A Bernie presidency can be transformational...a HRC presidency can't be.

[Ken Burch]

You can't get social and economic transformation with a militaristic foreign policy and a pro-Wall Street economic policy. That's why social transformation was brought to a stop in the late Sixties...those who wanted us to stay in Vietnam and those who put the needs of the rich above everyone else's needs made further significant change impossible.

HRC can make things slightly better, but all she will ever try to do is tinker around the edges of the edges. She won't challenge corporate control of politics and she won't ever reconsider the idea that the U.S. must always be either in a war or preparing to start one.

We don't need to settle for the least we can get.

[merrily]

1. She's a woman. That's supposed to be the big transformation.

[moondust]

19. Not that big a deal.

Women have been part of the D.C. establishment from the beginning as spouses, mothers, daughters; influencing D.C. politicos over breakfast and dinner, at parties, you name it.

Significant but not in the same league as "first black President" and distant granddaughter of slaves living in the White House.

And...Margaret Thatcher.

[JaneyVee]

2. This is just getting sad now.

[Ken Burch]

3. Telling the truth is never sad.

And you've got nothing to be smug and dismissive about.

[JaneyVee]

5. You're opinion is not the truth.

It is your opinion. That is the truth.

[Ken Burch]

6. No, it's the truth. The least-progressive candidate can never be transformational in office.

It just doesn't happen.

And electing a woman, in and of itself, isn't feminist. If it was, then electing Fiorina would be feminist.

[JaneyVee]

10. No, that is called your opinion.

You're mixing up your opinion with the truth. It is ok if that is your opinion, but it doesn't make it true. And adding the word "never" in there is proof that it is just your opinion. Unless you are going to state that somehow you can predict the future?

[Skidmore]

25. That doesn't even make sense.

Not in any reality. Why should women vote for Fiorina, who will do nothing in their interests? Try again.

[Ken Burch]

27. I'm referring there to the argument that HRC's gender means that it's automatically more feminist

to vote for her(and the corollary argument that Democrats and progressives who don't support her being nominated are sexist). Gender doesn't outweigh everything else.

If HRC was running on Bernie's program and refusing corporate donations(and had actually apologized for letting Bush have his war)I'd be supporting her and I think most Sanders supporters would do so as well.

[CoffeeCat]

23. This opinion is shared by quite a few people...

...and many, many Democrats.

That is the truth.

You wonder why she lost the 2008 Democratic primary to a junior Senator with less than half of her experience?

The biggest thing she's got going for her is her "inevitability" and that just does not inspire a whole lot of enthusiasm.

[ibegurpard]

4. what is?

Your defense of her? I agree with that.

[bvar22]

15. Hillary herself said the same thing at the first debate.

<paraphrase> I'm a woman. That makes me an outsider!

Hillaryous.

[NurseJackie]

7. Oh, Gag!

[dsc]

8. For gays this presidency was transformational

and a Clinton Presidency would be as well if we could get enda or civil rights protections. But I know we don't matter.

[merrily]

11. ENDA

ENDA has been introduced in every Congress since 1994 except the 109th.* Similar legislation has been introduced without passage since 1974.[1] The bill gained its best chance at passing after the Democratic Party gained the majority after twelve years of Republican majorities in the 2006 midterm elections. In 2007, gender identity protections were added to the legislation for the first time. Some sponsors believed that even with a Democratic majority, ENDA did not have enough votes to pass the House of Representatives with transgender inclusion and dropped it from the bill, which passed the House and then died in the Senate. President George W. Bush threatened to veto the measure. LGBT advocacy organizations and the LGBT community were divided over support of the modified bill.

In 2009, following Democratic gains in the 2008 elections, and after the divisiveness of the 2007 debate, Rep. Barney Frank introduced a transgender-inclusive version of ENDA. He introduced it again in 2011, and Sen. Jeff Merkley introduced it in the Senate. On November 7, 2013, Merkley's bill passed the Senate with bipartisan support by a vote of 64–32. President Barack Obama supports the bill's passage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_United_States_Congress

*2005-07

[dsc]

13. we have moved a bit though in the executive through the EEOC

in this regard. That is working its way through the courts now.

[merrily]

14. That is good. No Democratic President is going to turn that back. Maybe not even a Republican.

[Ken Burch]

29. I'm not talking about this presidency. And Bernie fights just as hard for you as HRC

if not harder, since he opposed DOMA. Nobody is saying you don't matter. just that working-class folks(many of whom are also LGBTQ) and the poor(ditto)matter too.

[MineralMan]

9. No President can be transformational without

a Congress that will go along with the transformation. Presidents have only so much power.

Here's what I think: Give any Democratic President a solid majority in both houses of Congress and stand back. That would be transformational. And by a solid majority, I mean a majority that can't be blocked by a few obstructionists.

We won't do it in 2016, but we just might in 2020 if people will actually turn out in a mid-term election. We can do that, if we have the will to do that.

[merrily]

12. Quantify, Mineral Man--and then assess reality

ACA ultimately passed by reconciliation, requiring only 50 Senators plus Biden. Still didn't have a public option, though.

So, how many Senators do you suppose a Democratic President will need to get a "solid" majority--no DINOs, no one beholden to special interests, etc.? Please be specific. And what is the likelihood that of that happening, ever? Especially since the DNC very heavily favors rightists?

In 2017, no Democratic President is going to have the kind of Democratic majority in both houses to which your post refers. That is just a reality. Maybe no Democratic President ever will.

Nonetheless, a Sanders Presidency can be transformational, just as a Sanders run for the Democratic nomination for POTUS has been transformational.

[bvar22]

16. Obama had one of those.

He fiddled it away.

[MineralMan]

17. No, actually he didn't. The Senate rules allowed bills

to be blocked. And they were.

[bvar22]

21. Nope.

There was a brief (3 week period?) when Obama had a filibuster-proof majority.
What great legislation did the Leader of our Party ram through with the filibuster-proof Democratic majority?

If I were President and had a 3 week window, nobody could have gone home until I finished my Presidential Bucket List.

I was flabbergasted that the Democrats were so willing to lay down for Republicans during the time that Franken was in limbo.
With some leadership,
and some of Obama's Army for Change sent to Minneapolis, I believe the process could have been expedited.
The Republicans would sure have been raising hell if their majority was "held up".
(SEE: Florida 2000)

It appeared that the Democrats didn't really want a filibuster-proof majority,
and when they got it...they did INDEED fritter it away.


Study Up on LBJ:
Read Up on "The Johnson Treatment".
http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

oh, and before I forget, please list all the great Democratic legislation that Obama passed while he had a filibuster-proof majority.

[jeff47]

18. So under your plan, we have to wait until we get about 80 Senate seats.

Gee...I wonder why your plan is not particularly inspiring.

[MrMickeysMom]

28. That didn't work very well with Pelosi's famous line...

"Impeachment is off the table".

But, it has a far better chance, given that Congress who historically has reported to Wall Street starts to hear from more of us committed to carrying this political revolution. If LBJ was known for bending the ear of Senate and House members, we are of our representatives while controlling our purse strings to major corporations.

[Ken Burch]

33. If you want people to turn out in 2018, we need a "fire up the base" campaign,

not another bland centrist "the only voters who matter are the finicky tightfisted 'centrist independents'" campaign. That kind of campaign killed us in 1994, 1998, 2002, 2010, and 2014.

We can only win the midterms if we make the difference between our party and their massively clear, and if we do massive voter registration(and re-registration in the ReRisen South) campaigns starting now.

Passion, truth, and courage win. Timidity and triangulation equal defeat. There is no "center" anymore...just the 1% and the 99%.

[mythology]

34. Not to belabor the obvious

But if Sanders is so transformational why isn't it reflected in his polling? I would think if he was so singularly appealing it would push him ahead of Clinton.

I think it's far more likely that you are projecting what you want to be true rather than what is likely to happen.

[brooklynite]

20. A Bernie presidency CAN'T be transformational...if he doesn't win

Clinton is still the focus of the Republicans. Sanders' favs will drop when he starts getting hammered by them.

[daybranch]

31. Actually an attack on Bernie inspires us his followers to work harder

What you are missing is that we are solidly behind him on the issues, we really love his frankness and we will not ever stop, because restoring democracy is our cause. It ain't about Bernie, it is about what we and Bernie share, our progressive values.

[Betty Karlson]

36. + 1000! This difference cannot be emphasised enough. eom

[hack89]

37. There are not enough of you

How hard you work is irrelevant.

[LongTomH]

22. Under Clinton, things would continue to get worse, although not as fast as under a GOP president

She will sign on to the TPP and other trade deals that ship American jobs overseas, and side with Wall Street against Main Street working America.

I also seriously doubt that she will defend Social Security from Republican attacks.

Add a hawkish foreign policy that may very likely get us into another war.

[Broward]

24. Hillary will just further us down the road to ruin.

[MaggieD]

26. Bull

There will be nothing "transformational" about a Sanders presidency. His long record of accomplishing nothing in the senate makes that quite clear.

[Blue_Adept]

30. Obama was supposed to be transformational as well

Placing hope in that kind of thing is really problematic - because if (when) it doesn't happen you end up really going off the rails in disappointment and anger.

The practicalities of governance and the pragmatic side of it clashes with the whole transformational.

The only truly transformational thing is full on true revolution. Not voting.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

32. A Bernie presidency would have required transformation to begin with.

Sanders could only win if the electorate were first to be massively transformed - with people holding the opinions they now do, he would lose.

[treestar]

35. Transformation of what?

I don't see that as a winning argument. A constitutional convention might "transform" the system. To get that you'd need the votes.

The Presidency's powers remain the same.