I Used to Support Bernie, but Then I Changed My Mind

[workinclasszero]

I Used to Support Bernie, but Then I Changed My Mind
I have a variety of concerns about both candidates’ campaigns. But I intend to vote for Hillary Clinton in the California primary for one fundamental reason.
By Tom Hayden YESTERDAY 11:17 AM

I intend to vote for Hillary Clinton in the California primary for one fundamental reason. It has to do with race. My life since 1960 has been committed to the causes of African Americans, the Chicano movement, the labor movement, and freedom struggles in Vietnam, Cuba and Latin America. In the environmental movement I start from the premise of environmental justice for the poor and communities of color. My wife is a descendant of the Oglala Sioux, and my whole family is inter-racial.

What would cause me to turn my back on all those people who have shaped who I am? That would be a transgression on my personal code. I have been on too many freedom rides, too many marches, too many jail cells, and far too many gravesites to breach that trust. And I have been so tied to the women’s movement that I cannot imagine scoffing at the chance to vote for a woman president. When I understood that the overwhelming consensus from those communities was for Hillary—for instance the Congressional Black Caucus and Sacramento’s Latino caucus—that was the decisive factor for me.

http://www.thenation.com/article/i-used-to-support-bernie-but-then-i-changed-my-mind/

[Skwmom]

1. Everytime it is pointed out that Hayden came out for Clinton in 2012 a new thread is started.

The choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in 2008 was difficult for many Democrats. Clinton in 2016 should not be. What is at stake is another chance to make history by electing a woman president, to assure an independent judiciary, to advance the interests of working people and maintain a continuity of citizen access to government against the waning, raging Right. At this point, Clinton alone can mobilize a movement base and raise the hundreds of millions necessary to secure a high-turnout victory for a coalition seeded with thousands of progressives.

Yes, it is true, unfortunately, that Clinton is decidedly hawkish on military policy, the primary policy reason that many Democrats supported Obama’s challenge in Iowa. Not much appears to have changed since then. Clinton crossed Obama and sided with Petraeus in the internal White House debates over Afghanistan (see Bob Woodward’s Obama’s Wars). She was tepid in supporting the popular overthrow of the Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak. She wanted the war in Libya.

The task for the peace and justice movement, then, is to spend the next four years creating a pro-peace climate strong enough to deter Hillary-as-hawk and smart enough to convince her that the old Hillary-the-dove was right in her instincts. Unlike the Sixties, we live in a time when all but the craziest neo-conservatives realize that “it’s time for some nation-building at home,” and there is no one more qualified than Clinton to move the agenda in that direction.

http://tomhayden.com/home/hillary-clinton-in-2016.html

I notice how the love to have Bernie (aka closet Clinton supporters) come out for Clinton. Is there anything that is true about the Clinton campaign? Smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors....

[peacebird]

5. We can make history by electing the first Jewish president, and have someone who is not a neocon

For a change....

[TheBlackAdder]

10. What's worse, a bullshit article or a person who shovels it in an OP as though it's legitimate?

.


No critical thought, no due diligence, just propagation of a message--regardless of how erroneous it is.


Just as long as that message drives the narrative they want.


.

[Betty Karlson]

2. Harken, ye all. This week's "convert" has posted his "come to Jesus" moment.

And it's full of regurgitated Clinton talking points that have gone stale with their incessant repetition.

"When I understood that the overwhelming consensus from those communities was for Hillary—for instance the Congressional Black Caucus"

When I understood that congress is full of establishment, I suddenly decided to support the establishment candidate over the candidate who wants to change the untenable status quo. Because what we really need is more for-profit prisons, more remarks about "superpredators", more praise of Nancy Reagan's AIDS-activism, more NAFTA, TPP, TTIP, more payday lending sharks, more windfalls for Wall Street, and more Citizens United. We need a candidate with negative coattails, who will guarantee disaster down the ticket, even if she barely wins herself. We need a Democratic Party that will alienate anyone under 35.

Praise Debbie! Or Nancy! Or Hillary, our blessed Lady of Inevitability, and the affluent fruit of her labours.

[Fumesucker]

3. Nice..

[Skwmom]

8. There dog and pony show speaks volumes of what they think of average Americans.

[Surya Gayatri]

4. Massive K & R. Thanks for posting.

[CentralCoaster]

6. He should know better. And my, what a trainwreck of a treatise.

I never really found exactly why he supports her over him, but then the article is pretty long-winded.

What a fool.

[hellofromreddit]

7. I think Hayden is wrong

When I understood that the overwhelming consensus from those communities was for Hillary—for instance the Congressional Black Caucus and Sacramento’s Latino caucus—that was the decisive factor for me.

Caucus =/= community.

A vote is an opinion and is neither right or wrong. But the facts he presents to support it can be and are. The CBC favors Clinton disproportionately to the actual black population, and the Latino Caucus is actually going against the majority of Latinos at this point.

[pantsonfire]

9. Really?

And I have been so tied to the women’s movement that I cannot imagine scoffing at the chance to vote for a woman president. When I understood that the overwhelming consensus from those communities was for Hillary—for instance the Congressional Black Caucus and Sacramento’s Latino caucus—that was the decisive factor for me.

Sorry to have lost your support, hope you can hold Hillary Clinton to those progressive pledges she has made during this campaign.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Hayden first endorsed Hillary in December of 2012. In great detail, on his own website......

Hillary Clinton in 2016
DateMonday, December 3, 2012 at 5:03PM
"As David Remnick wrote bluntly in The New Yorker, “Hillary Is Running,” as well she should.
Unlike the Sixties, we live in a time when all but the craziest neo-conservatives realize that “it’s time for some nation-building at home,” and there is no one more qualified than Clinton to move the agenda in that direction.

Of course life is unpredictable, which is why Andrew Cuomo and others are warming up for the race as well. But with determination and good health, Clinton should move to the forefront as rapidly as possible, hopefully with President Obama providing full support."
http://tomhayden.com/home/hillary-clinton-in-2016.html

It's hard to get passed that affectation. Not sure why he feels the need to claim he has not been touting Hillary since the day after Barack beat Mitt. If he did not play that false gambit I might read what he wrote. Odd that Tom, whose activism was very anti war, is so strongly for the Iraq War candidate, that Tom who was an OG cannabis activist is now for the anti cannabis candidate but if he did not try to pawn off this 'I changed my mind' crap I could at least respect him.

[ismnotwasm]

12. He's taking a lot of abuse as per usual from the usual suspects

I'm glad he made the right choice.

[workinclasszero]

13. Me too.

Its a good California endorsement.

[frylock]

14. Dear Penthouse Forum...