Amber Phillips, writing for the Washington Post’s The Fix, identifies four reasons why Bernie Sanders didn’t endorse Hillary Clinton before today. These can be summarized as: some combination of vanity and a desire to stay relevant, to appease his diehard fans, because he was pissed off, and because he wanted to use his leverage to get some concessions from the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton.
I can’t really get inside the head of Bernie Sanders and determine how angry he has been or how much he wanted to create some simmer down time for his revolutionaries, but it seems to me that only the last consideration (above) really matters. I know people were getting impatient for Sanders to endorse, but I don’t see why he would go to the trouble to run a long campaign and then concede at the first opportunity without maximizing his leverage.
It seems to me like he did the rational thing, and the least that his supporters had the right to expect. And it worked pretty well, as far as I can tell.
By withholding his endorsement — and the progressive cred that comes with it — Sanders theoretically had leverage to exact actual policy changes from Clinton.
He did. Democrats met this weekend in Orlando to piece together their party platform for November. The result was newsworthy: “The Democratic Party shifted further to the left in one election than perhaps since 1972,” wrote my colleague David Weigel, “embracing once-unthinkable stances on carbon pricing, police reform, abortion rights, the minimum wage and the war on drugs.”
Sanders was not able to get Democrats on record opposing President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal. But he did get the party to support a $15 an hour minimum wage, carbon pricing, more regulation on fracking (Sanders wants to ban it), a pathway to legalizing marijuana and Clinton to support a public option for health care.
The Sanders camp got “at least 80 percent” of what they wanted, Sanders’s policy director Warren Gunnells told reporters. “I think if you read the platform right now, you will understand that the political revolution is alive and kicking.”
Sanders didn’t win everything (including the biggest thing.) But he did win far more than anyone — including himself — ever thought he would.
People can quibble about how much of this was a result of Sanders and his supporters and how much would have come out of Clinton’s camp without any pressure, but I think it’s fair to say that the platform bears the stamp of the Clinton/Sanders campaign. I don’t think that this was inevitable.
It’s true that the platform is non-binding and therefore that this victory is of limited utility, but moving a political party in an ideological direction takes time and establishing markers in the platform is one way of demonstrating that there’s a consensus for your priorities.
In any case, there isn’t much else a losing candidate can extract unless they can force themselves onto the ticket or secure some cabinet position(s) for their political allies.
For many people on the left it is an article of faith that Hillary Clinton is a neoliberal who is eager ease up on the banks, outsource the rest of our jobs, privatize everything that’s not tied down, and bargain away everyone’s retirement security. There isn’t much in the platform to support those impressions. It’s true that it’s the most left-leaning platform in memory, and I don’t see much discomfort about it among the Clintonistas I’ve been observing.
I’m pretty sure that Bernie Sanders will make this same point today in New Hampshire when he finally endorses Clinton and spells out the reasons why he believes she should be our next president.
Talk is cheap. From Hillary Clinton, it’s dirt cheap.
On the one hand, we have some scattered lefty noises that she’s made while in direct competition with a primary challenger. On the other, we have the decades of Nixon-Republican positions, paranoia included, that she’s taken when the rubber hit the road.
You tell me what we should expect from her administration.
Yes, by her works we will know her.
Expect her to do what she promised as well as she can, just like her husband did in the 90s.
they’re out to get you doesn’t make you paranoid — maybe they really are!”
The Clintons are the poster children for that old saw. For them to NOT experience the self-protective defensiveness that you mis-label (imo) “paranoia” would be the symptom of mental illness, i.e., it would show a disconnect from Reality.
Because it’s now established (by the confessions of several of the perps) historical fact that the VRWC[TM]* was completely real, not some paranoid figment of Hillary’s imagination.
It did occur to me (anew) as I decided to write this that at least ONE reason age may make a fairly good** discriminant function (among “The Left” anyway) for differentiating Bernie supporters from Hillary supporters is that it captures whether one lived through, with awareness, The Hunting of the President by the Fools for Scandal.
We who did (and paid attention) understand very well that the decades-long m.o. of the (ongoing!) VRWC is to throw any and every accusation, glob of mud, and piece of shit that’s within reach at the Clinton “wall” and hope enough of it sticks to hamstring first Bill, and now Hillary.
Having lived through all that and understanding the Reality of it, our bar for standard-of-proof of any newly-alleged, ginned-up Clinton “scandal” is now set quite high indeed.
(Preempting [or attempting to, though recent experience suggests this will likely fail] vituperation from poor readers: there’s no implication in any of that that either all lefty Olds will perceive this as I do [Marie comes immediately to mind as one likely to differ on at least some of it]; nor that either Clinton is [or “all Clintons are” — don’t wanna exclude any Chelsea-bashers!] above reproach; oh, no, far from it. Her shortcomings (as I perceive them) in combination with my policy preferences are why I supported and voted for Bernie.)
*Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, for the youngsters
**but only “fairly” good: I, for example, as an Old for Bernie, would (along with many others) be wrongly classified by that function
I went through nearly the same argument with the 24 year old member of my household, who used to obsessively watch or listen to one Sanders speech after another. (He was unimpressed when I pointed out that there was practically no difference between these stump speeches. I guess watching/listening just made him feel some sense of connection with the candidate and the audience.) I noted the difference in our ages, that I’d lived through the scandal-mongering and craziness of the 1990s, and that I viewed claims about Hillary Clinton in that perspective. After my young friend told me several weeks ago that Hillary Clinton was a criminal–with a segue into “and 9-11 was an inside job”–I decided we had plenty of things to talk about other than politics.
Heh.
I was at one of my hobby events and a republican started on the indictment for emails meme and I said the same thing. ‘Don’t we have plenty of other things we can talk about?’
.
I don’t see much discomfort about it among the Clintonistas I’ve been observing.
The ones I’ve been observing are so desperate to deny Sanders any credit that they’re denying that the platform means anything.
Yeah, I’ve seen some of that, too. Weird.
Good for Hillary.
Good for us.
OT somewhat. But confirmation…
July 11, 2016
United States Health Care Reform Progress to Date and Next Steps
Barack Obama, JD1
I am proud of the policy changes in the ACA and the progress that has been made toward a more affordable, high-quality, and accessible health care system. Despite this progress, too many Americans still strain to pay for their physician visits and prescriptions, cover their deductibles, or pay their monthly insurance bills; struggle to navigate a complex, sometimes bewildering system; and remain uninsured. More work to reform the health care system is necessary, with some suggestions offered below.
Imagine that. Obama and Hillary are looking to improve Obamacare. And the minimum wage and ….. Good job Bernie.
Sorry. Here si the link…http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2533698
It was a calculated use of all the leverage he has at the moment. And it is still going on.
The much ballyhooed endorsement has not happened yet and might not happen until the introduction for the Presidential acceptance speech at the convention–if it happens then.
“When will Sanders endorse?” could be what draws people to watch the Democratic National Convention. The longer Sanders waits, the larger number of Sanders voters can be brought to vote for downticket races of Berniecrats and the more political positions will shift to attract that Berniecrat margin.
The fact that the media have ensured that Trump has not destroyed his chances despite Trump’s best efforts makes Sanders voters more important to the Clinton campaign. That is reflected in their frustration about the endorsement and the continued framing of it as personal pique.
That conflict is the healthy metabolism of a two-winged party just so long as it doesn’t descend into personal vindictive. Sanders has been clear that it is Clinton’s policies that are most at issue. Too many Clinton defenders have said that for Sanders it is his personality–thus the first three items in the above list.
Clinton has not known how to handle Sanders. The GOP will not know how to handle a two-winged party with an actual political, as opposed to marketing strategy, although the marketing side will still be overemphasized. A political strategy sees winning as a means to a political objective, not an end in itself.
Sanders is endorsing her right now, live, and with no holding back.
“Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding President, and I am proud to endorse her.”
Finishing line of a barnburner endorsement speech.
And that was a political calculation as well. To gain power within the current coalition, Sanders must deliver as many of his voters as possible. Too close an alignment with Clinton sheds voters in Sanders’s constituency unless it delivers the probability of real policy realignments after inauguration. That means negotiating for some inside institutional power for Sanders and the Berniecrats who get elected. It also means a platform that doesn’t intentionally split the coalition to punish Sanders for running a competitive primary campaign. Sanders judges that slow-walking endorsement has delivered as much as it can.
Next up is the maneuvering at the convention with the Sanders delegations on the floor. Walking the line between obstructionism and letting the public know what’s in the decisions that the convention is making.
Key thing to watch IMO is the fate of the TPP plank. The excuse that they don’t want to embarrass President Obama reinforces the idea that Obama sincerely wants this dog that the Bush administration dropped on him. Given that Trump is the opponent, it puts a unexpected spin on this if the convention opposes its approval. That means that Obama has the perfect excuse to withdraw the bill and put the TPP out of its misery, which would relieve the European Union who is not all that happy with the TTIP and other agreements at the moment.
And another item that Obama was reported to support but has an unfortunate demise. Grand bargain, what else? Win-win.
Here’s hoping Obama dumps the TPP. If he signs it the next congress will have to wrestle with it. It appears to me there are supporters on both sides of the aisle.
It was a great speech today by Bernie and it seemed a full throated endorsement. Hillary supports the increase in the min wage but I still haven’t heard her say $15 an hour. Maybe I missed it. I hope.
What? You mean Bernie Sanders has acted in a way consistent with being a…a…a politician? The horror! The horror!
No, I mean he doesn’t hate on Hillary Clinton or have a senile affliction that makes him generally grumpy or…
He horse trades. Intensely. And he is much better at it than most Congressional Democrats. He has to be in order to have power as an independent.
Yes. Like any true politician (Sanders in a way is not quite a true politician), Clinton is capable of being a lot of somewhat different people, depending on what the audience is ready for or wants. Sanders has done a terrific job toward getting her to be the best one she can be.
You left out the bombing of Iran…
And the cherry on top: war with Russia.
Ouch, Bernie Sanders never gave much attention to those matters. He is right in the groove with the Washington foreign policy consensus. Domestically he is way out in front of Hillary Clinton, internationally he walks nearly in lockstep. I emphasize NEARlY.
And you left out going to war with Russia.
Here’s hoping she does not declare a no fly zone in Syria and then shoot down a Russian plane or some other stupidity.
as has been discussed Obama/ Kerry will try to wrap things up to the degree possible – news today about retaking Mosul from ISIS. whatever gets settled in Syria one can expect to involve agreements re: Ukraine. hopefully restricting war options going forward. I’m curious now to see the degree that Obama will hem in Clinton pushing her more towards Sanders agenda – for example his statement in favor of public option, how many other such instances will be forthcoming. [fracking, climate change, carbon …?]
“… how much would have come out of Clinton’s camp without any pressure … “
Yeah, right.
In campaigning for Hillary ( = against Trump), Bernie will pretty much continue his campaign, which has always been about the issues, reinventing the Democratic Party, and getting his supporters to the polls.
Sounds good to me.
Yep, Trump is the prince 1% in peasant clothing conning in the villages.
He did not conduct a retail political campaign because he didn’t want people being revolted by the weirdness of Donald Trump in their Iowa or New Hampshire kitchens.
Was it their weirdness or his weirdness in being without privilege?
Here’s hoping he can help with congress.
This Clinton supporter gives Bernie good credit for the additions/changes to the platform. I don’t think they’re things Clinton would ever object to anyhow, but her MO is to be more incremental. The language in a platform is, as Bernie’s campaign was, aspirational. Once president someone has to choose priorities. Where will the political capital go? That’s more important than what’s in the platform. But it is certainly a statement of Democratic Party ideals and could/should inspire those who have been sold on either “both parties or the same” or “the Democratic Party is corrupt.”
Unlike previous platform concessions, where the elected candidate could ignore them, Sanders is in a position to put some muscle behind platform proposals. Especially if he can form or help create a “progressive” caucus with like minded members (Warren, etc…) They could hold any Clinton Admin feet to the fire in the Senate and make deals for passage of Hillary’s legislation. And as a current member of the Environment and Public Works; Energy and Natural Resources; Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; Budget; Veterans’ Affairs; Joint Economic Committees Sanders can introduce legislation toward the issues he has highlighted and promote them publically. If he can get a good portion of his supports on board with HRC, he could argue convincingly that it was the Platform elements that brought them to the polling booth.
In that regard, his extended campaign was worthwhile.
As a Democrat, I really resented various so called “Progressive” sites and blogs telling everyone that, “Sanders had no chance, that primaries and caucuses in Calif and other places were a waste of time, you are just feeding the GOP propaganda machine, etc….” Why an self identifying Democrat would say that voting your preference and voicing your opinion is detrimental to the Party and election is beyond me. Hell, if they want people to just shut up and follow orders sent down by your betters, join the Republican Party.
Ridge
It’s not that Sanders campaign was a waste of time. The issues were fine. It was the personal attacks from supporters that were the problem. Hitlery, Shillery, Celery. Corrupt, rigged, etc. The hate didn’t help much and now has to be walked back and overcome.
They certainly weren’t alone in disparaging their opponent. Lots of negative things were slammed at Sanders. I will say that if it weren’t for Trump, there would be an avalanche of Anti-Clinton press releases from GOP related groups. And the majority of the Democratic Party must like that stuff because its no secret that’s what they signed up for when she was nominated.
R
I certainly don’t remember too many coming from the Hillary camp. Maybe it’s old-timers disease.
Google “anti Sanders rhetoric Clinton camp”
here is one example from April-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/the-democrats-10-point-plan-lose-election_b_9605608.html
Its so funny seeing people worrying about the negative, sometimes childishly insulting remarks thrown at the Cllntons. As if they can’t manage matters for themselves and is if they never did it themselves. Clinton supporters can now learn that they overestimate her concern and love for them. In fact they’re tools.
All the Clinton “team” are hyper defensive as to criticism. Gun shy from 30 years of attacks. But politics ain’t bean bag and one of the promoted strengths for HRC was her ability to handle attacks from GOP. If the mild brush backs from the Sanders camp cause such consternation, its a good thing Trump is sucking up all the air in the political room or there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth over the GOP press releases on Hillary.
R
But no need to go as far afield as RidgeCook’s google link.
Examples readily available much closer to “home”.
Or maybe your definition of “camp” excludes folks commenting here?
You can find those words on a few sites. I think those people are not all Bernie people but those who just like to hate Hillary. As we know she has a high unfavorable rating so it doesn’t take much. And, if I may say so, she has taken positions that are not always on the left. I continue to worry about her commitment to progressive values. Now though we need to move forward.
I agree and have questioned her sincerity as to progressive positions. In fact, I consider her a Rockefeller Republican in many instances. That is why pressure from Sanders and a Senate bloc is critical to make sure her Admin follows through on her campaign promises.
R
How much will Bernie’s formal endorsement actually help Hillary in the polls, both now and in November?
Is most of Bernie’s support already in Hillary’s current polling figures, or will this add a significant additional tranche to her support base?
She currently leads Bernie by about 5 points. Will this become 6,7,8 or 9 points now, or will it make no difference?
Given that the email server issue was probably her worst vulnerability, and that seems to have peaked at this stage, will she rise in the polls from now on in any case – barring new scandals?
It should provide a bump, I’d think. And then the convention will provide another. And if Trump continues being a jerk, that’ll help too. How much? Who knows. The country is pretty evenly divided and a few points is millions of voter, as you know, the astute observer that you are!
Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the USA! No doubt about that. Let’s hope she reads the Chilcot report before she goes into any kind of military cha-cha. May the TTP drop dead in its tracks, the TIPP too.
Somehow I think we will hear more about those e mails and her server. There are already several memes floating around my FB page, but then perhaps I have too many conservative friends and family.
Yea, but it’s all old news now… or is it?
Clinton is the Democratic Party Presidential Candidate for sure. Will she satisfy every Democratic Party member, NO. No one can. There is one very important issue that a large majority of complainers seem to conveniently forget. We have the choice between Hillary Clinton or a NARCISSIST Trump which one do you feel would be better for the country?
Please note I did not ask which one do you feel would give you all that you desire. This is politics not wishes, in politics you never get all that you want, never have in the past and never will in the future. Some will cry but, that means I have to settle or choose the lesser of two evils. Yes, you will find that in life one may have to do either one of those options more then you ever thought you would have to.
Has anyone been watching this memorial in Dallas? Obama’s still got it.
crosstown on an errand.
Thought what I heard very, very good.
Probably something he has thought long and hard about and tried to figure out a way to get through the media partisanizing everything he says and does.
even if, as I suspect, it didn’t exist until you just invented it!
hearing (NPR again) the “analysis” that followed the speech how restrained (as in mostly absent) the partisanizing was and how genuinely impressed those commentators seemed. If O managed to penetrate even their horserace-obsession shields, maybe there’s at least some faint hope that he got through to some others (who needed getting through to).
Most importantly, he got her to give some lip service to a modernized Glass-Steagall replacement.
One angle missing in the discussion is the major progressive failure on the platform fight–Israel/Palestine. It proved impossible to put the word “occupation” into the platform, likewise the observation that “settlements are illegal,” although both are matters of plain fact. Ridiculous arguments about such language hampering the ability of a president to negotiate were advanced, as if the platform were suddenly a binding document with all the relevance in the world.
It makes you wonder. Some words matter, some don’t, it’s hardly the first time. Is this another case of, tail to dog: wag? At the least it seems like a strong sign that skepticism re platform language is warranted. Would progressives welcome a social-econ Scandinavia in the US at the cost of apartheid in Israel, even if the funds were suddenly there to pay for it? Among the many immortal words to come out of Philadelphia: money talks in this town, and BS walks.
You first have to return US politics to “matters of fact”. Any hints how to do that? The US population never has seen Israel as a settler colonialist nation engaged in occupation of another nation. That is likely because it is the last of the settler colonialist nations to be legitimized in the international system before the massive grants of independence in the late 1950s and early 1960s.
Both Rhodesia/Zimbabwe and South Africa underwent transformations without major changes in US public opinion. As a settler colonial nation, the US has affection (and a blind spot for the human rights abuses) of other settler colonialist nations.
The Democratic Party reflects that.
A statement otherwise would have been dramatic news.
The US population has never seen a lot of things, particularly when they were obscured by a massive ink-fog of propaganda. But this sort of see-no-evil isn’t permanent and better vision does get through, if only imperfectly and gradually.
No changes in US public opinion on Zimbabwe or South Africa leading up to the transformations in those countries? At least in regard to the latter something had occurred to enable Congress to pass the Anti-Apartheid Act in 1986, which Reagan vetoed, only to see the veto overridden the next day. It seems safe to say that years of activism on campuses, in churches, civic organizations, unions, and professional and athletic associations was evidence of a public change of opinion. For an uncanny but unsurprising echo of the dem platform on Israel, see Reagan’s veto comments on the Anti-Apartheid act. “Of course we all oppose apartheid, but the best way to . . . yada yada yada.”
Meanwhile it was only in the ’80’s, which is like an hour or so ago in historical time, that partial access to Israeli govt/military archives was opened, and only in 1988 that Benny Morris published The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem–basically the first inkling in the mainstream mind that something like the Nakba did in fact take place, and before which the whole settler-colonialist meme was not even off the ground.
So, how to get the facts into US politics? Do the research, spread the word, and add your own push to the arc of history, long but bending toward justice.
Looks like millions of otherwise probably Democratic voters are still waiting. The thing Hillary and her camp continue to get wrong is that it’s not about Sanders endorsing Hillary (as he has dutifully, even exuberantly, done) as it’s Hillary needs to return the favor and endorse Sanders (with as much authenticity as she can muster and starting now). Her numbers are, for all practical purposes, in the toilet right now. There’s no excuse for it and that’s a shame. Ask me, I’ll tell you, she’s as bad running against Trump as she was against Sanders. That’s gotta change, though I don’t see that she’s got it in her. Meanwhile, she’s blowing what otherwise would be the best election of all time for the Democratic Party. They deserve it surely since they’re so messed up, but how they can be messing it up so horribly, unfathomably, badly escapes me.
I had a dream last night. In it, I met a sparkling, bejewelled version of Hillary Clinton, Democratic nominee for President at a cocktail party (or something). I asked her what she was going to do to help all of us that got screwed in the financial meltdown of 2007-08 to recover the tens of thousands of dollars we lost. She answered back, with a chipper smile on her face, quite sincerely: what would you like me to do? And in that moment, in the dream, I thought, what a great non-answer. She really cares what I think she should do. She’s so gracious and concerned and she wants to hear what everybody thinks. How…cool.
But she didn’t answer the question. Neither here nor there. It’s a big problem and it’s killing her now and after nine months of the ‘intense unpleasantness’ of the primary season, it remains clear she hasn’t a clue what to answer to win a decisive victory, the decisive victory that should be a piece of cake for her to win. She’s so clear that she knows how to answer that it never occurs to her that it’s what she answers that matters. And I just don’t get it. She’s running for president as the first female and she could win big. How is she fucking this up so badly?
on your attention to politics for a while.
Or at least, that would be my conclusion for myself the first time Hillary showed up in my dreams.
YMMV, of course.