This should not be an issue.
I'm taking off my Bernie hat for just a minute, just in front of the debate tonight and nine days in front of the Nevada caucuses.
It’s my thought that a softening of this stance would prove a positive for Clinton there, and yeah anywhere really.
Such a switch would very likely bolster her overall campaign.
But for God’s sake, and for the sake of all of our chances in November, Democrats should stand united against putting people in cages for marijuana.
Bernie has been talking about this for a very long time and I think he would agree with me. I think Bernie would have an even harder slog to win the primary were she to soften, but not by much. And I think if she keeps the madness up and then loses it would do nothing at all to help Bernie in the general, and could very possibly hurt him.
Certainly it would hurt Democrats overall.
Believe it or not Democratic youth aren’t going to show up for a Democrat who clings to that nonsense, and they will feel that much less inclined to even talk to any Democrats who are associated with it even tangentially. And no that doesn't make them stoners or potheads, although some certainly are. What that confusion and disbelief does mean is that these kids have a keen eye for century-old bullshit.
In fact I think a fair portion of the Democrats’ electoral woes from the last few decades or so have been due directly to this clinging to antiquated nonsense.
But yet here we are with Hillary Clinton, a Democratic candidate for President of the United States, who still does not quite grok the MAD part of reefer madness.
Is there some perceived tactical advantage to this? I suppose there must be.
What, zero tolerance Republicans are going to be swayed by this stance? Swayed to vote for Hillary Clinton because of such a relatively obscure issue?
Ha. Yeah. Um. No. To say nothing of the overall silliness of such a notion many of the most discerning bud-smokers I know are Republicans.
Maybe the goal is to sway the half-dozen or so Democrats who still support the reefer madness.
Or maybe it's to get at the somewhat greater number of reefermad Independents, say about three dozen all told, all of them over 45.
And she wonders why her numbers are down with youth.
Or possibly she doesn't want such a shift to cast any charges of “waffler” or “flipflopper” in her direction. That seems at least halfway sensible reasoning. But the thing is: Americans and especially youth have seen a great lot of relatively pivotal change happen on this issue in a relatively short period of time.
Honestly, it really isn't that big a deal to change positions on issues like this one.
(I can't resist) The thing that must make Bernie infuriating is he’s barely changed positions on anything in some 34 years in politics.
That's the breaks.
I think on this issue she had better soften at least a little, or I don't see how she can hope to make a dent in Bernie’s command of the charged-up youth, and by association she will hurt the chances of every Democrat in November.
The kids are not falling for it anymore.