Regarding "Snow White" Bernie Sanders

[Tom Rinaldo]

It's been well over a year since I wrote an OP with Bernie Sanders as the subject. I held back expressing these thoughts previously because I believed the focus of center left activists needed to remain on the critical 2018 election, but we have unofficially entered primary season now with the midterms behind us.

Bernie is not who I am currently leaning toward for the 2020 Democratic nomination, there are several others who I am looking at closely instead. I get that there are things about Bernie subject to legitimate debate (he is in no way unique in that regard.) Some people who share the same goals as I do would only support Sanders as a last resort; e.g. if he won the Democratic nomination and was up against Trump in the General. Some hold that position passionately. All fair enough, especially now that the midterms are over. But I find a certain well honed narrative to be disturbing, and frankly it's disappointing. It involves the subject line of this OP.

Personally I try hard to let go of my accumulated negative feelings after a competitive primary contest. Good thing, I always seem to end up on the losing side. I was for Wes Clark in 2004 and i had to make an, um, "adjustment" to get behind John Edwards as our VP candidate that year. In 2008 I was a major backer of Hillary Clinton on DU. Things got pretty heated here, but like most Clinton supporters I fell in behind Obama as our nominee. In 2016 I supported Bernie and then of course backed Hillary in the General.

In all of those cases I thought the eventual nominee had certain weaknesses, but i knew the person who I was behind had some of their own too. Maybe it will surprise some here to know that I see some weakness in Bernie Sanders when it comes to race dynamics in America. His natural ideological center of gravity seems to skew toward old school Social Democratic critiques of America, which in my opinion tend to be right as far as they go. The thing is, with a world view forged through fighting economic injustice, other well springs of oppression can sometimes be "underappreciated" for the role they play. But I have never doubted that Sanders stands on the side of the oppressed in America, even when his analysis of of the dynamics underlying some forms of oppression can arguably be called incomplete or even, in the eyes of some, misguided.

It is rare (but not unheard of) for Bernie Sanders to be accused of racism on DU - such posts get alerted on and rather quickly removed. Those who might be tempted to make that type of accusation are usually at least subtle enough to employ the standard ploy of guilt by association. A significant portion of the white working class supported Bernie over Hillary in the 2016 primaries, this is true. And a significant number of those voters then chose Trump over Hillary in the General, also true. No doubt racism was one of the factors at play in this. I remember back in 2008 when Hillary was proud (why shouldn't she have been?) to win the West Virginia primary over Barack Obama. A significant percentage of her West Virginia primary voters went on to reject Obama in the General, but of course Hillary never courted those primary votes on the basis of race. We can debate what percentage of white Americans are racist. Some of that answer depends on when one feels the full brunt of that accusation is justified. I feel safe though in believing that most white Americans harbor at least some racial prejudices.

A case can be made, and I have seen that case persuasively argued here on DU, that Bernie Sanders is not sufficiently in touch with the unique pernicious qualities of racism in America today, and how it must be directly identified and combated. For those who feel this strongly, that is ample reason alone to conclude that Bernie Sanders should be passed over for President in favor of one or more other candidates with an innately different perspective on the role race plays in America. I can fully respect anyone who sincerely believes that.

What I find disturbing is the non stop, almost in the background, stream of "revelations" of this or that instance in which Bernie Sanders, and Bernie Sanders alone, gets accused of some aspect of racial insensitivity or racial arrogance. It almost constitutes an equivalent to the legal concept of selective enforcement. While I have seen some here argue the merits of Democrats selecting a person of color as our 2020 presidential nominee (and I do recognize some merit in that position) none of our other potential white presidential candidates face the same type of constant negative scrutiny on matters of race as does Bernie Sanders. Arguably one can assert that this or that white potential nominee is better equipped to fight racial injustice than is Bernie Sanders. Fine, but that's not it. No other white presidential candidate gets examined on those grounds a tenth as much as does Bernie Sanders.

It wouldn't be so disturbing if Sanders had little or no track record on civil rights and racial justice, but he does. And I don't just mean in his college days when he got arrested at a civil rights protest etc. Sander's has been in Congress a long time, and he has a voting record. He has for many years consistently scored extremely high in rankings on such issues. One can argue that he hasn't been, or wouldn't be, a strong leading force against racism, but there is no doubt that Sanders has always firmly opposed racism and that, should he ever become President, his signature, just like his votes before, would end up in the right place.

Some can argue that Sanders is set in his "economic theory of oppression" ways. I think to an extent that's true, and like I wrote before, that can form the basis for not supporting Sanders in a primary. But even way up north in lily white Vermont, Bernie Sanders was one of a tiny handful of elected white office holders nation wide to endorse Jessie Jackson when he ran for President. And when he ran for President himself, Sanders got raked over the coals by Donald Trump and the national media for stepping away from the podium and handing over his microphone to a Black Lives Matter activist who interrupted his campaign rally.

If minority voters in America look at Bernie Sanders and decide that someone else would better represent their interests as President than he could, all fair and good. That's what, by and large, happened in 2016 and it may well happen again in 2020 if Bernie chooses to try again. It's one of the criteria that i care about in a candidate also. Racism must be tackled head on and destroyed. On this and many other issues Sanders should be questioned. But Bernie Sanders does not represent white privileged in America, and a casual reader of this forum could sometimes be forgiven for mistakenly getting the impression that he does.

[elleng]

1. Thanks, Tom.

[Adrahil]

2. I don't think Sanders is racist.... I think he is oblivious.

Last edited Wed Jan 30, 2019, 04:32 PM - Edit history (1)

I thin he CARES about racial issues, it's just that I don't think he thinks that "identity" politics is a legitimate approach. He is convinced that a holistic, socialist approach to income and wealth inequality will largely solve racism and sexism. I do not agree with him.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. I have no problem with those who share your view

P.S. On Edit: I'm not saying that I agree that Bernie is "oblivious", I don't go that far, but i do respect that some can have that opinion for sincere reasons.

[trixie2]

8. I agree he is oblivious

He also needs to be realistic. Do I want free education? Yes I do. Do I think that is realistic in the present future? No I don't. We have so many problems and I would like to see government healthcare first. I would like to see, on the sociological side, a country free of discrimination first. Only those who live this idea can achieve changing others. That is why oblivious is a great word for Sanders.

My 10 year old niece said, "Don't worry the dinosaurs will die out and we are coming up".

[McKim]

59. Being "Realistic" Is Like Being a Battered Wife

Being “realistic” is like being a battered wife. Don’t stand up for what you really want after decades of right wing bullying of the best ideas of The Left, ask for a few crumbs instead, that will not sound scary to the top 1%. Please! You have to ask for what you really want in this world, not some watered down version of what the brain washed public will accept. Yes, let’s be realistic about asking for free college! We can certainly afford it after squandering trillions on Iraq!

[trixie2]

67. I stand by my realistic views

All the best deals have been made 1 item at time. Clinton got healthcare for children. Obama got healthcare for all and it was destroyed by Trump.

I prefer not to live in a pie in the sky world. Get what we can achieve and more if able.

I would love to see our country reverse this horrible discrimination we have been saddled with. This ideal is more in line with your metaphor of "like being a battered wife". In fact I take offense to your metaphor. It would seem to be that a battered wife is one because she didn't stand up. Perhaps poor choice of words?

[honest.abe]

10. Yes, I think Bernie and his followers like a simplistic, one-size-fits-all solution.

Somehow that is cleaner and more satisfying to them like a "Grand Unifying Theory" of society's ills. Mixing solutions to economic injustice and racial injustice is just too messy for them... but unfortunately life is messy.

[progressoid]

18. Heh.

You just said Bernie and his followers like a simplistic, one-size-fits-all solution whilst employing a simplistic, one-size-fits-all definition of Bernie and his followers.

[honest.abe]

20. In the case of Bernie I believe its correct.

In the case of his followers, for sure not all should be defined that way. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[NurseJackie]

17. That's a very astute observation and analysis.

Even if someone's flaws do not come from a place of malice, it doesn't mean that it should be overlooked and excused. It's not reason enough to want to seek out the BEST candidate. That's my opinion and I'll say no more for obvious reasons.

[pnwmom]

4. Bernie shot himself in the foot, recently, and probably doesn't even realize it.

He complained about how some progressives support women or minorities only because they are women or a minority, and not based on the issues. That is deeply insulting and he just doesn't get it. (He said something similar about Hillary in 2016 -- that she was asking people to "vote for me, I'm a woman."

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Some (hopefully small) percentage of people primarily vote for someone they can "relate to"...

... and for some of those individuals it might be something relatively "tribal", like same ethnic background, religion, or whatever. And that too can easily be justified as one relevant factor in a choice. It is one aspect of being "represented". But I agree with you that his comment didn't help him, because there was a not necessarily intentional implication that no other thought goes into the choice, and that aspects like "issues" are not even considered. I get that that is insulting.

[progressoid]

27. It might be insulting.

But that doesn't mean it isn't true. There are always people (of any political inclination) who vote based on their preferred gender, religion, race etc.

All politicians know this. Bernie just made the mistake of saying it out loud.

[pnwmom]

28. It might be very, very, rarely true. But when he claimed in the debate that Hillary was saying

"Vote for me,, I'm a woman," he was insulting HER and all the millions of people who thought she was the better candidate for many reasons. Mr. So Pure couldn't accept that some people might prefer her positions on issues, so he had to blame it on her gender.

But the saddest part is he STILL hasn't gotten over it in 2018. He's STILL worried that he's disadvantaged because he's a white male. What a CROCK. He is oblivious to the thought that it was just as likely, if not more, that HE attracted some of his followers because they couldn't stand the idea of voting for a woman.

[progressoid]

41. Blaming voting on gender isn't limited to him.

Let's look at what Hillary said about that subject:

I think it's much more difficult to unpack all of this, and with respect specifically to young women, I do think that for a lot of young women, gender is just not the motivating force that maybe it will be in the future. But then it wasn't. The same way that being African-American was really motivating and exhilarating for black voters.

and I'm talking principally about white women — they will be under tremendous pressure from fathers and husbands and boyfriends and male employers not to vote for "the girl."

So she's saying she had expected young women to vote for her because she's a woman. Ya know, the way Black people voted for Obama apparently. And white women didn't vote for her because of the oppressive males in their lives.
Now, is she insulting them? Is she blaming it on gender? Or is she just stating an opinion? Maybe all three.


My personal favorite is when Gloria Steinem said that young women voted for Bernie, “because that’s where the boys are.”

[pnwmom]

55. Hillary isn't running. But when she was, she never claimed that race was the only factor

that African American voters considered. And she never said that Obama said: Vote for me, I'm black.

She said she was afraid that some husbands and other males might pressure women into not voting for "the girl" -- simply because of her gender. That does NOT imply that she thought women should vote for her only because of gender.

If you can't understand the difference, I can't explain it to you.

[progressoid]

73. I never claimed she said race was the only factor.

Yet, she thought it was a relevant comparison to her losing young women voters.

Nor did I claim that "she thought women should vote for her only because of gender" (regarding the white women voters). I should have been more clear. I used that quote to point out how easy it is to insult a voting group just by making a blanket statement about them.

FWIW, I think both Hillary and Bernie are sort of right. Some people did vote for Bernie and Trump because they weren't female. Just as some people voted for Hillary because she was a woman. And some people voted for Obama because he's Black while some others (even Democrats - I met a couple during the campaign) didn't vote for him because he's Black. The key word is 'some.' There are always some who won't see the candidate for their stance on issues but rather for some other external component.

The problem lies in confusing some voters with all voters.

[pnwmom]

75. True, you didn't say that about Hillary. But Bernie went FURTHER than Hillary

because he DID claim that some voters only voted based on gender and race, and Hillary never said that.

Also, you're overlooking the fact that till recently, male was the default gender for politicians (and we still have never in history had a woman President). For women to get elected, they have to overcome the unconscious or conscious training over hundreds of years that men are the people we vote for. Men don't have to overcome that obstacle. So it's not a "just as" situation. White men don't have the same disadvantage women and minorities do.

FWIW, I think both Hillary and Bernie are sort of right. Some people did vote for Bernie and Trump because they weren't female. Just as some people voted for Hillary because she was a woman. And some people voted for Obama because he's Black while some others (even Democrats - I met a couple during the campaign) didn't vote for him because he's Black.

[kcr]

91. Nowhere in those quotes does she say what you claim

In fact that second block quote she's merely pointing out that there are men who think just like you and Bernie.

[progressoid]

95. Do tell. What are men like me are thinking?

You must have some amazing internet psychic power that you can tell what I'm thinking based on a quote from Hillary Clinton.

Please enlighten me.

[jcgoldie]

54. It isn't true

He didn't just make a mistake of saying something out loud that is true. Name a single woman whose platform is "vote for me I'm a woman"... that's what he said... but it was a bullshit strawman argument.

[hurple]

5. Sanders needs to just go away

He's only a democrat when he has his hand out for DNC money. Otherwise he wants nothing to do with the party, and I feel we should have the same opinion of him.

[Pantagruel]

6. Bernie should take advantage

of his own specific demographic. "Vote for me , I'm old"

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. That would pit him against Biden n/t

[BamaRefugee]

11. I know there is a rule against bashing Democrats here, so be it, but why are posts removed about...

...Sanders , who is NOT a democrat, until it suits his needs every 4 years, I still don't get it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. I don't agree with your characterization. I think it serves our interests to have Independents...

...align with Democrats in Congress and to NOT compete with Democrats during General Elections, there are more Independents in America than Democrats. But that is a topic that gets debated here a lot.

As to your question, the TOS that governs DU forbids bashing Democrats AND Independents who generally align with Democrats, and it names Bernie Sanders specifically as an example of an Independent who can't be bashed.

[aikoaiko]

16. Well, for one thing, he is a member of the Democratic Party Leadership team

even as an independent and critical of the party.

http://www.senate.gov/senators/leadership.htm
[IMG][/IMG]

[Go Vols]

23. +1

[murielm99]

57. I believe that that position

was a made up job, something to keep Bernie and his followers happy.

What does he actually do? He represents the views of the Senate committee chairs, all republicans, to the Senate's Democratic leadership. It is an in-house job. It does not require all the running around the country that Bernie loves so much. He can go from office to office and chat with our leadership.

And you seem to be fine with him being critical of the party. I am not. I am tired of divisiveness. This is a time for unity.

[BamaRefugee]

96. Call me crazy, but I like my Democrats to have a (D) by their name. Can you say "Joe Lieberman"? ;-)

[PDittie]

86. Becaue Skinner says he is a Democrat

over three years ago.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=774407

Several here continue to disagree.

[zentrum]

12. Well said.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

13. "But Bernie Sanders does not represent white privileged in America, and a casual reader of this

forum could sometimes be forgiven for mistakenly getting the impression that he does.

He may not represent "white privileged," but he certainly an excellent example of unselfconscious white privilege.

[LiberalLovinLug]

38. "unselfconscious white privilege"

What is that? Being guilty of being born a white male?

[WhiskeyGrinder]

44. No, I was trying to get at the concept of not being aware of one's own white privilege,

and "unexamined white privilege" would have been a better phrase.

[LiberalLovinLug]

46. Fair enough

And I'd agree to a certain extent. I think many of his generation of whites grew up with that kind of unconscious reality. Although based on his activist work in college, I'd say he was more aware than most white males from a young age.

And can't we allow a small slipups, a mulligan for ingrained cultural brainwashing, decades long. Biden is no master of restraint either. Yet he is forgiven his trespasses. Like when Obama was elected.... https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2838420&page=1 ""I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man." That was interpreted and used by Limpballs as well as those on in the black community to say he was singling out Obama as some kind of freak occurrence that a black man actually accomplished what he did, looked good, and spoke well too.

Both Biden and Sanders are not actually racists. Their clumsy un-PC thoughts sometimes reflect their long lives of what you describe as "unexamined white privilege" ingrained into them. Surely we can look deeper into their character and see more than that.

[Tom Rinaldo]

47. +1. Well said. n/t

[WhiskeyGrinder]

49. "Surely we can look deeper into their character and see more than that."

When I do so, what I see is something intensely familiar to me: Men who have been "granted mulligans" all their lives and have never reflected on the necessity to change and grow, because they believe their hearts and intentions are enough to erase real damage they do through their actions.

[LiberalLovinLug]

68. What if their actions they do today are actually helping, not damaging?

Can you forgive older people their occasional slip ups, (like Biden) when you know they don't mean the way it COULD be interpreted into something sounding much worse? I don't know, I just don't look at those kinds of behaviours as so black or white. or maybe I should say up or down, left or right. I also think there is a difference in older people's faux pas when they are whispered to about how their words will may interpreted through the 'no stone left unturned' social media, they apologize and or explain themselves....and then there's the type like Trump and others in the GOP that are unashamedly racists, sexist, assholes who mean exactly how it is interpreted.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

87. If someone keeps slipping up, how do I know they don't mean it?

Part of white supremacy is making room for people who don't burn crosses or say the n-word to still be racist. Age is not an excuse. POC tell Bernie Sanders over and over again that his approach is damaging, not helping, so when is he -- and when are we -- going to start listening?

[G_j]

15. Thanks for taking the time

A well thought out and non antagonistic post.

[pangaia]

19. Thank you for these very well-reasoned and thought-out thoughts.

Things are never so simple, well, at least usually not so simple, as they may appear.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

21. Beautifully said

I don't have much more to offer other than thank you for the well-written post. As a Bernie voter in 2016 who is largely agnostic of him for 2020 it gets a little dispiriting to see the white-hot fury he instills in some and how that anger easily gets transferred to anyone defending him even in the slightest. Let's treat others the way we would want to be treated. And that includes everyone including Bernie people.

[Kurt V.]

22. some real good post on DU today.

could be the cold weather

[RobertDevereaux]

24. Thank you, Tom. N/t

[DownriverDem]

25. Oh please

I am very bothered by the fact that Bernie isn't a member of the Democratic Party. I'm a proud member of the Democratic Party and an elected precinct delegate. So Bernie will crash the Democratic Party's primaries again? He should have never been allowed to run in the Democratic Party's primaries last time. We have some very good candidates running now. And guess what? They are all members of the Democratic Party. Pick one of them.

[ismnotwasm]

26. White people discussing what it is to be racist, is so often a fail.

Pointing out what Bernie did in the 60’s or that he endorsed a Black man that one time, or even what he did in Congress doesn’t make him a paragon of forward thinking in racial mattters.

Bernie argues for economic justice. He’s made some pretty big blunders regarding racial issues, very surprising for someone as entrenched in civil rights as he was. Or maybe not so surprising, when you look at the social dynamics of whiteness and white supremacy


Personally, simply, I no longer look for white people to describe racism for me—we are far too often wrong. I listen to the voices of people who know.

Mostly, I try very hard to avoid this;

[Apollyonus]

33. +1 n/t

[sheshe2]

63. Thank you, ism.

[JHan]

65. +++++++

[Gothmog]

29. I was a delegate to the National Convention

I am not a POC but I saw some conduct at the national convention what may hurt sanders with African American voters. First, every real campaign carefully vet their delegates to a national convention. I was vetted and I helped vet other delegates. The reason for this is two fold (i) every delegate including a pledged delegate can change their vote and (ii) delegates reflect on the candidate.

There was some truly horrible conduct by the sanders delegates at the national convention including a group of sanders delegates yelling at my daughter and calling her the C-word because she would not try to change my vote. It is okay to yell at and curse me in that such conduct is not effective against lawyers. However, I am a father and I am not happy about how my daughter was treated.

The worst incident for sanders chances of winning support from African American voters was the night that Congressman John Lewis spoke. The Clinton campaign had a good "whipping infrastructure" where every Clinton delegate had a whip assigned to them. My whip warned me that the sanders delegates were going to boo Congressman John Lewis. This was a planned stunt in that I was warned 20 to 30 minutes before Congressman Lewis was introduced. According to my whip, sanders was asked to stop this stunt and declined. There were numerous other planned demonstrations and we did our best to try to drown out the boos.

If you look on twitter, there are a ton of posters there who are still very mad at how Congressman John Lewis was treated. For example see https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11741478 This issue will come up if sanders runs.

I admit that I am huge fan of Congressman John Lewis and have had the privilege of hearing Congressman John Lewis tell the same "preaching to chickens" story four times in person. There was a great event at the National Convention where Congressman John Lewis, Kareem and Keith Ellison spoke (I have some fun pictures of the three standing next to each other).

The conduct of the sanders delegates at the national convention will hurt sanders if he runs again. I admit that I am not likely to forget or forgive the way that my daughter was treated at the National Convention. I personally believe that sanders should have vetted his delegates and attempted to control incidents like the John Lewis incident.

My whip was working for the DNC during the midterms. There are a ton of Clinton campaign workers who saw this conduct and could be in some effective ads.

[charlyvi]

30. There are more than a few people who will not support Sanders

based on the behavior of his most militant followers and the fact that he does nothing to discourage them. I, for one, will never support a person who catalyzes such hate.

[Apollyonus]

34. +1 n/t

[violetpastille]

80. +1

[comradebillyboy]

31. I too think that sort of behavior is very problematic.

I anticipate a repeat of that sort of behavior in this election cycle as well.

[progressoid]

43. "I personally believe that sanders should have vetted his delegates"

Candidates vet their delegates now?

Geez, I've been a delegate a couple times and was never vetted by my candidate. I feel kind of slighted.

[Gothmog]

66. Were you a delegate to the national convention?

National convention delegates are vetted in the real world. Part of the process also involves a written application that has to be notarized where you swear an oath to support the nominee of the party. Many sanders delegates violated that oath.

It takes years of hard work to be a national convention delegate. When did you go to a national convention?

[progressoid]

74. Sorry, only went to the state level.

[Gothmog]

77. I have been to good number of state conventions

State conventions are very different from national conventions. To qualify for a national convention you have to file an application and then campaign for a slot. It can be an intense process. Even if elected, each campaign has absolute approval rights over their national delegates. I was vetted by the Clinton campaign and I helped vet some other Clinton delegates. It is an intense process.

State conventions are fine unless you get put on a committee. Hint, the rules committee involves a long day in a room filed with lawyers

[Apollyonus]

32. It is not about choosing one candidate or another

It is about not wanting a candidate who doesn't drop out when it was mathematically impossible to win and still stayed in the race, accepting donations, riling supporters and damaging the presumptive nominee with attacks.

It is about not making one's supporters feel like they were cheated by some conspiracy despite losing by millions of votes.

It is about one's not wholeheartedly supporting the nominee after the convention and not working his butt off with a full-blown support saying "I whole-heartedly endorse the nominee" and not just that her opponent is bad.

I could go on .... but this should be enough.

[Paka]

35. Thank You.

Well stated.

[man4allcats]

36. "That's what happened in 2016 . . ." Really?

"If minority voters in America look at Bernie Sanders and decide that someone else would better represent their interests as President than he could, all fair and good. That's what, by and large, happened in 2016 . . ."

Some would argue that because of the way the DNC handled the primary in 2016, voters were not given the opportunity to decide whether someone else would better represent their interests as President.

The DNC decided it was Hillary. Take it or leave it. Don't get me wrong. I have every respect for Hillary Clinton. When she got the nomination, I threw my support behind her 110%, and of course she got my vote.

Still in all, many including myself maintain that Bernie was robbed, and as a result, the President we wound up with better represents no one other than himself and Vladimir Putin. I think Bernie would have won the general election, and if he had, we wouldn't be in this mess today.

Just sayin'.

[LiberalLovinLug]

39. 100% agree!

[JI7]

53. hillary was robbed becsuse of Putin attack on the election which included helping Sanders

along with trump als stein.

sanders did not release his tax returns .

[Gothmog]

69. Putin provided a great deal of aid to the sanders campaign

Russia was helping sanders for a reason https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/

WASHINGTON – It turns out Donald Trump wasn’t the only candidate the Russians allegedly tried to help during the 2016 presidential campaign.

A 37-page indictment resulting from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation shows that Russian nationals and businesses also worked to boost the campaigns of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Green party nominee Jill Stein in an effort to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton.

The Russians “engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” according to the indictment, which was issued Friday.

sanders success to some degree was due to Russia

[MH1]

60. "Bernie would have won the general election" - we will never know.

But somehow, he was completely incompetent at convincing many of his followers to vote for the right person in the general election.

I know quite a few Bernie supporters who did NOT vote for Hillary ... in a swing state that ended up being critical. It wasn't a rare thing.

Whoever runs as a Dem, if they don't get the nomination... WHATEVER the reason, know when the cause is lost, ferchrissakes!!!! ... they had BETTER GET THEIR ASS AND THEIR FOLLOWERS BEHIND THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE.

Bernie failed in 2016 in the most important - or depending on your priorities, 2nd most important - task that he had.

I won't trust him with my primary vote again. Ever.

signed,
2016 Bernie primary voter. (not in Vermont, so I can say that last line)

[uponit7771]

89. Sanders was helped by the Russians and he was the one that was robbed?

OMFG

Pizzagate logic is screwed up

[Geechie]

37. Excellent Post

One thing I notice is that people who claim Bernie is so white-privileged conveniently omit the fact that he was born to a Jewish immigrant family and lost relatives in the concentration camps and pogroms.

[Arazi]

40. There was a lot of anti-Semitism directed at Bernie, on DU and on the campaign trail

I still think that anti-Semitism is a factor (the biggest?) in the attacks

[JudyM]

71. +1000. Often transparent to anyone paying attention.

[LiberalLovinLug]

42. "Sanders is set in his "economic theory of oppression" ways"

Its not as if Sanders is AGAINST things like fighting police violence on black Americans. Or curbing the huge imbalance in incarceration of blacks vs whites. Or that he doesn't support affirmative action. Its just that he, and I agree, sees that fighting only one issue, or all issues, independently, as if they were all disconnected, is a fruitless way to advance privilege and success to ALL underprivileged, including minorities, women, and the disabled. That only by lifting up ALL on the bottom rungs will work in any sustainable way.

You cannot legislate away racism. But you can make laws to ensure a more egalitarian society where everyone gets a fair chance. To give dignity to those that have none. That is the kind of REAL advancement that would stick because it would involve many more people and struggles.

The right will simply divide and conquer if its all identity based band aid fixes until the next Republican racist comes into power and simply reverses them, because they only affect one group, and a minority at that. BLM may go the way of Occupy, or other groups that spring up in times of wont and eventually lost in the news cycle. Sanders, and Warren and others, see that there must be a more comprehensive, permanent holistic approach, including raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare, maternity leave, solidified SS.....because that would work, long term, much better for African Americans, along with all other Americans. It doesn't have to be either or.

I have no idea why Sanders gets blasted for this kind of thinking. If someone thinks a more ad hock approach to fixing problems is better, then please defend it.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

45. "You cannot legislate away racism. But you can make laws to ensure a more egalitarian society where

everyone gets a fair chance. To give dignity to those that have none. That is the kind of REAL advancement that would stick because it would involve many more people and struggles."

Yeah, the problem is that doesn't do much to get rid of racism, either, without directly addressing racism.

[LiberalLovinLug]

48. I would argue that its a very good way

For a lot of obvious reasons like the black Americans that would be helped would also improve their communities, ie, crime, which would also effect incarceration rates. But the same uplifting in the poor white communities (and Asian, Middle Eastern, East Indian, native) would also diffuse a lot of the mislaid anger towards minorities by those poor white folk that always vote against their best interests. If their lives also improved, it would help to diffuse much of that anger that veers towards racism. Even just less angst in all communities, less domestic violence, for example, where lack of money is the root cause. All of the obvious and the not so obvious results of helping to make those that feel hopeless now, to once again feel they are contributing to society, is good for not just the economic well being of a nation, but the emotional and psychological health of a nation. To the point where those new young Americans growing up, are less inclined to succumb to their parents racist opinions if they themselves have not as much to complain about.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

52. .

I would argue that its a very good way for a lot of obvious reasons like the black Americans that would be helped would also improve their communities, ie, crime, which would also effect incarceration rates.

I'm interested in specific examples of what this would look like.

But the same uplifting in the poor white communities (and Asian, Middle Eastern, East Indian, native) would also diffuse a lot of the mislaid anger towards minorities by those poor white folk that always vote against their best interests. If their lives also improved, it would help to diffuse much of that anger that veers towards racism.

Then why are middle-class and rich communities just as racist as poor ones?

Even just less angst in all communities, less domestic violence, for example, where lack of money is the root cause.

Poverty does not cause domestic violence.

[LiberalLovinLug]

70. There are many scholarly articles on the link between poverty and domestic violence.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/poverty-stress-factors-in-domestic-violence-cases

“Financial stress plays a large part in the potential to lash out,” Caplan said. In other words, when you don’t know if the rent will be paid next month, when the bills are adding up, you feel more vulnerable. The more vulnerable you are, the less objective you are, the quicker you lose your temper.

“If nothing is going well, you’re more likely to act viscerally,” Caplan said.

https://www.shepherdconsortium.org/how-poverty-perpetuates-domestic-violence/

As previously stated, intimate partner violence is largely about control. When persons live in poverty, there’s not much that is within their control. They cannot control the job market, the price of housing or minimum wage. They cannot control where they were born, the caliber of schools available to them, or whether or not their parents stayed together—all factors that can contribute to the cycle of poverty. They can, however, control their partners and families. The unique stressors associated with poverty create an environment from which IPV may stem. There is a distinct correlation between IPV and level of income; the lower the income, the higher the likelihood of IPV.

And here is a whole lot of links to reviewed scholarly papers on it:

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=link+poverty+domestic+violence&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart



If more people are eating ok, sleeping ok, able to pay rent and mortgages, doesn't it just hold that they will be less stressed in general? And that that would also perhaps curb the effect those that might have more violent tendencies? Just, for instance, having universal guaranteed healthcare for you and your entire family for life would take away a lot of stress in society.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

88. Sure, there are links. And poverty certainly makes it harder for victims.

It's not a "root cause," though. Correlation is not causation.

[pnwmom]

76. Sanders gets blasted for this kind of thinking because a focus on economic issues

isn't the panacea he thinks it is.

Despite what he says, concentrating on minimum wage laws and taxes and other economic and class issues doesn't assure women abortion rights, or freedom from harassment, or keep guns away from people who shouldn't have them, or solve the climate crisis, or guarantee freedom from gender or race discrimination. He and his followers laud FDR because of what he accomplished. But what did he not accomplish? Lifting up black Americans the same way he lifted up whites. Or bringing women into power in Congress or the Presidency. More than 80 years after FDR, we still haven't had a single woman President. And there is no reason to think that if his tax rates had continued through all the subsequent Presidents, this would have changed.

[betsuni]

82. +1

[Boomer]

50. This thread aptly captures my own ambivalent support for Bernie Sanders

So very many good points on all sides of this issue. It's not as cut-and-dried as some people may feel.

I voted for Bernie in the West Virginia primary, at which point it was mostly a symbolic gesture. I didn't see this as hurting Clinton or the party, more as an opportunity to make my voice known even thought the nomination was already settled. I get that some people see this vote in less generous terms, and for that I'm sorry, but I still stand behind my action.

I had a lot of reservation about Sanders, even though I've been following his career back since he was mayor of Burlington (I lived nearby, but not in Vermont). His single-minded obsession with income-disparity is both a strength and a weakness; he has tunnel-vision, and that meant some other issues that were important to me -- a brown gay woman -- were just not on his radar.

So why support Sanders? Well, it was a VERY narrow field of candidates, so I didn't have as many options as I would have liked to express my more layered views of income inequality, oppression of POC, racism, sexism and misogyny, LGBT rights and more. I opted for the guy with the laser-focus on income disparity because I feel it's a critical root problem that also exacerbates all the other trouble-spots in America. White people who are getting poorer in a society that promised them privilege... they tend to get really really mean. I'm not saying that prosperity takes the racism out of them -- if only it were that easy -- but it mutes the fear factor which drives their rage.

Clinton was a very capable person with a fabulous resume, and I think the competition from Sanders on income disparity brought that issue more to the forefront than would have occurred otherwise. She recognizes the issue, but I never felt she took as seriously as a central de-stabilizing factor in today's society. To my mind, it's THE issue that is creating the most pressure points for everyone, that is cracking open fissures and turning them into chasms.

But 2020 is another election entirely. There are several candidates already that I feel are more qualified than Sanders, but that bring the same passion to leveling the playing field for Americans of all classes. In a race with Elizabeth Warren and Kamilah Harris, I literally cringe at the thought of Bernie running again. His deficiencies -- of which I was well aware last time around -- are all the more glaring compared to these accomplished women.

I don't want him to run again.

[Caliman73]

51. Good post.

Sanders is by no means a racist and anyone calling him that is wrong...period.

My contention with Bernie has been as you pointed to, that he has a blind spot to race, which as you said may be from his classical "class consciousness" focus.

The reason that he gets more scrutiny in my mind, on the topic of race, is because he has continually called people out for focusing on "identity politics". Specifically, in the recent GQ article he discussed how voters are voting for politicians based primarily on gender or racial characteristics, which on that thread I pointed out was a very patrician and privileged view point. It showed his blind spot. People vote for him based on his policies and they vote for women candidates because they are women, was the implication that is born out of the privilege that comes from not having to consider your race or gender in your world view.

He is not a racist in the least, but his approach shows all the weaknesses in White Male liberal thought that give women and people of color pause, even while they may appreciate his taking on big money interests.

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. So many good posts on this thread, from people with fairly differing opinions about Sanders

At times I find myself agreeing with people with whom I generally disagree with about Sanders, and vice versa. It's refreshing to delve more into the nuances than usual, I love it when people make me think about things from different angles than I am accustomed to. This thank you is to virtually everyone who has participated in this discussion.

[earthshine]

58. I support Bernie. Whether or not he wins the primary, his voice will be valuable during the debates.

I'm not married to that choice either.

I fully reserve the right to choose someone else upon listening to the rhetoric of the various campaigns and the debates.

What an excellent "deep bench" we are going to have!

[MuseRider]

61. I guess I do not have to write now

since I can just say that I feel almost exactly the same but I do have several problems with him, one being his tax returns and there are a few others but still, he is doing great work where he is now. I want younger, female and someone who is not white. I will vote differently because I will likely have to but that is what I am hoping for now. Anyway, I am about as happy as I can be knowing that there is nobody whittling out our potential nominees. That is our job and what a big bench we have. It is thrilling.

[earthshine]

81. "I want younger, female and someone who is not white."

I want someone with the right progressive policies. The demographics are not a deciding factor for me.

I used to think, "If only we had more women in politics. There'd be less war." Then, I saw that women can be just as hawkish and self-serving as men.

[MuseRider]

92. I was actually thinking only of who I would

like if not Bernie. That is my choice because, of course, being still impressed with Bernie I did not think I needed to say all that. We agree and yes, there are certainly women who are just as hawkish and self serving. Just to clarify, I did sound a little naive and clueless with my previous answer.

[earthshine]

94. I start with Bernie because he has the loudest progressive mouth.

Elizabeth Warren would be great. She has a real track record of fighting against the financial elite.

So far, Harris seems okay, too. (I'll pass on Gillibrand and Gabbard.)

I look forward to substantial left-leaning debates!

Over and out.

[LexVegas]

62. ...

[JHan]

64. Since you are sincere...

I Am going to share with you an article that might illuminate for you why his statements have been problematic.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/11/bernie-sanders-and-the-lies-we-tell-white-voters.html

The startling hypocrisy of criticizing identity politics while engaging in it ( his hyper focus on WWC narratives is identity politics- which is so tiresome at this point, when have WWC not been the focus of politicians?)

Unwillingness to alienate racist voters inevitably leads to coddling racist voters. Whether everyone who voted for DeSantis fits this descriptor is up for debate. Whether the parameters Sanders outlined in his initial statement does — voting against a black candidate because of some race-based “discomfort” with said candidate — is not. Sanders is describing racism without naming it, even as he seems willing to indict the candidates for reaping its rewards. That it’s not politically expedient to have such a conversation honestly — especially if one sees the alternative as gift-wrapping American democracy for Trumpian grifters, kleptocrats, and white supremacists — is one of the more pathological features of today’s politics. But how sturdy, really, is a democracy kept afloat by lies? We are quickly learning the answer.

And his recent statements about "some people just want to nominate a woman"

It is tiring reading the rationalizations for the nonsense.

[Garrett78]

72. +1

Bernie has made it abundantly clear that he still doesn't get it, while at the same time knowing he's doomed if he doesn't do much better among voters of color--he simply doesn't know how to do so.

He's done as soon as he fails to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, and even if he were to win both, it'll be downhill after New Hampshire.

I can understand why he ran in 2016. It was tailor-made for him, as *the* alternative to Clinton. He shouldn't have stayed in for as long as he did, but I can understand why he ran. But he has to know that Warren (and possibly Brown and possibly Biden and possibly Beto) pretty much closes the door on his 2020 chances. He won't be able to dominate in New England or among white millennials. *And* there will be fewer caucuses.

Those who continue to think Sanders will be the nominee are delusional. But is Sanders also delusional? We'll see.

[JHan]

83. but how could lessons be learned from 2016...

when myths persist about a primary he resoundingly lost. Myths coincidentally buttressed by the Kremlin's disinformation efforts (note how those myths are alive in this very thread)

[Garrett78]

84. Indeed. For 2 years I've been railing against...

...that "white working class/economic anxiety" narrative, because I could see how dangerously ignorant it is.

[Tom Rinaldo]

90. Thank you. I read the full article, and I would recommend it to everyone

regardless of what one thinks of Bernie Sanders. It is consistent with the point I tried to make with my OP, whether or not it 100% represents of my own thoughts on the matter. I acknowledge that Sanders is open to criticism for some of the comments he has made on the general subject of "Identity Politics." One of the things I appreciate about this article is the care with which it addresses the controversy. It is not a Sanders hit piece looking for evidence to further that goal, rather it's goal is to explore some of the complex undercurrents of race in American politics, where the necessity to win elections in order to actually govern can hobble genuine discourse, among other things. This can bedevil politicians of sincere convictions across racial lines, a point this piece made in this excerpt:

This is a persistent balancing act for black politicians. Obama suffered the consequences of speaking too bluntly about race in 2012, when he said, “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon [Martin],” after the black teen was killed in Sanford, Florida. The comment proved politically explosive, transforming what had been a source of bipartisan outrage into a right-wing crusade to smear the dead child. In this light, Gillum was careful to call DeSantis racist only indirectly.

And also in this segment:

In September 2016, the then-Democratic presidential nominee made a speech decrying “half of [Donald] Trump’s supporters” as “deplorables” — “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic.” She was not being derogatory. Clinton’s claims were borne out by several polls attesting to the bigotry infecting Trump’s coalition. But looking back, even she sees her honesty as a gaffe. “I’m sorry I gave [Trump] a political gift of any kind, but I don’t think that was determinative,” Clinton said last year.

Again, it was not my intent with my OP to argue that Sanders strikes the ideal or even an effective stance in opposing racism in America. Clearly that can be debated. Rather my intent was to restate something that I feel should be obvious but sometimes (intentionally in some instances I believe) gets obscured in DU discussions. Namely that Sanders does in fact strongly oppose racism in America. This story starts out by reviewing how poorly Sanders did among Black voters in general in the 2016 primaries, and then states:

Sanders has responded with earnest outreach. He has communicated frequently with progressive black mayors across the South and endorsed popular black statewide candidates, like Andrew Gillum and Stacey Abrams. The Associated Press reports the senator “huddles more routinely with black lawmakers to discuss shared priorities.”

That is not merely Sanders retooling his rhetoric to polish his minority appeal, it is genuine outreach, in part because he has widened his circle of who he consults with regarding priorities on an ongoing basis. None of that is reason enough to support Bernie Sanders for anyone who rejects his understanding of racism in America, how he addresses it, or his game plan for combating it. If Bernie chooses to run for President again it is not just his personal opposition to racism or his good intentions that rightfully should be scrutinized.

While overall critical of Sanders in some regards, this article a fair and thorough exploration of a matter highly deserving of more attention. Thank you for sharing it.

[fleabiscuit]

78. Sanders slid in easy the last election.

There will be more Democrat candidates much more viable than he this time. Voting Democrats will not tolerate a circus, I would be surprised if he made better than 5th choice.

[Garrett78]

79. I won't be that surprised if he decides to not run.

Sanders has to know his chances are close to zero. He can't count on dominating New England and winning big among white millennials who were raised on Clinton hatred (that vote will be split between Warren and potentially Brown/Biden/Beto). And there will be fewer caucuses. After New Hampshire, it'd be all over for Sanders, especially if he were to not win both Iowa and New Hampshire. Nevada, South Carolina and Super Tuesday will not be kind to him...if he runs, which I think is far from a guarantee.

The 2016 race essentially ended on Super Tuesday, even if Bernie Math said otherwise. In 2020, Sanders may not even make it that far.

[LongtimeAZDem]

85. "Bernie Math"; OMG that takes me back

[NurseJackie]

98. Some things never go out of style, I guess.

[NurseJackie]

93. If that.

And I wonder if after declaring that he's a Democrat, will he un-declare and become an Independent again? It's a fair question that deserves an honest answer.

[fleabiscuit]

97. Probably will switch back. Caucusing with democrats is his schtick.

He can be the "independent" vote when his lone vote wouldn't make a difference, and vote with the democrats when he would look like a heel if he didn't. He switches back to Democrat when he runs for his seat in the Senate as well; wouldn't want a challenger messing it up.