This op-ed is pretty close to what I'm thinking. Seen some angst about this on social media from the Sanders supporters http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/hillary-clinton-for-president-20160323 Hillary Clinton for President "Idealism and honesty are crucial qualities for me, but I also want someone with experience who knows how to fight hard” It's hard not to love Bernie Sanders. He has proved to be a gifted and eloquent politician. He has articulated the raw and deep anger about the damage the big banks did to the economy and to so many people's lives. He's spoken clearly for those who believe the system is rigged against them; he's made plain how punishing and egregious income inequality has become in this country, and he refuses to let us forget that the villains have gotten away with it. I've been watching the debates and town halls for the past two months, and Sanders' righteousness knocks me out. My heart is with him. He has brought the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations to the ballot box. But it is not enough to be a candidate of anger. Anger is not a plan; it is not a reason to wield power; it is not a reason for hope. Anger is too narrow to motivate a majority of voters, and it does not make a case for the ability and experience to govern. I believe that extreme economic inequality, the vast redistribution of wealth to the top one percent — indeed, to the top one percent of the one percent — is the defining issue of our times. Within that issue, almost all issues of social injustice can be seen, none more so than climate change, which can be boiled down to the rights of mankind against the oligarchy that owns oil, coal and vast holdings of dirty energy, and those who profit from their use. Hillary Clinton has an impressive command of policy, the details, trade-offs and how it gets done. It's easy to blame billionaires for everything, but quite another to know what to do about it. During his 25 years in Congress, Sanders has stuck to uncompromising ideals, but his outsider stance has not attracted supporters among the Democrats. Paul Krugman writes that the Sanders movement has a "contempt for compromise." Every time Sanders is challenged on how he plans to get his agenda through Congress and past the special interests, he responds that the "political revolution" that sweeps him into office will somehow be the magical instrument of the monumental changes he describes. This is a vague, deeply disingenuous idea that ignores the reality of modern America. With the narrow power base and limited political alliances that Sanders had built in his years as the democratic socialist senator from Vermont, how does he possibly have a chance of fighting such entrenched power? I have been to the revolution before. It ain't happening. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton is one of the most qualified candidates for the presidency in modern times, as was Al Gore. We cannot forget what happened when Gore lost and George W. Bush was elected and became arguably one of the worst presidents in American history. The votes cast for the fantasy of Ralph Nader were enough to cost Gore the presidency. Imagine what a similar calculation would do to this country if a "protest vote" were to put the presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court all in the hands of the extreme right wing that now controls the Republican Party. Clinton not only has the experience and achievements as first lady, senator and secretary of state, but a commitment to social justice and human rights that began for her as a young woman. She was one of those college students in the Sixties who threw herself into the passionate causes of those times, and she continues to do so today. The debates between Clinton and Sanders have been inspirational; to see such intelligence, dignity and substance is a tribute to both of them. The contrast to the banality and stupidity of the GOP candidates has been stunning. It's as if there are two separate universes, one where the Earth is flat and one where it is round; one where we are a country that is weak, flailing and failing; the other, an America that is still a land of hopes and dreams. I keep hearing questions surface about her honesty and trustworthiness, but where is the basis in reality or in facts? This is the lingering haze of coordinated GOP smear campaigns against the Clintons — and President Obama — all of which have come up empty, including the Benghazi/e-mail whirlwind, which after seven GOP-led congressional investigations has turned up zilch. Battlefield experience is hard-won, and with it comes mistakes but also wisdom. Clinton's vote authorizing Bush to invade Iraq 14 years ago was a huge error, one that many made, but not one that constitutes a disqualification on some ideological purity test. Rolling Stone has championed the "youth vote" since 1972, when 18-year-olds were first given the right to vote. The Vietnam War was a fact of daily life then, and Sen. George McGovern, the liberal anti-war activist from South Dakota, became the first vessel of young Americans, and Hunter S. Thompson wrote our first presidential-campaign coverage. We worked furiously for McGovern. We failed; Nixon was re-elected in a landslide. But those of us there learned a very clear lesson: America chooses its presidents from the middle, not from the ideological wings. We are faced with that decision again. In 2016, what does the "youth vote" want? As always, I think it has to do with idealism, integrity and authenticity, a candidate who will tell it like it is. It is intoxicating to be a part of great hopes and dreams — in 2016 it's called "feeling the Bern." You get a sense of "authenticity" when you hear Sanders talking truth to power, but there is another kind of authenticity, which may not feel as good but is vitally important, when Clinton speaks honestly about what change really requires, about incremental progress, about building on what Obama has achieved in the arenas of health care, clean energy, the economy, the expansion of civil rights. There is an inauthenticity in appeals to anger rather than to reason, for simplified solutions rather than ones that stand a chance of working. This is true about Donald Trump, and lamentably also true about Sanders. Sanders blaming Clinton's support of "free trade" policies for the loss of jobs in Detroit is misleading. The region's decline began as foreign automakers started making and exporting cars of clearly superior quality. The Big Three saw their market share slipping, and pressed the White House to enact import quotas on foreign cars instead of facing the competition head-on and improving their own products. This backfired when foreign companies built their own factories in the United States and directly took on Detroit. Politics is a rough game, and has been throughout American history. Idealism and honesty are crucial qualities for me, but I also want someone with experience who knows how to fight hard. It's about social and economic justice and who gets the benefits and spoils of our society, and those who have them now are not about to let go of their share just because it's the right thing to do. And Clinton is a tough, thoroughly tested fighter. Elections have consequences. Bush brought us into a war that still plagues us today; he authorized massive tax cuts for the rich and the corporations; abandoned the Middle East peace process; ushered in the worst financial crisis since the Depression; and totally neglected the climate emergency. This election is even more consequential, a tipping point like none since before the Civil War. We are at the culmination of a decades-long effort by the right wing to take over the government. Historian Sean Wilentz told this story in Rolling Stone. The House, the Senate and, until a month ago, the Supreme Court are under the thumb of special interests and the extremely wealthy, who seek to roll back decades and decades of legislative progress that have furthered "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." And most horrifying of all, they would stop the world's last-minute effort to fight climate change, where the stakes are the fate of civilization as we now know it. When I consider what's in their hearts, I think both Clinton and Sanders come out on the side of the angels; but when I compare their achievements in the past decades, the choice is clear. This is not the time in history for a "protest vote." Clinton is far more likely to win the general election than Sanders. The voters who have rallied to Sanders during the primaries are not enough to generate a Democratic majority in November. Clinton will certainly bring them along, and add them to the broad coalition that Democrats have put together in the past to take the presidency, as did Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. On the question of experience, the ability to enact progressive change, and the issue of who can win the general election and the presidency, the clear and urgent choice is Hillary Clinton.
i love how people willfully and conveniently ignore hilarys terrible faults and terrible lies (both too many too list) but can't seem to get over bernie's few issues.
I like Hillary for the reason most people don't like her. She is a pragmatist. She is realistic about what can be achieved. She is only dishonest in a way that any person who has been constantly attacked for 24 years has to be. Every person who has directly worked with her has almost universally said good things about her. The fact that she is still in the game this long is a testament to her strength.
hardly a convincing article. although i can't call this an attack on sanders it does attempt to minimalize him while failing to support hilary by listing any genuine accomplishments.
i told you!!! it's amazing how folks easily make excuses her. none of the other candidates get the benefit of the doubt like she does. i have to ask, is it because she's a woman(allegedly)?
More like a testament to her last name. She's been atrocious at every stop: 1) First Lady - couldn't get anything of substance done on healthcare 2) Senator from NY - voted for the Iraq war 3) Secretary of State - created true chaos in the Middle East and allowed our ambassador to be killed and drug through the street. Also kept now confidential state secrets on her bathroom server as a matter of convenience.
No, it's the amount of total bull**** that has been heaped upon her for 25 years, Peter and the wolf. Every lie and spin reduces the impact of whatever truths are there. The backlash of Rovian politics: Trump and teflon Clinton. (see above) The truth is, actually doing anything or attempting to do anything in politics, beyond just saying no, invites criticism from the opposing party. A lot of things are subject influences beyond the proposer's control. Where we have lost it is the civility and logic in honest debate.
For Barry Goldwater. And they conveniently forgot that Bernie Sanders was doing the same damn thing in 60s.
I mean seriously, I would fire this writer for this childish thought process. Of course Bernie is not "in" with the people he wants to get rid of!!!!!! lol That's the whole point. OF COURSE THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE A SIGNIFICANT SHIFT IS BY SOMETHING UNPRECEDENTED HAPPENING. My goodness. As if a dramatic shift leftwards can happen via Hillary f'ing Clinton, the most regular politician ever manufactured. I guess MLK was just an idiot, because how was he going to convince congress unless he had the friends to make calls to the right people, reward others, build up some corporate funding and get those corporations on his side? lol Hilarity. Why can't people understand that the measuring stick here is not: how much can each of these two people achieve working within the established processes of the current system? Look, I can understand why tv supports Hillary. But Rolling Stones? Their political credibility will be hit by this, more than they will have any success convincing anyone of this biased work. You can't really convert someone from Bernie to Hillary. People don't swing that way. They are more likely to swing from Bernie to Trump or even dump it in the Jill Stein box. Notice the common theme here. Anyways, it's pretty clear to me that Bernie's presidential campaign will impact America's long term future positively, even more than 8 years of Hillary in the oval office would, so it's all good for both sides I think. He made a quantity of noise that the Naders and Deans and etc. couldn't make when they tried. His views were aired constantly on TV and debates and town halls and campuses and youtube. He forced Hillary to make some more liberal and progressive statements, and there will be more pressure on her when she flips those positions again. There were huge rallies where 10-20k people at a time were discussing the real big issues and establishment politics. Social media is abuzz with talk of democratic socialism. Some of the taboo of socialism was discarded. A succesful model was presented for raising major funds to compete with these establishment candidates. Mainstream media looked a bit more ridiculous to young people, to add to the years they've been doing this stuff. An alternative was presented. That's good. It's not all bad. I know Hillary supporters from this point on will inexplicably try to justify their win from this point forward. We get it. She won, it's done. Go get the Republicans now, stop wasting time with these arguments that were discarded before the race even started.
I don't think people excuse Hillary Clinton's faults. It's just that they've already dealt with them. She's been attacked extensively over and over and over again. It's been going on since she was the first lady. It's been happening during her time in the Senate. It's been happening during her time serving in this administration. So it means some people won't vote for her at all (I'm included unless in the general election California actually had a chance to go for the GOP nominee). But others have heard the attacks, and agree but not enough to stop them voting for her. Others here the attacks on Hillary, and see that she's still been able to accomplish a lot during time in government. It's actually impressed them. It's one of the reason why they like her. Others are simply numb to it because it's been going on for so long. But initially they had a reaction to it. It's just after being told that after being told that Hillary was so awful that if she ever held any position in government that the world would end. She's held government positions and the world hasn't ended, so they no longer trust what's being said against her. It's kind of how some people were hit so hard with anti-drug propaganda and then saw someone smoke pot regularly and not turn into a strung out junky with no hope in life. They probably stopped buying into the extreme propaganda.
James Harden, Defensive Player of the Year: 1) The 8 steals game against Utah. 2) That block in that other game. 3) That game where he supposedly played bad defense, but he supported his other teammates who played great defense. Verdict: Harden should be DPOY. Makes about as much as sense as BigLatex' specious argument.
I don't think Hillary will be a bad president. Any election result that keeps a nut job from the right out of the office, is a disaster averted. However Hilary, in her own right, suffers from some of the same characteristics that make the conservatives so awful, which is a bit of a bummer. Bernie was the only guy who wanted to take on the core problems with the government. Would he be effective, I don't know, but the first step is shining a light on the issue, which he was at the forefront of.
Phony baloney, Dipaman. Are you seriously ****ing kidding me? Benghazi alone has been elevated to a larger-than-9/11 level, along with numerous other things. Maybe if Donald Trump would stop saying stupid **** and act like a Presidential candidate instead of a participant in a WWF match, we'd take him seriously.
FB, Are you perhaps underestimating the role of framing issues when it comes to Hillary's voters? First of all, we're talking about old people mostly when it comes to Hillary voters. These people are mostly watching TV. There is a significant difference between watching what CNN says about the Benghazi hearing vs what The Intercept says about the hearing. You don't receive the same message. To me, it's it's a bigger deal than it's made out to be. I think it's harder for Americans to see it from the inside. A decade ago, I would have been a Hillary supporter because I would only watch CNN, BBC and occasionally some American ally Arab media. It is very convincing when you watch those things. I've experienced it because I've been following this election with that in mind. I've sat watching those channels for consecutive hours at a time and it's really incredible now that I've become - admittedly - obsessed with diversifying my sources on what's happening. I watch at least 9-10 different angles of a major story before making a judgement now. I will watch/read Fox, CNN, Democracy Now, Intercept, TYT, RT, Al Jazeera, the Guardian, Al Arabiya, Press News and any other interesting angle which I might find on reddit or something. It's another world man. It's really another world. And her voters, these are not technologically savvy people. They are the last remaining group of people in America relying on mainstream TV and radio for political media. I don't think this is a case of people loving pragmatism. I think it's a math issue. On average IIRC, roughly 5% of young people go out and vote vs something like 40% of old people. Obama broke a long time record by turning out just 12% of the youth vote. That's paltry. It's nothing. Bernie wasn't even able to replicate that I think in terms of NEW voters. So if only old people are voting, change is going to be harder to come by. Bernie did not have any problem convincing young people to vote for him, what he had a problem with was actually reaching more young people and that's not a Bernie vs Hillary issue, that's an establishment vs non-establishment issue IMO. The other major factor is independents, and you can see it from how well bernie did in states where independents didn't have the registration hassle. He killed in those states, he's huge with independents. We have to be realistic. Old people have worked hard a long time for what they have, they do not want any risk at all. They are highly highly risk averse. In their minds, if they were able to make it to where they are today with the Bush's and the Regans and the Obamas, then they will be safe with Hillary. They get to retire with a safer state of mind. Would the outcome of this election be different if you could securely vote from your smartphone, registration was easier, states were taken out of the equation and instead all people in all states had the entire primary/GE cycle to vote 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? How would the system I propose bring back into the fold the two liberal juggernauts in NY and CA, who have been irrelevant too many times? What if campaigns could only be publicly funded? Personally, I needed this. I needed to see if this could happen in 2016. What would happen. Would it be possible through the system, rather than from outside the system. Could congress be changed from the inside? If the president says "peeps, let's ALL meet up in Washington DC, I want everyone to come out to hear what congress rejected yesterday" instead of a press conference with mainstream media. Could that happen? Would it make a difference? The answer I've found is, no. Sanders is not very left but he was brutalized. The only way he could have won this is with changes like the ones I suggested, or to become more establishment friendly. That's not a choice. There is a 40 year period where incomes have flattened and productivity has soared, prices have increased, extreme poverty has grown. Obama and Clinton barely made a chink in the armour of this problem, and they've been rightfully heralded as people who tried to help much more than others. Hillary is not going to change that. Even Warren will have trouble changing it if she succumbs to her current precarious position of having deeply pissed off probable POTUS Hillary Clinton. The answer IMO is now clearly outside the system. That's what this did for me, it made me certain of it, and lots of seeds were planted. The next crash, which looks like it will happen on Hillary's watch, will be different IMO.
You know... ...I don't think anybody's interested in trying to highlight or magnify "flaws" in either Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton (particularly in the article rocketsjudoka posted)... ...at least not so much as highlight (again, as stated in the article) what a "political revolution" against the “status quo” would actually entail, from our democratic, rule-of-law perspective. The propensity for people to routinely vote against their own economic interests in the name of post-WW2 sophistry, in essence, is still deeply ingrained into a lot of people's thinking. Some of the same people who might, in a different world, concur with Senator Sanders' economic message and populist angst would, in a heartbeat, vote against anything legislative he might propose if elected President...because they fear "socialism" (democratic or otherwise) or some other strategically placed bogeyman. Sentimentality and pragmatism are dynamics almost exclusively unique to the human condition, especially when the conversation is about societal governance (our governance in particular), and take extraordinary amounts of effort to reconcile. No idea, I've heard it said, can descend into manifestation without an imperfection. Our American democracy is in constant search of "...a more perfect union....” Here's a for instance: The Rolling Stone article makes mention of Senator Sanders essentially giving political legitimacy to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement...which even at its most fervent, was both a great expression of public dissatisfaction and political ineptitude at the same time. I've tried to be all-encompassing so far, with my use of the word "people" in this rant, but now I'm going to go off the rails and fall back into ignorant liberal n!gger mode... I remember more than a few people wondered why, during most of those occupy Wall Street protests, that so few black people took part in any of them. Much of the feeling by many of the participants was that they couldn't understand why black people (who were even more devastated by the near-ruination of the economy than white people) weren't as angry and as ready for things to change as they were. And that was because it was an argument black people were making for many years before, and was routinely dismissed as “negro laziness” or “negro liberal plantation indoctrination” or something else altogether dismissive…and it only seemed to matter now that it was happening to white folk that it’s an issue at all. History doesn’t have a very large fan base here, but we could go back just a little further in time anyway, still…back to the Civil Rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s. Much was made of the spiritual or religious nature of the movement (especially considering American morality often chose to align itself with “Christian” virtue only so long as n!ggers kept their place)…but without the systematic deconstruction of segregationist tenets and legislation, through political as well as social means…well…. …Negros had dreams and prayers of being “free” for a long time…but only until they took some agency in its affectation (and amazingly, through our democratic recourses at local levels) did it even remotely begin to manifest itself into a national movement and identity. …full disclosure. I voted for Bernie Sanders recently in the primaries here…even understanding that it was going to be extremely difficult to see him nominated by the Democratic party…not to mention what would happen in a general election pool were he so fortunate to advance to that. I’ve gathered that if there’s any place to make a “protest” vote, it would be in the primary election season. We have what we have right now, as far as a two-party dominance of our political discourse is concerned. And if citing Hillary Clinton’s legislative behavior is any indicator, her political leanings are as malleable as anything else…having principles isn’t quite the same thing as having good sense, unfortunately…and to the extent that either Sanders or Clinton would be able to rely on anything in their public histories in order to maintain or challenge the “status quo”, as also stated by Bernie Sanders himself, he would most definitely need a legislative mandate as well as a popular one. To me, that’s where Senator Sanders (and for whatever else it might be worth, Donald Trump), has at least set our political conversations on a course back to somewhere in the more pragmatic and euphemistic middle…where even in increments it is possible to effect change… …because Senator Sanders’ largely younger supporters are not quite as inclined to make some of the same sophistic mistakes as their parents and grandparents made in their voting patterns… …those people need not only a leader who espouses their hopes and dreams, but one who can see the best way to get those dreams implemented. Martin Luther King Jr. is revered now by most people, because history has rewarded his commitment to his principles and his willingness to lead in American ways that people of any stripe could understand and align themselves with, even if only largely after his death. The thing that needs to most decisively happen for Senator Sanders (and for the Democratic party as a whole) in my opinion, is to shed the adoption of “trickle-down” principles of government acquired from the Grand Old Party, not just simply economically, but perhaps more importantly philosophically…the best domestic social governance decisions don’t generally come from the top-down…they work their way from the ground up. And surprisingly (or maybe not so surprisingly, for anybody who knows anything about farming and growing things), strong roots render strong harvests. Believe it or not, the hard part has actually been done. The ability to see that something’s wrong with our politics and our self-governance is oftentimes the most ardent hurdle, and as messy as it is, the consciousness has been awoken. Traditional moors have to been shaken. Ideas have to be reexamined. Ignorance is no longer a viable option or excuse. We do, indeed, have it in our power to begin the world again anew, as Thomas Paine once said. And if nothing else, Bernie Sanders has reminded a lot of people of that. The task is unarguably going to be slow and arduous and painful. But if I could ape another “Christian” tenet, it would be to not become wearied in one’s well-doing. The right thing to do at the right time to do it is its own reward, and bears its fruit in due time. But you can’t skip the process of getting to that point. Not if you intend for anything you might see changed to endure for any length of time. The reason why our political process is up for sale because, I believe, at the end of the day, it’s worth something very valuable. Too many people have invested too much time and blood into its continued existence…and ultimately believe in its intrinsic human elements (which still have people risk life and limb to venture here)…even allowing for the corrupting of the process by simple human greed, avarice and arrogance… …it’s one place in the world where, if enough people are committed to it and are willing to invest in it… …people can change their lives and the lives of others around them…with relatively little loss of life and limb… …time spent on endeavors worthy of the human spirit is never wasted.
lol. When did li'l t stop supporting the decision to invade Iraq? I must have missed that news flash.
An excellent endorsement of the Democrat running for the nomination of the Democratic Party. Kudos to Rolling Stone. I almost regret cancelling my subscription back during the 1980's. Almost.
