No reader of this blog will be surprised that I have had sympathy with Bernie Sander's attempt to secure the Democrat's presidential nomination. Much of what he has been saying makes sense. He has pushed Hilary Clinton left and that has been invaluable when that was not her inclination. I am sure their party is better for it.
But last night he also proved he is a man who can read the runes correctly. He endorsed Hilary Clinton. He asked his supporters to vote for her. Indeed, he said it was imperative that they did.
I am pleased he did even whilst acknowledging the differences.
And at the same time kept up the pressure. He has launched a new initiative, which according to the Guardian has issued this email:
Our work will continue in the form of a new group called Our Revolution.The goal of this organization will be no different from the goal of our campaign: we must transform American politics to make our political and economic systems once again responsive to the needs of working families.
We cannot do this alone. All of us must be a part of Our Revolution.
Join Our Revolution and help continue our critical work to create a government which represents all of us, and not just the 1 percent — a government based on the principles of economic, social, racial and environmental justice. Add your name here.
Any Clinton administration will be better for the pressure such an organisation brings. But America will also be better if the Deomcrats can unite on a winning ticket that has broad endorsement.
The world needs them to do so.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I would have preferred Bernie Sander as the Democrat’s presidential nominatee and Elizabeth Warren for vice president, Hilary Clinton is too conformable with neocons ideas and values and it will take a lot work and time by Our Revolution to push Democrats establishment to the left.
Maybe
But better Clinton than Trump
I have a horrible feeling that Trump might win.
Faced with the prospect of Trump being president, Hillary is the better choice, but she is very unpopular.
Many Americans view her as untrustworthy and reckon she only believes in the stuff that will get her elected, she has form on being a flip-flopper. And there is the psychological effect to voting for Hillary: a lot of voters will be voting for Hillary just to stop Trump, not because they genuinely want her to be president.
To them Hillary is the least bad of the two. They won’t be voting for enthusiastically like they did for Obama or would have done for Bernie. Some of them might just not bother, some of them might be angry enough to just stay home, especially now they know how their party tried to stitch Bernie up.
In contrast, Trump’s Chumps will be up at the crack of dawn on polling day and they’ll spend it urging wavering voters to choose Trump, giving them lifts and hollering yee-haw etc. they will be more impassioned, and that might make the difference.
Please God, I am wrong and enough Americans don’t vote for Trump. The thought of that thin-skinned racist sociopath’s pudgy finger hovering over the nuclear launcher button for the next 4 years should scare any sane person.
John, have you been reading Michael Moore, with your reference to “Trump’s Chumps up at the crack of dawn”?
Here’s the man himself, with his gloomy assessment:
http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/
PS: particularly compelling is Moore’s likening the mood of America to the BREXIT mood, which was not a mere outpouring of ignorant racist bigotry, even though that was in the mix, but the cry of pain of a working class that had been mocked, marginalised and ignored, and consigned to a hopeless misery by the Westminster Bubble, with their “Marie Antoinette” insults about “poverty of aspiration”, as if wishing were the same as having, and particularly galling to communities that had been stripped of all meaning and means of support.
No wonder they seized the chance to raise two fingers to the Establishment, and the same anger is there is “Rustbelt America”, aided by the palsied American Electoral College scam, that gave the Presidency to George W Bush, even though Al Gore secured a larger popular vote.
Moore is on the ball I think, unfortunately. (first saw the Trump’s Chumps quip from Stephen King’S tweet about a suitable bumper sticker: I’M ONE OF TRUMP’S CHUMPS)
Many of us would agree with Tony but a Trump win would be a disaster on many levels not least for climate change and the environment. Read this and weep:
“The Republican Party’s 2016 platform, released on Monday at its national convention in Cleveland, has sections called “A New Era in Energy” and “Environmental Progress.” Both titles are inaccurate. Perhaps they’re meant sarcastically?
If you want a guide to what Republicans would do with full control of the federal government, you couldn’t get a better one than this 2,400-word part of the platform. Like the EPA/Department of Interior spending bill House Republicans passed last week, it makes the GOP’s incredibly radical agenda crystal clear: deregulate pollution, halt any action to prevent climate change, and expand fossil fuel use.
Here are the 11 biggest lowlights:”
http://grist.org/election-2016/11-ways-the-republican-platform-attacks-the-environment/
(1) Bernie Saunders
‘Captain My Captain’
I wish his push was international as I would join up yesterday. I’ve been following him since 2011. It is fitting that the USA – the cauldron of the birth of neo-liberalism – may now be the birth place of anti-neoliberalism. I’d be very pleased for people like Chris Hedges for example if this movement grew and prospered.
(2) Trump
A ray of hope is that even if Trump wins, he may end up like Obama (be stymied by the HoR) and also face hostiles from within his own party – never mind the Democrats – in the House or the Senate (both actually!). Ted Cruz did not back Trump at their convention.
Be clear that the Republicans are not a united party and this weakness may well turn from being a fissure into a valley if Trump wins the election.
I actually think that neo-liberalism is coming to an end now in the West – what is happening to politics in America, the splits in the parties in the UK during BREXIT, the travails in Labour, the growth of nationalism in the UK and Europe, the zombie Tory Government who believe you me have no idea what they are doing – all point to a cognitive dissonance between the reality of life for many and the lies told by free-market fundamentalists.
In other words, they (the neo-liberals) have been found out. And western politics is now in crisis along with the peoples they put into crisis because politics cannot resolve or reconcile the neo-lib demand for freedom at any cost with the concept of what or how to govern because governing anyone or anything goes against their basic instincts.
This is because neo-liberalism taken to its extremes and left to run to its logical conclusion is nothing but a form of ‘Klondike politics’ – a ‘gold rush’ for the top – a form of individualistic anarchy really.
The neo-lib hierarchies in the West may be more of a loosely affilited common interest group. Whatever…………..but there is no doubt that the neo-libs are NOT CAPABLE or governing for all – that is for sure.
I think that the end of ‘radical/anarchical individualism’ is nigh because it does not really work for all – just a few who were either at the top to begin with or those who fought dirty to get there.
I do hope that change is a foot. The problem is that there will be plenty of rich pickings for the facists and other political snake oil in the mean time.
Sanders should have taken the offer from Jill Stein of the Greens and moved over to their ticket, main goal to break down the two party system. The support, momentum and anger are available right now to enact change.
What he chose to do instead was support a known monster in Clinton and thus lend credence to the ‘oh my, Trump means the end of the world’ fear mongers. Are we really expected to believe that the house and senate would permit Trump to run amok? I’d even go out on a limb and claim that he couldn’t possibly be as damaging a Bush mark 2.
At least Trump would have an unknown quantity about him, whereas we know the poison that Clinton would bring. Her track record should disbar her from any work that involves human beings.
I find such comments bizarre
Or worse: I consider them an endorsement if Trump’s views that are so repugnant
I note Sander’s did too
He gets it
Why can’t you?
It’s very simple Richard you follow a logic that I think is wrong and you cast accusations against others that are purely strawmen. Often when anyone disagrees with you the first response is to fill in a logic chain, make a leap and then accuse them of holding a position that was never indicated by any posts they made. For example:-
comment in favour of Corbyn – Richard – so you want a Tory government for X years??? – take a look at your posts and see just how often you use this tactic.
This is petty, lacking in nuance and beneath you and the level of work you put in. Normally I let it slide because I know that you work hard at this and get bogged down in replies, etc, etc. But, seriously, is there any part of you that actually believes that my views would align with Trump?
As for Sanders gets it why can’t I? don’t be so naively arrogant, Sanders is a career politician who came out of his shell. He’s been a lone wolf activist and has no history of playing nicely with others. I will lay money that he had no intention of the presidency and was probably in a cold sweat when it looked feasible.
People are riled up, not only don’t they believe mainstream politicians or media but they have had it to the back teeth with steady incremental change that never materialises or goes the wrong way.
We know what Clinton would usher in
We don’t know what Trump would usher in
We do know what more years of a two party setup will bring
You know I started to wonder whether you were right about Corbyn but then you throw yourself behind Owen Smith(and yes I’m aware of all the little caveats you ringfence your opinion/support with). Well that just shot your credibility, as far as judging people goes, right out of the water. The guy is a moving oil slick, he couldn’t be any more fake or creepy if Hammer House of Horror were managing him.
Can you not see that your stance is anti democratic?
In a word, no I do not agree I am being anti-democratic
If you think wanting a functioning opposition is anti-democratic I despair
For the rest, I have no real clue what you are trying to say
If you cannot recognise the anti democratic aspects of the stances you take then you should really stick to tax and avoid politics. As for what else I was on about, let’s take your second line:-
If you think wanting a functioning opposition is anti-democratic I despair
That was not what I, or anyone else, said – your statement above is basically nonsense. What I, and others, have accused you of is adopting an ends justify the methods approach within which you believe democratic instincts should be subservient to a larger goal. You make a logical leap then to, if I oppose your methods then I must oppose your ends. That, quite frankly, is logical garbage and that I have had to explain so a second time is astounding.
As for not understanding the rest of my post, well I’ve double checked and it’s perfectly rational and understandable English.
I still have not a clue what you are saying
So it isn’t
And I have no clue why I am being accused of being anti-democratic in upholding parliamentary democracy unless I am supposed to accept that opposing Corbyn is by definition anti-democratic when the rules of Labour say it is not
Either way, you’re talking utter nonsense