Not a Sanders supporter but why did this guy give all his leverage away? I thought he was gonna take the fight all the way to the convention floor. (1) He ran a strong campaign that got him like 45%+ of the Dem vote. If i would've been in his situation i would've negotiated from strength and set clear demands before making any endorsement. (2) Yes i know he got some (empty) promises but we all know Clinton will conveniently "forget" about those once elected so she can focus on returning favors to her circle of friends. Is Sanders this naive? Did Clinton scare him? Is he just weak or what? To me he's just another back bencher who has spent his entire life in politics talking alot but not realizing much.
(1) There's no doubt that he had a position of strength and strongly affected the party platform carried forward by Clinton. And there's no doubt that Clinton had done the same thing in influencing the Obama campaign in 2008. Who the hell do you think had advocated for "affordable care" since the '90s?
(2) This is all part of myths about Clinton which have been reinforced through propaganda-repetition from the time of her Senatorial watch.
You are not likely to agree, but I've examined these "so-called Lies" of hers and found nothing of substance.
The GOP started banging the drum with the Benghazi attack at the high-point of the 2012 campaign. American diplomatic missions have been under risk of threat since the 1960s. Looking at the public statements early in Benghazi crisis, I don't see any "Lies:" I see public officials with insufficient intelligence trying to make sense of events with possible multiple causation.
The GOP manufactured the event of the hearings with historic duration, directed at Clinton from the beginning. They knew she'd make a bid for the presidency. If they'd had a "commission" such as that created in the aftermath of 911, it wouldn't have had the propaganda dimension of a manufactured congressional hearing conducted mostly by Tea Party reactionaries looking for dirt.
It resulted in the e-mail debacle -- over a handful of e-mails so small that any "intent" other than taking her work home with her was not indicated. "She deleted 30,000 e-mails!" exclaims Trump. Sure. Probably from Home-Depot and Sears.
Then there's the matter of the Foundation. So far, that witch-hunt has ended in dead-ends. It almost would seem that the Clintons had anticipated the probe long ago -- perhaps in the matter of the Nigerian land transaction which was never consummated.
I can go on and on about this. I actually began to believe some of the nonsense until I looked at it more closely.
She'll get the votes of Sanders supporters, and she'll pursue policy objectives that are practical means of addressing Sanders' issues. But the myth that a presidency by itself can move a policy agenda in a particular direction is fanciful.
She'll need a Dem majority in the Senate. The House looks less hopeful. And it is less hopeful because of the gerrymandering that has created a Tea Party congress in the first place.
The truth is this. The GOP doesn't want anyone to believe that people are motivated by more than money unless such a belief suits their own purposes -- which are usually motivated by money in the first place. Clinton has a long track record of advocating for causes the GOP would rather just ignore.
I'd say, after the gauntlet she's had to run since her Tammy Wynette "Lie," she's not just an Iron Lady. She's well-tempered steel. And she was, after all, like Tammy Wynette. She "stood by her man" -- which is a lot more than I can say about Trump's string of marriages.
Facebook
Twitter