Sanders has no business being in the running, at all, given the obstacles of his anti-ruling-class rhetoric and his nerve in directly calling billionaires, Wall Street and Corporate America on the carpet. Especially in recent decades, at least since Reagan, this is like going after Jesus, Mary and Mom’s apple pie. With far too many Americans falling deeper and deeper into the most bizarre, masochistic and slightly deranged support for rich folks screwing them over, it’s amazing to see a politician openly attacking the new American saints.
For Hillary, it’s Pyrrhic for several reasons. But most importantly, it’s exposed her desperate drive to be president, her quick recourse to lying about Single Payer programs, which obviously puts her on the side of neoliberal, so-called “free market,” Heritage Foundation plans, rather than what we really need to fix our health care mess: dumping all of that. Dumping the for-profit, subsidized corporate lunacy for a truly non-profit and public alternative.
She brazenly lied about what Bernie’s program would involve, telling everyone that it would cost the entire country their health care while we debated the issue . . . as if laws work that way. As if we suspend them while Congress bickers and horse trades over some new legislation.
The other obvious exposure here? Hillary’s support for the go-slow, timid incrementalism that has become the hallmark of the DLC Dems. Thing is, it’s not even “practical” or “pragmatic” and it doesn’t even “go slow” in the right direction. It just lets Republicans take over more and more ground, gut more and more programs, destroy more and more of the New Deal, Great Society and Civil Rights legacies. Bernie’s way is to stop that absurdity, that kabuki theater, that good cop, bad cop nonsense. And, since the supposedly “practical” and “realistic” way runs up against the very same Republican obstruction as the most pie in the sky legislation, why not let America know where you stand? Why not make that as clear as possible? Why not energize them, inspire them, draw the apathetic and the frustrated back into the political process by giving them something to really aspire to?
No one is inspired by centrist mush. No one sees any of that as important, necessary, democratic action. And that kills turnout, and low turnout dramatically helps the GOP.
Another thing Iowa tells us. Bernie is by far the better candidate for the general. Why? Because if Hillary wins, she’s going to attract regular Dem voters, some of whom will hold their noses and vote for her because she’s not a Republican. But Americans to the left of the Democratic Party? Naww. Most of us will cast a protest vote for someone like Jill Stein, primarily because we don’t want to vote Lesser of Two Evils. We want to vote for someone rather than vote against someone.
If Bernie wins, many of us to the left of the Democratic Party, and many Dems to the left of the DLC, will get out and vote, perhaps even volunteer, knock on doors, work hard for Sanders. That’s not going to happen with a Hillary victory. She really can’t count on the millions of Americans to the left of the two major parties. Sanders can.
Go big or go home. Bernie won Iowa even in losing by a nose. Hillary lost Iowa even in winning by a nose . . . . which appears to be growing and growing and growing.
Tuesday, Feb 2, 2016 · 5:09:45 PM +00:00
·
diomedes77
Another question, or two, or three: Is it important that we Americans vote our principles, vote for people who hold values we share in common? And is this more important than voting the party line, especially if the party line does not share our values, our hopes and dreams, our aspirations for a better world?
Should we forever be stuck in a defensive rut, where our supposed mission is to simply prevent GOP victories, regardless of where the Democrats in question stand on the issues, rather than supporting someone we don’t need to apologize for, or rationalize on their behalf? Shouldn’t we be able to ignore the given that the GOP is odious, and instead support a clearly, radically, better way? Not just marginally better, or marginally less odious, or Republican Lite, but head and shoulders, obviously, resoundingly superior?
IMO, Sanders provides at least a shot at the latter. Hillary represents the former, the DLC way, the way of prenegotiated compromise and acquiescence.