2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWe do not need another Clinton administration. If only Sanders would say it
Gary Dorrien is the Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics at Union Theological Seminary and Professor of Religion at Columbia University. His many books include Kantian Reason and Hegelian Spirit, which won the Association of American Publishers’ PROSE Award, and most recently, The New Abolition: W. E. B. Du Bois and the Black Social Gospel.
Bernie Sanders has already done more to advance Social Democratic values and policies than anyone in U.S. American history, and for that I treasure him. He has a gut-level passion about inequality, poverty and injustice. He fights for equality with a tenacity surpassing any elected official since the New Deal. He is rightly outraged that the tax system is skewed to make equality worse, that the megabanks have become too-big-to-fail hedge funds trading on their own accounts, and that Republican leaders are bent on destroying Medicare and Social Security.
<snip>
Meanwhile he is undercutting his message by refusing to say that we do not need another Clinton administration. Sanders repeated on Sunday night that he refuses to personally attack the Clintons, but that is not what matters. There is no reason to believe that the next Clinton administration would be significantly different from the last one. We don’t need to hear about the personal screw-ups of any Clinton, but we need very much to interrogate the Clinton legacy in American politics.
Bill Clinton is justly popular among Democrats for presiding over a robust economy and three years of budget surpluses. He also pushed through a gas tax, the last president even to try. He also took pride in ramming NAFTA down our throats. He expanded the federal death penalty and the war on drugs. He ended the federal government’s 60-year commitment to provide income support for the poor. He supported and signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which, mercifully, is no more. Near the end he tore down the Glass-Steagall wall separating commercial and investment banking, whereby Wall Street fell in love with derivatives. Throughout his presidency, Clinton specialized in co-opting Republican issues, notably the Three Strike laws that stuffed American prisons with people of color. His triangulating cynicism demoralized the progressive base of the Democratic Party, and he topped it off with a sexual scandal.
<snip>
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/30/we_do_not_need_another_clinton_administration_if_only_sanders_would_say_it/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
randome
(34,845 posts)But it still looks likely that Clinton will be our next President so the thing to do is work out how to make the best of it instead of throwing up our hands and giving up, as some seem to want to do.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Thus: voting for Clinton is voting for a fantasy.
randome
(34,845 posts)The office of the President changes a person. And Clinton will have hundreds of advisers and aides to help her along. It will not be the Apocalypse, I think that's safe to assume. From such unexpected beginnings, sometimes great things can occur. That is more likely if we do more to press for changes than pontificate on Internet forums and blogs. If we want real change, we need to get in their faces.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)I disagree with those who think Sanders couldn't win the GE against whatever loser the GOP puts up. I think it's a fair point to consider that his socialism credentials would be fair game but I think he can overcome that.
But Clinton still has the connections and the endorsements so I think it's a recognition of reality that she's likely to be the nominee.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
jwirr
(39,215 posts)position if we had fought instead of just make the best of it.
randome
(34,845 posts)I wonder if that doesn't hold us back.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]
H2O Man
(73,558 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)- TPP
- Attempt to hand Social Security over to Republicans
- Capitulating to republicans Getting almost nothing done when he still had a democratic congress
BTW - NOw that HIllary is trying to wrap herself in Obama and stating that she want to continue his legacy - this SHIT must be discussed, and is, fair game.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)Does Hillary control some of the assholes who lie and dissemble?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Just stick with the Republican issue of 'emails' and be glad you don't need to use BENGHAZI anymore.
ChairmanAgnostic
(28,017 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)You mean that ONE bizarre and breathless story regarding a AARP logo on some mailer?
A mailer that no one could even show us?
I would accept that over, No We Can't (about anything and everything that doesn't apply to the 1%), ANYTIME.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)That says it all right there.
jillan
(39,451 posts)Thank you Jill for standing with us.
I never signed up to stand with her.
How did they get my name and email address? Yes, I forwarded to Bernie's headquarters.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)
There's enough without that nonsense.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Being in our face over something, be it real or not.
There certainly is plenty of real that makes me not want them nor their cronies anywhere near the White House...ever again.
No More Clintons!
OhZone
(3,212 posts)Purveyor
(29,876 posts)Troubling however is the support I'm hearing for Trump. 2 months ago folks would sort of look around to see who might be listening then quietly say they might like Trump. Now they are outright and proud in proclaiming that.
Of course I mention Sanders but since this store is a local community store, I don't really push my politics to strongly as to not alienated my customers. I need to keep everyone I have at this location.
farleftlib
(2,125 posts)I think it needs to be said but he won't be the one.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)idea, with our candidates or the Republicans. There's more than one shade of blue, more than one shade of red.
Many Democrats are not Clinton Democrats. They like Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the high court, they like Maya Angelou reading at the Inaugural podium. They're a lot less enthusiastic about the cowardly withdrawal of the Lani Guinier nomination and the appropriation of the GOP agenda.
The things that a lot of Democrats like about the idea of public service are represented in Bernie Sanders. Sanders does not believe much good comes from any political entity who grows too cozy with the corporate interest. He is on very firm ground to believe this, as the record has repeatedly shown that corporations are not interested in public service. They are interested in control and in having the power and money to achieve that control.
Hillary Clinton has not distanced herself from her husbands' political model. She has celebrity clout and a pile of money and she may prevail and win nomination. But she should take very careful notice that Sanders' campaign venues have been a steady stream of packed houses. She should make careful personal inventory with a view toward asking why this is so, why a (formerly) fairly obscure U.S. Senator from Vermont is drawing larger and more enthusiastic audiences than she is. She would learn a valuable lesson about herself if she did.
There's no sense that there's anybody in the Clinton campaign who can have this discussion with their candidate. Since she chose her staff and advisors, the trail ends at her doorstep.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)Hillary is not Bill. So she won't have "another Clinton administration." She will preside over HER administration. Indeed, if it wasn't for sexist attacks she had to endure back in the 80's, she would have continued to keep her own name, and we would see a Rodham administration.
I've always found the practice of women taking their husband's names to be a strangely patriarchal practice (I kept my own name, although I support any woman's right to make her own choice in this regard). If this patriarchal practice gives rise to the confusion that a woman is just an extension of the man she married, then I even more seriously object to it. It seems that this confusion is going on here.
I say this as someone who is familiar with Gary Dorrien's work and have respect for him in general.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)became Hillary Clinton when she married her husband.
Her husband was a governor and then a president.
It is entirely fair to ask if she would be as successful as she has been in politics if her last name had remained 'Rodham.' Would someone named Hillary Diane Rodham have had more than token opposition in winning the Democratic nomination from New York State for a Senate race? I would say it was highly probable.
Possibly Hillary Diane Rodham could have been elected to the U.S. Senate from New York. Possibly not. In my opinion, probably not.
Her status is intrinsic with her husband's career. Period. It is not coincidental that Bill Clinton is appearing at her campaign rallies. Mrs. Clinton does not hesitate to dip into the patriarchal well when it suits her purposes.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)There is confusion when a woman runs for president and her potential presidency is seen as "another" version of her husband's.
And you re merely speculating that Hillary would have gotten nowhere without Bill. Indeed, I find that quite an offensive thing to say. I could as well speculate that she might have gotten further if she had not played the supportive spouse for decades of her life, and did not have to deal with Bill's shenanigans.
Bottomline, while she has her husband's last name (something she only adopted after getting a ton of flack for not doing it), her presidency, if we would be so lucky to get her as president, would NOT be just a clone of her husband's. To say so is simply sexist, and grounded in nothing else than the assumption that a woman is just an extension of her husband.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)and will have a role. They are Co-President. By Accident? Or, calculation if they win. That no one brings up Bill's Role in Hillary's Administration has always puzzled me. What role will her VP have when her Husband is a former President?
He isn't going to be pushed into the duties of "First Man." So, who will handle that role?
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)This country's tradition of having a "First Lady" who organizes the decorating of the White House and takes up a pet social cause, is a deeply patriarchal tradition. The very fact that Hillary won't have a First Lady to organize the flowers seems to worry a lot of people.
And if Bill is there in an unofficial capacity, so what? Somehow I actually doubt that Hillary will allow him to run the show. Bill is getting on in years and his health is so-so at best. Hillary, on the other hand, is at an age when many women really come into their own. I'm pretty sure she has no plans to play second fiddle or to allow him to be the shadow president
She's her own person. Always was, even when she did play the supportive spouse. She got a lot of flack for it too. Her refusal to be the traditional wife was the #1 reason for the hatred the conservatives unleashed upon her all these years.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)speculate all we want. On just about any topic, too.
Include this one. She dips into the patriarchal well when it suits her purposes. She always has.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)How exactly does she "dip into the patriarchal well"?
She conceded to those who criticized her for keeping her own name. I don't see that has her using the patriarchy. I see that as her being forced by the patriarchy to do something that she was not otherwise inclined to do, for the sake of political survival.
I still don't see how her potential presidency can legitimately be described as a mere extension of her husband's.
To suggest that is simply sexist.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)Trotting hubby out to campaign! Calls to Jim Clyburn in the middle of the night!
You know. The usual stuff.
She dips into the patriarchal well when it suits her purposes.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)yet you have not shown how she "dips into the patriarchal well," nor how her presidency would be an extension of her husband's.
I'm tired of sexist memes.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)participate in any.
Y'all have a candidate leading in the national polls, sitting on a shitpot of cash, and arguably the most famous woman on earth. but you can't accept criticism about her candidacy.
Also, you don't count very well. The equation equals 2 Clintons. That's the starting point the two Clintons in question set. No one else set it for them.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)I suspect you don't understand what sexism is. I was protesting the SEXIST idea that Hillary's presidency would merely be an extension of her husband's. THAT is a sexist meme, and I was most certainly not participating in it. I was arguing against it.
You still have not shown in what manner Hillary herself "dips into the patriarchal well."
Hillary is not a Clinton in the same sense that Bill is. She took her husband's last name, yes, eventually. That does not make her a mere extension of him. They are partners, and to be sure, he might be of help to her as she was of help to him. But she is not just his echo.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)are voting along those lines, tell us why Carly Fiorina doesn't win your support.
Carly isn't married to an ex-president. Why aren't you supporting her campaign as an independent woman?
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)people PARTICIPATE in sexist memes when they protest against them. What utter nonsense.
How you get from me saying that Hillary is not an extension of her husband to the idea that I might as well support Carly Fiorina, is beyond me. How absurd.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)attacking a sexist meme you created. You're candidate is her husband's wife. Her husband has been in politics a long time. Hillary CLINTON is not Hillary Rodham. It's not just a name change.
It would not kill you to acknowledge that truth.
If you aren't voting for Fiorina, it must be on ideological grounds. Perhaps Sanders and O'Malley supporters support their respective candidates on ideological grounds, which means penises and vaginas don't have a fucking thing to do with it.
If you don't like sexist memes, don't participate in any.
Nonhlanhla
(2,074 posts)You're saying that I created the sexist memes I protest against? What utter, complete BS.
And it is just a name change, unless you want to hold the sexist idea that a woman is merely an extension of her husband.
It seems quite clear to me that you have absolutely no idea what sexism is. It is also clear to me that many oppose Hillary on sexist grounds.
Fiorina is irrelevant. She is a Republican. This is a Democratic board.
Goodbye. I'm placing you on ignore.
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)on ignore! Anything but that! I'll do your dishes for you! I get them even shinier than Paul Ryan would get them, swear to god!
Of course I know the real reason you're bailing on this discussion. You're headed down to Fiorina headquarters to volunteer.
Watch out for the demon sheep!
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)Guess some have forgot? Or just choose to willfully ignore what they said?
saltpoint
(50,986 posts)damn times, in fact.
Docreed2003
(16,862 posts)She affirmed during the debate that her husband would certainly be an economic adviser.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)My husband and I are a team. We talk. We work together. That's the way a good marriage is. Too bad there are so few good marriages, because a good marriage is wonderful.
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)Longest economic expansion in our history, higher income at ALL levels, lowest poverty rate in 20 yrs, largest expansion of college opportunity since the GI bill, most diverse cabinet in our history. I could go on. And on, really...
http://clinton5.nara.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-01.html
So I think it would be great to have him come out specifically against another Clinton administration!
Bernie can't really attack on what was in the '94 crime bill because he voted for it. That would include the federal death penalty charges-and I disagree with Hillary on this issue- , three strikes or even the Federal incarceration rate (which accounts for less than 8% of US incarceration). I do want overall incarceration rates, especially the inequality of it, to be issues. Hillary has plans for that, including reforming mandatory minimum sentencing, prioritizing treatment and rehab for non-violent offenses, and making the 2010 Fair Sentencing Act retroactive. Again, I could go on-
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/criminal-justice-reform/
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/addiction/
Stuckinthebush
(10,845 posts)God, please give us another Clinton administration. Those were great years. I'm down for it!
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)on the radio possible.
That alone is reason for me to vote against him.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Bernie has done squat. What planet are these people on?
jwirr
(39,215 posts)Reform Act, allowing media to consolidate, more and longer incarceration, tough on crime laws, failed universal health attempt -------
Oh yes, give us more of that. 
Your wish to have another Clinton presidency seems to me to be forgetting what it did to a lot of others. The middle class has always ignored what was happening to those with less than them - until they are the ones needing help.
OhZone
(3,212 posts)** rolls eyes **
My stupid dad kept getting better and better jobs in the 90s.
Soon as Bush got in, everything stagnated.
Oh well, lets not return to peace and prosperity.
Geez.
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)When you personalize it that way, it makes it sound like we don't need another Clinton administration because it's the Clintons. The reality is that we don't need another Clinton administration because of the policies and mindset, which aren't unique to the Clintons.
Cassiopeia
(2,603 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Read it and weep...especially IF she happened to get into office.
http://www.thenation.com/article/note-to-hillary-clintonomics-was-a-disaster-for-most-americans/
Note to Hillary: Clintonomics Was a Disaster for Most Americans
Under Bill Clinton, Wall Street created a ruinous bubble, while workers lost wages and power.
By Robert Pollin
January 26, 2016
In trying to burnish her credentials as a can-do populist and to portray Bernie Sanders as a purveyor of naive socialist fantasies, Hillary Clinton has increasingly invoked Bill Clinton’s presidency as her economic policy lodestar. When Hillary was asked at the January 17 Democratic debate whether Bill Clinton would be advising her on the economy, she responded, “I’m going to have the very best advisers that I can possibly have, and when it comes to the economy and what was accomplished under my husband’s leadership in the ’90s—especially when it came to raising incomes for everybody and lifting more people out of poverty than at any time in recent history— you bet.
There is no doubt that dramatic departures from past US economic trends occurred during Bill Clinton’s presidency, including the simultaneous fall of inflation and unemployment; the reversal of persistent federal budget deficits to three years of surplus at the end of his second term; and an unprecedented run up in stock prices—i.e., the “Dot.com” bubble. But these developments need to be evaluated in a broader context. Most importantly, we need to ask whether Clintonomics really did deliver the goods for working people and the poor.
The starting point for understanding Bill Clinton’s economic program is to recognize that it was thoroughly beholden to Wall Street, as Clinton himself acknowledged almost immediately after he was elected. Clinton won the 1992 election by pledging to end the economic stagnation that had enveloped the last two years of the George H.W. Bush administration and advance a program of “Putting People First.” This meant large investments in job training, education, and public infrastructure.
But Clinton’s priorities shifted drastically during the two-month interregnum between his November election and his inauguration in January 1993, as documented in compelling detail by Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in his 1994 book The Agenda. As Woodward recounts, Clinton stated only weeks after winning the election that “we’re Eisenhower Republicans here…. We stand for lower deficits, free trade, and the bond market. Isn’t that great?” Clinton further conceded that with his new policy focus, “we help the bond market, and we hurt the people who voted us in.”
Continues at link.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)So if he's not saying this, he's either a complete phony or he just doesn't agree with you ...
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Too bad I'm on the low road, admittedly, so I'm happy to say it for him and millions of others.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Got it.
Gary 50
(381 posts)Bernie has a reputation for being afraid to tell the truth. Hillary, on the other hand has a rock solid reputation for complete honesty, except maybe when she's dodging bullets at foreign airports, or when she's awake.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Bernie doesn't think it's is his job to tell us who to vote for, he feels it's his job to give us an option. He would be the first to say Hillary has every right to run for President as he does himself. He also feels it's his job to talk about the issues, those things that Hillary wants to avoid at all costs other than saying "No We Can't." Would you, like the "Nader lost us the election" crowd like someone other than the Constitution and then the voters to decide who should be able to run for President?
shawn703
(2,702 posts)Informed voters don't need him to tell them something so obvious.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)He's talking about all kinds of things that his voters already know but now there are some things that he can't say out loud?
As I said, either he doesn't agree with you or he's afraid to say what he thinks.
I tend to think it's the former, but either way, your attempts to justify why he's not saying what you want him to say are laughable.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Go ahead. Give it a try. I'll wait right here.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)that Sanders holds a certain belief but won't say it.
Why won't he say it? Either he doesn't really believe it or he believes it and doesn't want to tell the truth.
I think it's the former - but you can decide for yourself.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)ErisDiscordia
(443 posts)And we can be more effective than he, because we can do so on a one-to-one, personal level with friends, family, neighbors, etc.
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Either he's afraid to say it and he's sending you out to do his dirty work while he appears to be above it all or he doesn't believe it and you are misrepresenting him.
ErisDiscordia
(443 posts)We leave that for the opposition.
DrBulldog
(841 posts)Several excellent political analyses by real experts have been posted here, and this is one of them. Thank you.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)
jwirr
(39,215 posts)again" it would say the same thing.
As to him doing more to advance the social democratic agenda. I agree. He has allowed a whole new generation to see that there is a way. He has give us old FDR democrats and Hippies new hope and he is pulling us all into a movement - not just an election.
He has told us the truth - we are in a long term fight. This time we need to remember that they are always trying to crush us. We need to stand together with Bernie and push them back.
Revolution!
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)
JohnnyRingo
(18,636 posts)Those years were hands down the best of my long life. People who came to age in the ensuing years could do much worse than a repeat of that era.
The four years of steadfast gridlock that a Sanders administration would undoubtedly inspire may resemble more an exercise in futility than a revolution. Regardless the lofty ideals of hard line liberals, change in a democracy requires bipartisan support. There's no route around that.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)JohnnyRingo
(18,636 posts)...much as many during the Obama era who cried about what a disappointment he's been. During the '60s I was one of the protesters chanting about how many kids LBJ killed that day.
Admittedly, during those years Johnson made sweeping social changes for the better, but it's hard to tell an idealistic youth that things could be worse. I later got caught up in the McGovern campaign and cast my very first vote for him. As it turned out it was a wasted vote for one who was too liberal for the nation's taste. If the party had put up a candidate who was more a moderate, we probably wouldn't have seen a second term by the crook.
I see history replaying the days of my youth today with Sanders, except with the current republican party there's more at stake. I'll take a candidate who can capture the vote of Moderate America over the hollow promises of a liberal dream.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)our troubles back then they still beat anything we have seen since. At least we were working toward a better future unlike today. Now they are trying to tell us all we can do is protect the status quo.
JohnnyRingo
(18,636 posts)I see your point as well.
I love Bernie and will support him fully if he becomes the candidate, but I fear a president Trump or even Kasich so much that I'll bet the odds on a moderate. For now.
Good luck in your endeavor and thanx for your enthusiastic participation in the electoral process. You're a good democrat.
jwirr
(39,215 posts)
INdemo
(6,994 posts)Last edited Sat Jan 30, 2016, 02:04 PM - Edit history (2)
Moved to Seperate OP
cali
(114,904 posts)
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Proving once again that the man is better than some of his supporters.
It will be interesting to see what happens if Clinton wins the nomination and Sanders calls for his followers to support her, just how many holdouts there will be.
cali
(114,904 posts)And I have no problem with his endorsing her if she wins.
onenote
(42,714 posts)then you should understand why he hasn't gone negative and why he wouldn't make the argument that the country doesn't need another Clinton administration. He's not going to say things that the Repubs will throw back at the Democrats if Clinton is the nominee. He's a smarter politician than that.
The repubs, on the other hand, are going to have a hell of a time reconciling what their candidates have said about each other when they finally end up with a candidate.
ElliotCarver
(74 posts)& it is clear from your post that you have paid not a lick of attention to Bernie’s message, which rings of how awful ( 
) he believes a third Clinton administration would be
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)something along the lines of ....
horse/water/drink .... lost it.
also, analogy of free will .... something somethin.
sorry.
can.not.make a cohesive statement about it.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)Even if she gets 100% of the Democratic vote, she still gets clobbered among independents against even the craziest Republican possibility. Clinton as the nominee is a guaranteed Republican win in November.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)The situation might have been different had Sanders been a member of the party all this time, but he knows he'd be taking a huge risk by saying it... (He still might play that card later, but it would be more out of desperation than anything else)
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)Interesting.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I said there is a time and a place to take calculated risks, which is something all politicians understand...
Empowerer
(3,900 posts)But many Sanders supporters bite the heads off of anyone who suggests any form of pragmatism - until it comes to Sanders exercising it...
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)I believe if Bernie doesn't win Iowa, it's because of his ludicrous pledge to not go negative. He runs ads attacking vague candidates who accept Goldman speaking fees, yet won't name her. It makes him look deceptive and weak rather than direct. Not to mention she went negative and then he tried to play catch-up. No wonder the polls are trending toward Hillary in the final days.
She is a fatally flawed candidate who, if attacked properly, would have already crumbled. If Bernie wins the nomination, will he just stand there full of compliments while Trump roasts him? He's too nice for national politics.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Very nicely.
