a fact, not an opinion.
In addition, the Bernie supporters calling, emailing, etc. of super-delegates essentially stalking and harassing them is doing the opposite of what’s necessary to make an argument that he deserves certain concessions from HRC. All arguments against super-delegates and an unfair process are specious, as the rules were in in place when Sanders entered the race. He and his advisors knew exactly how things stood.
However, regardless of the protestation by Hillary a some of her campaign staff that it’s “not fair” to defer to Sanders flies in the face of the Democratic nominating process, not to mention that of the 8,967,401 voters who cast their ballots for him to date. Any argument based on the outcome and aftermath of the 2008 campaign are misleading. Besides, Mrs. Clinton will not get the votes she needs to win in the general election without the support of Sanders’ voters.
In 2008, Obama and Clinton agreed upon practically everything except Hillary's vote for the Iraq War, whether health care reform should include an individual mandate, and a few other issues. Both candidates were moderately progressive, which was best evidenced when Obama included Clinton's individual mandate in Obamacare and made her his Secretary of State.
This primary season is quite different. It has been marked by “yuuuge” and substantive disagreements on a wide range of issues from single payer health care for all, breaking up the big banks with whom HRC is closely aligned, paid leave, free state college tuition, additional funding for Social Security and a new national infrastructure program.
Sanders has advocated for an entirely different political ideology that seems to baffle and annoy the former Senator and her friends at the DNC. As foreign as it might seem to establishment Democrats, Bernie really means it when he calls for a political revolution.
Sander’s message fits the political moment. He is advocating ideas that have worked well against long odds, particularly among young people. And, his ability to raise millions from small donors is unprecedented.
To put this race in 1992 Bill Clinton terms, Bernie is about change, while Hillary is more of the same. Hillary Clinton is a status quo politician, content with holding the line against Republican advances and maybe fiddling around the policy margins here and there.
There's no reason for Sanders voters to believe that she is interested in their priorities.
While Obama’s 2008 coalition was primarily minorities and young people, the major demographic split this year is age. Clinton has African Americans by a substantial margin, but quite a bit less among Latinos and virtually shut out by young people. She needs Sanders’ young, passionate and somewhat idealistic voters to not only vote for her, but also vote for her in large numbers in order to deliver a mandate for change, flip at least the senate and make gains in the house.
The politically strategic and intelligent thing to do is for Clinton to make concessions to Sanders, despite the obvious acrimony that has grown between the two and their camps. It’s good politics for Clinton to make a few notable policy concessions to show Sanders and his supporters at least a modicum of good faith.
If Mrs. Clinton wants support from the left, she must first show that she’s not stridently opposed to the Senator’s ideas and concerns. She can do so by signing on to a few big Sanders ideas such as infrastructure, free college, or even a strong public option for Obamacare.
In turn, Sanders should take the wise and appropriate political path and confer his endorsement on HRC, especially since it’s highly unlikely that any of the policies for which Sanders has fought will even see a vote in the near future
In addition, the Bernie supporters calling, emailing, etc. of super-delegates essentially stalking and harassing them is doing the opposite of what’s necessary to make an argument that he deserves certain concessions from HRC. All arguments against super-delegates and an unfair process are specious, as the rules were in in place when Sanders entered the race. He and his advisors knew exactly how things stood.
However, regardless of the protestation by Hillary a some of her campaign staff that it’s “not fair” to defer to Sanders flies in the face of the Democratic nominating process, not to mention that of the 8,967,401 voters who cast their ballots for him to date. Any argument based on the outcome and aftermath of the 2008 campaign are misleading. Besides, Mrs. Clinton will not get the votes she needs to win in the general election without the support of Sanders’ voters.
In 2008, Obama and Clinton agreed upon practically everything except Hillary's vote for the Iraq War, whether health care reform should include an individual mandate, and a few other issues. Both candidates were moderately progressive, which was best evidenced when Obama included Clinton's individual mandate in Obamacare and made her his Secretary of State.
This primary season is quite different. It has been marked by “yuuuge” and substantive disagreements on a wide range of issues from single payer health care for all, breaking up the big banks with whom HRC is closely aligned, paid leave, free state college tuition, additional funding for Social Security and a new national infrastructure program.
Sanders has advocated for an entirely different political ideology that seems to baffle and annoy the former Senator and her friends at the DNC. As foreign as it might seem to establishment Democrats, Bernie really means it when he calls for a political revolution.
Sander’s message fits the political moment. He is advocating ideas that have worked well against long odds, particularly among young people. And, his ability to raise millions from small donors is unprecedented.
To put this race in 1992 Bill Clinton terms, Bernie is about change, while Hillary is more of the same. Hillary Clinton is a status quo politician, content with holding the line against Republican advances and maybe fiddling around the policy margins here and there.
There's no reason for Sanders voters to believe that she is interested in their priorities.
While Obama’s 2008 coalition was primarily minorities and young people, the major demographic split this year is age. Clinton has African Americans by a substantial margin, but quite a bit less among Latinos and virtually shut out by young people. She needs Sanders’ young, passionate and somewhat idealistic voters to not only vote for her, but also vote for her in large numbers in order to deliver a mandate for change, flip at least the senate and make gains in the house.
The politically strategic and intelligent thing to do is for Clinton to make concessions to Sanders, despite the obvious acrimony that has grown between the two and their camps. It’s good politics for Clinton to make a few notable policy concessions to show Sanders and his supporters at least a modicum of good faith.
If Mrs. Clinton wants support from the left, she must first show that she’s not stridently opposed to the Senator’s ideas and concerns. She can do so by signing on to a few big Sanders ideas such as infrastructure, free college, or even a strong public option for Obamacare.
In turn, Sanders should take the wise and appropriate political path and confer his endorsement on HRC, especially since it’s highly unlikely that any of the policies for which Sanders has fought will even see a vote in the near future
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)