Senator Sanders, please endorse Hillary Clinton in March

democrat-logoWhile lefties argue about which Democrat is a more effective progressive, Republican exit polls show 75% in favor of Trump’s wall.

Liberals have to not only beat that xenophobic crowd in the election, but also then work with them to find common ground on immigration and all our other polarized issues. The president will be governing one nation of all 330 million people.

Later this year even the campaigners will return to the daily horse trading and compromise that all governments have to exercise to get anything done. Liberals of all stripes will need to rally behind the nominee, then progressive congressional candidates, then the new president, then prepare for mid-terms. Democrats can’t afford to be publicly bickering during the final months of this race or into the new year.

Half the delegates will be nailed down after Super Tuesday, March 1. If Clinton performs as expected (affirmed by her support from 80% of Nevada blacks) she will have a substantial lead that will deflate the narrative that a Sanders revolution is afoot. In this event, he has a choice.

Two camps, already formed, will become very vocal that night. One will point to Sanders’ slow but steady poll gains nationwide and insist that the must fight go on. The other will call for party cohesion and a focus on beating Trump or Rubio or Cruz in the general election.

America would be best served by Sanders using his new fame to help progressives get elected. His fans have been echoing attacks against Hillary that were concocted by Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove before many of them were born. His biggest contribution, after pulling the conversation left, could be to address some of the most egregious misinformation that’s he’s ignored while it works in his favor.

Lest we find ourselves under a president rolling back Obama’s progress from day one, Democrats need to stop fighting and start healing and cooperating. There’s still a big job ahead. Should Bernie Sanders be a decisive underdog in March, he owes it to his country to step aside and give Hillary Clinton his full endorsement.

This post was read 1243 times.

About author View all posts

jay

Jay is Editor In Chief of The Agonist, veteran and technologist.

18 CommentsLeave a comment

  • I’m afraid that a commitment by the Democrats to nominate Hillary will dramatically increase the likelihood of a Republican win in November.

    Yes, the entire Republican field is a pack of assclowns, but I’m sure I’m far from the only one who’ll sit this one out rather than vote for a candidate who supported both the Iraq war and the Wall Street bailout. She already let us down big time.

    We’d all best hope Bernie wins the nomination. Because not only is Hillary going to pick up approximately zero Republican votes, but neither actual leftists nor Democrats under 40 are going to come out to help her. The Repugs don’t even have to win on their own merits, if she loses on hers.

  • Or perhaps to have a completely united front the Democrats should have no primary at all! Why not let the party leaders just inform the US public that Hilary is the nominee. It is “her turn” after all.

    See no fuss or muss, and us rubes won’t get all confused and riled up. I mean if there where TWO whole candidates going through the primary process my pretty little head might just fall off from the strain of trying to keep track of their policy positions.

    Also we can’t have any options that would confuse us further. We need to be informed in no uncertain terms that the evil, evil republicans will kill us in our sleep. We MUST have a neo-liberal, globalist, free-trader at the helm. Someone who can make a grand bargain on social security (lazy seniors, get back to work!) and also do more reforms for welfare to get those minorities off the dole! Also, preferably someone with deep ties to Goldman Sachs and a penchant for international warmongering. Who else to keep us safe from both the evil republicans (GRRRR) and Vlad the bad, who’s plotting on invading western Europe and the state of Colorado at any moment.

    GO WOLVERINES!!!

    • Love the idea. They did that last election, too.
      I see Cape Breton is offering sanctuary if Trump wins the presidency. Their economy needs a boost, but Canada is not too welcoming to retirees. Maybe I could ask for asylum?

  • Unless the Democrats nominate Sanders a Trump nomination means a Trump presidency. – Current Affairs – 23rd Feb 2016

    One can already imagine the monolog:

    “She lies so much. Everything she says is a lie. I’ve never seen someone who lies so much in my life. Let me tell you three lies she’s told. She made up a story about how she was ducking sniper fire! There was no sniper fire. She made it up! How do you forget a thing like that? She said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the guy who climbed Mount Everest. He hadn’t even climbed it when she was born! Total lie! She lied about the emails, of course, as we all know, and is probably going to be indicted. You know she said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! It was a lie! Thousands of American soldiers are dead because of her. Not only does she lie, her lies kill people. That’s four lies, I said I’d give you three. You can’t even count them. You want to go on PolitiFact, see how many lies she has? It takes you an hour to read them all! In fact, they ask her, she doesn’t even say she hasn’t lied. They asked her straight up, she says she usually tries to tell the truth! Ooooh, she tries! Come on! This is a person, every single word out of her mouth is a lie. Nobody trusts her. Check the polls, nobody trusts her. Yuge liar.”

  • …and the Archdruid weighs in.

    Trump and Sanders, each in his own way, have shown too many people that it’s possible to hope for something other than an intolerable state of business as usual. In the wake of their candidacies, a great many voters have decided that they’re no longer willing to vote for the lesser of two evils.

    … the entire rhetoric of presidential politics in the United States for decades now has fixated on the claim that one party’s pet stooge won’t do anything quite as appalling as the other side’s will, even though they all support the same policies and are bought and sold by the same corrupt interests. Over and over again, we’ve been told that we have to vote for whatever candidate this or that party has retched up, because otherwise the other side will get to nominate a Supreme Court justice or two, or get us into another war, or do something else bad. Any suggestion that a candidate might be expected to do something positive—that he or she might, for example, reject the bipartisan policies that have crashed the standard of living for most Americans, consigned the nation’s infrastructure to malign neglect, and pursued gargantuan corporate welfare programs, such as the worthless F-35 fighter, at the expense of anything more useful or necessary—is dismissed out of hand as “unrealistic.”

    If you don’t happen to belong to the privileged classes, life in today’s America is rapidly becoming intolerable, and the “realistic” politics that both parties have pursued with equal enthusiasm for decades are directly responsible for making it intolerable.

    He [Spengler] argued that democracy suffers from a lethal vulnerability, which is that it has no meaningful defenses against the influence of money. Since most citizens are more interested in their own personal, short-term advantage than they are in the long-term destiny of their nation, democracy turns into a polite fiction for plutocracy just as soon as the rich figure out how to buy votes, a lesson that rarely takes them long to learn.

    A democracy in its terminal years thus devolves into a broken society from which only the narrowing circle of the privileged rich derive any tangible benefit. In due time, those excluded from that circle look elsewhere for leadership.

  • …a broken society from which only the narrowing circle of the privileged rich derive any tangible benefit.
    Does anyone have a better description of the situation re the .1%?

    In due time, those excluded from that circle look elsewhere for leadership.

    Maybe we should learn to live without leaders……

  • In the general election it does not seem likely Hillary can win Ohio or probably even Michigan, let alone Missouri. Sanders has more of a chance in each of these states because they are all full of people who rightly assess Clintonite neoliberal trade policies as the instigator of their Rust Belt economic realities. Both Hillary and Trump have very high unfavorable ratings but the tariff type message will swing a lot of “Reagan Democrats” over to Trump. Sanders could potentially head this off at the pass but Hillary will not be able to.

    If one hopes to see a different political machine than the GOP take over the country, efforts are better expended right now into dealing with how the DNC has pissed away like 900 legislative seats and tons of legislative chambers and governors’ seats. That ‘voter datagate’ mini scandal reflected that NGP-VAN is a terrible fossil software with bad usage policies and the Democrats’ hold on US politics will continue to rot away even as the GOP feud with each other. The GOP dropped a whopping $100M into replacing the system that blew up on Romney during election day.

    After a long absence on this site i reset my password just to make these points above… I hope everyone is well. The idea that Hillary’s campaign will do anything better than slowly deflate seems like a reach, unjustified by historical experience. Take a look at the general election if winning is what’s important – just ask yourself what states Hillary is likely to win that Sanders would lose. Get specific.

    • Hey HongPong…,
      I do believe it is the first time we have seen your smiling face?…, or your words for quite some time. Hope your are faring well too partner…, and an interesting take on the situation. Care to comment on the blow out in SC today? It was a slap upside of my head 🙁

  • Sanders has been bunting softballs.

    The GOP hasn’t run one attack ad against him, while several million has been spent against Hillary (who’s still ahead by a mile). The GOP has in fact been supporting Sanders because they want to face him in the general. They have a YUGE supply of ammo against him. They’ve started running attack ad focus groups and are apparently getting the responses they’d hoped form.

    Just consider the single national poll that confirms most of America would still not consider voting for a socialist, let alone a communist sympathizer. Or atheist. Or divorcee. The older folk still care about this conventional stuff. Have you seen any of those words on TV even once yet?

    If the GOP unloads on Sanders it’s going to be a shit storm.

    The Internet has convinced itself that its crosstalk is more important than the real world.

    The media is propping him up because close races sell newspapers and links.

    This came out a couple days ago, it touches on a few related points:

    Why Are the Media Afraid to Ask Bernie Sanders the Uncomfortable Questions?

  • I just read Candace Kirby’s column, and, while a) she appears to be a woefully unquestioning supporter of Hillary and b) characterizes some of Bernie’s problems (for example his lack of “endorsements” from Democratic colleagues) as liabilities when I see them as assets, I heartily agree with her point that Bernie’s history and personal characteristics have escaped a lot of scrutiny and consider many of her specific points well taken.

    But there’s a flip side. Despite what I consider biased and unfair ad hominem focus by the media on Hillary and her personality flaws, it seems to me that she’s getting as much a pass as Bernie when it comes to much more serious questions about her own record aside from the endless reminders about her Iraq vote and ties to Wall Street.

    Below is a list of my major concerns about that record, and, to avoid the impression that I’m just another anti-Hillary attack dog, I acknowledge that some of the claims, while based on what appears to be credible evidence, are controversial and subject to legitimate disagreement given alternate sources of evidence. What’s more important than the validity of the criticisms is that I see few of the items below raised by either the media (for example, The New York Times) or even Bernie’s campaign, and I get the impression that most of the population that supports Hillary’s nomination wouldn’t know how to respond to them simply because, through no fault of their own, they’re totally ignorant of them. I have no problem if public discourse exonerates Hillary on every count; I just feel that the choice of our next president should rely on voters who are well informed regarding all candidates’ records, and I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that our prime media is not exactly supporting that mission.

    1. Libya: There’s growing evidence that Hillary is lying about the justification for her promoted bombing campaign there. Indications are that Gaddafi’s “genocide” was in fact a fabrication and that the real reasons why France spearheaded the invasion was not humanitarian but to protect its economic interests in northern Africa, which Libya was disturbing by advocating for a common market there. Given this deception, Hillary also bears a large share of the responsibility for the war’s horrendous aftermath, including the establishment of a new ISIS headquarters and the massacre of black Africans by one of her supported rebel groups.

    2. Syria: Hillary pushed to fund and support rebels already riddled with anti-American jihadist groups and is also advocating for a no-fly zone that would seriously risk a World War III with Russia. She incredulously maintains that a) had we armed moderates, we wouldn’t be in this mess and b) Assad was responsible for creating ISIS.

    3. Iraq: Her vote in favor of invading Iraq is old history, but what isn’t is that she recently lied that her vote was only to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for weapons inspections when in fact videos of her testimony in 2002 showed absolute certainty that invasion was justified given that he had WMDs and was also sheltering Al Qaeda.

    4. Honduras: Hillary played a role in the recent coup that resulted in a more repressive government

    5. Russia and Ukraine: History suggests that Hillary continued the US policy of reneging on its post-1990 commitments to allow Russia a buffer zone and instead further encircled Russia through NATO (which there was little reason not to disband after we won the cold war) as well as inciting anti-Russian sentiment near its borders (Georgia and Ukraine). Together with Samantha Powers and Susan Rice (who I regard as the three witches from Macbeth) as well as Victoria Nuland (the neocon, Robert Kagan’s wife), Hillary initiated covert operations to destabilize Ukraine with extremely destructive consequences even allowing that Ukraine does have legitimate differences in the cultural and political outlook between its eastern and western regions. Without exonerating Russia’s overall conduct in the world or denying Putin’s megalomania, I feel it needs to be asked what the US would do if it were confronted by a potentially hostile power impinging on its borders (think the Cuban missile crisis).

    6. Israel: Hillary is much farther to the right regarding Israel than all but a few in her own party and includes Netanyahu as a fan.

    7. Iran: A chilling moment in the debates took place when, after being asked who she considered as her biggest enemies, Hillary included “the Iranians.” Despite her support for the Iran nuclear deal, she’s been otherwise close to Israel’s foreign policy position regarding Iran and made the mendacious claim that Iran wants to “annihilate” Israel when in fact the “Zionist Regime” is its target.

    8. Egypt: Hillary supported Mubarek and then, when he was deposed, recommended his VP Omar Suleiman, a notorious abuser of human rights, as his successor

    9. Middle East: Despite her lip service to the “Arab Spring,” Hillary has supported Bahrain and Saudi Arabia’s brutal crackdown on dissidents

    10. Haiti: Hillary helped override minimum wage increases because of pressure from Hanes and other business interests located in Haiti.

    11. Morocco: Hillary supported its illegal annexation on of the western Sahara given interests associated with her foundation

    12. Other foreign policy: Hillary cites the neocons Robert Kagan and Henry Kissinger as her mentors

    13. Crime: Hillary appeared to be on board with the harsh crime policies that have led to the highest incarceration rate in the World.

    14. Law:

    a. Hillary supports drone warfare despite its illegality and the recent revelations of a much higher civilian toll than has been previously admitted

    b. She was more aggressive against whistle blowers like Edward Snowden than even Robert Gates was.

    15. Social justice:

    a. Hillary served on the Walmart board as a counsel for years during some of its worst excesses against its employees

    b. Hillary supported welfare reform that has been cited as far more detrimental than helpful to the poor

    16. Regulatory:

    a. Despite claims to the contrary, Hillary deferred to her colleague, Chuck Schumer and kept her hands off the banking industry as a senator. Note that during this period Trump donated over $200,000 to her campaign

    b. She implicitly supported the Communications Act of 1996, the repeal of Glass Steagall, and the deregulation of derivatives, all of which seriously undermined social and economic justice for most Americans

    c. She supported the act that made bankruptcy more difficult for consumers and voted against ending the carried interest loophole that allowed speculators to avoid taxation.

    17. Energy: Hillary has been a major proponent of fracking

    18. Immigration: As Bernie pointed out, Hillary supported deporting migrant children and made the absurd and condescending claim in the debates that she only voted that way to “send a message” to parents as to how dangerous it was to allow their children to emigrate (as if they had a choice in the matter)

    19. Trade: Despite her late breaking opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Hillary has supported most trade agreements injurious to American workers

    20. Political conduct: Hillary’s smear tactics against Bernie, hinting unjustly at his anti-black policies and criticism of Obama, were pure demagoguery.

    • Right On Partner…,
      write on.

      I have been searching for something or some reason to support Hillary…, since she seems to be already crowned by some…, but it just ain’t happening. And I don’t expect it too.

    • Good list. As you say, many of these are debatable. Some are complicated. Take fracking. Americans wanted to get out of the Middle East. Domestic US oil production was a way to do that. If fracking had turned out safe, it would have been a nice arrangement.

      I’d like to point out that she’s getting rung for both “supporting dictators” and “toppling dictators”. Isolationism is becoming popular. Whether we should be involved in these individual cases is a matter for individual debate.

      On immigration, Sanders was on TV just a few years ago villainizing Mexican workers. More.

      Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have affected the 2008 crash.

      I’ll leave off here. Just agreeing that many of these are debatable.

      EDIT: I’ve just given Sanders more benefit of the doubt that your author PJ has given Clinton this whole election cycle.

  • Jay,

    Your comments are all valid.

    I agree that fracking was in concept the ideal path to reducing our onerous dependence on foreign oil. Having watched the documentary “Gasland” and read both the industry’s rebuttals to that film and the counter-rebuttals from the film maker and his sources, however, I feel that there are still unresolved concerns. I’d be totally in favor of fracking if these concerns were resolved.

    Unlike many libertarians, I do not support isolationism and, while in favor of diplomacy whenever possible (especially when it’s backed up by extensive knowledge and understanding of foreign cultures), I realize there are situations in which military action is justified. I don’t necessarily see criticism of Hillary’s simultaneous support for regime changes in some cases and for dictators in others as a contradiction depending on the rationale for those positions, but I do take into account that there are some objectionable regimes (supporters of the Afghan war might cite Uzbekistan) that we may need to tolerate if, for example, they’re the only source of critical supply lines to a justifiable war.

    I agree that Bernie is far from an ideal candidate and has a past that doesn’t always fit his virtuous claims. He shouldn’t get any more passes than Hillary.

    I acknowledge the rationale to minimize the Glass Steagall repeal as a cause of the 2008 financial crisis, since the worst offenders had always been investment banks and were therefore unaffected by the law. At the same time, it does have to be pointed out, first, that, if GS had been in effect, the investment banks could not have been designated as bank holding companies and therefore eligible to get cheap loans from the federal discount window that played a major role in the short term bailouts, and, second, that the threat of competition from commercial banks after the repeal probably contributed heavily to the investment banks taking more and more risks. As you noted, it’s debatable how much these developments were pivotal in the meltdown.

    I appreciate the ongoing dialogue.

Leave a Reply