I dispute the characterization Kara Balut if you mean MOST or a majority of Bernie fans were troublesome...
I didn't say "most" nor did I imply it. But there were enough to do damage.
When it comes to Bernie Sanders having done major damage to her candidacy, of COURSE he did. He dared run against her and sparked a flame of excitement and passion in the young electorate particularly that Hilary couldn't dream of. Her road to the nomination was all but assured, her coronation planned... how dare that old Jewish socialist ruin the party she was entitled to?
...don't you think if they had a problem with him running, they should have addressed it when he registered to run?
There's a saying, "Democrats fall in love. Republicans fall in line". There are candidates on the Democratic side like Sharpton, Teddy Kennedy, Laughlin, Kucinich, et al who represent constituencies during the nominating process but who would never be able to win as Presidential candidates for the national Democratic party. Sanders was one of those candidates who represented the more left-leaning constituency in the party- a critical block both in terms of energy and financing- but not a broad enough coalition to win nationally. No one wants to talk about it, but Sanders also had big issues with Black voters.
Sanders was probably allowed to run as a Democrat because of that history of trying to bring in broad constituent consistencies but also because his vote is critical in the Senate. Sanders and King are both nominally Independents but they vote with the Democrats.
And Hillary, for all the claims about her intelligence, is so cautious and averse to risk she has never stood consistently for ANY principle.. where has she led ANYWHERE in her career and stood steadfastly for any principle she didn't have a public and a private position for?
The criticism about Hillary's overly cautious nature as a candidate is valid; it is part of her lack of natural skill at politics. But it's interesting to contrast Bill and Hillary. Bill is a natural politician but he was an indecisive, mercurial and overly analytical President. Hillary is not a natural politician but she's far more disciplined, decisive and hawkish as a politician. Bill is the one who was more likely to change positions based upon public opinion; Hillary tends to be more tone-deaf and slow to change positions.
Her positions have been very clear. During the election, she stated them in writing and in her speeches. Some of the positions- like her pro-choice, pro gun-control and intent to raise taxes on the rich were stated clearly and probably cost her votes from independents who lean right. But because she was running a more traditional campaign in a year that was a reality show, none of her detailed positions and white papers were heard or read by most people.
...FDR presented the Economic Bill of Rights in 1944, a very bold and progressive set of core values for the Democratic Party including universal health care and expanding well beyond that...
1944 was 70 years ago. Neither party should be working from a plan from 70 years ago. The country has moved far more to the right in the past 40 years and there's a dogged dedication on the part of some very wealthy conservatives to unravel the New Deal.
But what is critical about the Democratic Party of 1944 was that it was stating principles and proposing new ideas.
One of the big short-comings of the current Democratic Party is that it spends too much energy trying to preserve the New Deal and not enough time stating their principles and proposing new ideas to replace the New Deal.
...they may be intelligent and have some good insights but they have done precious little for those struggling and working to a better life...
Except for the
CHIP program? Except for 50 years of advocacy for
women and
children? Except for their revolutionary and public
advocacy for equality for gay people during a Presidential campaign?
People tend to conflate the Clintons. Bill is more the calculating politician. Hillary is more pragmatic policy wonk.
A very telling example is to look at Bill's and Hillary's explanations for signing DOMA (a big betrayal of the gay community that supported them):
When asked, Bill tends to equivocate and say that he felt it wasn't constitutional when he signed it and he hoped that it would be overturned some day. Bill has always supported gay rights when he needed the votes but was not as consistent when he was in office.
When asked about DOMA during the 2016 election cycle, Hillary recalled that Hawaii was pondering allowing same-sex marriage and that social conservatives were pushing for a Constitutional amendment to
permanently ban same-sex marriages. DOMA was a way to avoid the Constitutional amendment which could only be overturned by a second Constitutional amendment.
If you look at the history, Hillary has been the more vocal supporter of gay rights.
In the end, they were right- same-sex marriage exists because of a Supreme Court decision. A Constitutional amendment would have doomed the issue for all 50 states.
Well noted....thereby ensuring that he divided the Democratic Party, leading to Trump's victory.
I wouldn't attribute the loss to division in the Democratic Party. I would attribute it to a lack of energy on the part of Democratic voters. For example, if Hillary would have gotten the same turnout in certain groups- like young voters or Black voters- she would be President today.
In the end, it wasn't the votes that lost the election- Hillary got nearly 3 million more votes than Trump. The problem was that we have an illogical and antiquated Electoral College system; Hillary didn't get the votes
in the right places.
and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. If Kamala becomes the Democratic nominee, and keeps strongly taking progressive stands, I'm strongly supportive of her... I'd be with her because I know she's with US. And those who would continue to come down hard against her would be absolutely wrong and I'd let them have it... no way we're going down the Trump path of populist nationalism and bigotry again. But Kamala Harris is no Hillary Clinton... she's not an isolated, distant, overly cautious and rehearsed, egotistical , hypocritical, and entitled queen bee. She's part of our future... along with a whole host of others. It's important and essential to have ideals but folly of the most egregious sort to be constantly judgmental and dismissive if one doesn't comport themselves EXACTLY in a manner of approved progressive behavior. You have to pick your battles but know when to come together. If you agree on 70-85% of policies, you find a way to work around the times you don't or you wind up getting NOTHING done to address the vision of a progressive America.
