In 2008 I was a Clinton supporter throughout most of the primary season
Last edited Sat Jan 2, 2016, 06:48 PM - Edit history (1)
Some of you here probably remember that. I shifted my support to Obama late, after he won the Oregon primary and it became clear to me that Hillary had no real chance left of winning the nomination. I thought then that the time for unity had come. Clearly we have not yet reached that point during this cycle, but yes that time will arrive soon enough.
Hillary Clinton wasn't my first choice for the Democratic nomination in 2008, actually she was my 4th. Earlier I held out hopes of either Clark, Feingold, or Gore running but of course none of them did. Then I briefly backed Joe Biden before it became clear to me that his candidacy that year wasn't viable. Barack Obama was my 5th choice, but not far behind Clinton in my overall rankings. I saw some societal good in America electing either our first female or first black president. I saw the Obama and Clinton overall platforms as pretty darn similar. Each of course had some pros and cons, but I gave the edge to Hillary because I believed she was better prepared to confront and deal with strident Republican opposition than Obama was at the time.
I didn't buy into the argument that Republicans would fight harder against their old foe Hillary Clinton than they would against a man who proclaimed that there wasn't a red or blue America, just one America. In a fundamental way of course Barack was right, but politically I just wasn't buying it. I was under no illusions about the differences between our two major parties. I knew that we would be much worse off as a nation if any Republican nominee went on to win the White House rather than a Democratic one.
I know that many of Barack Obama's most fervent supporters viewed his possible election as a potentially transformative event. Aside from America finally integrating the presidency, I didn't. The reason why I didn't was soon on display as our President negotiated in good faith with John Boehner over what was being billed as a historic budget Grand Bargain - which IMO we were fortunate that the Republican Right balked at signing off on.
My support first for Hillary Clinton, and later for Barack Obama, was essentially pragmatic. That doesn't mean though that I thought ill of either person, actually I admired both of them. Nor does it mean that I was unappreciative of the good things I knew both of them would sincerely strive to accomplish as President, neither am I unappreciative now of the many good things that President Obama has in fact already accomplished as President. In the big picture I saw both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama as status quo politicians. Having said that let me explain that I do not see the status quo as a single undifferentiated mass with no discernible differences between those who seek to represent it. The status quo in my mind isn't a specific set of policies or a particular political platform. It is more of an intrinsic agreement about the size and slope of the playing field that politics is played on - on where the in and out of bound lines get drawn on that field rather than which side of it a particular team lines up on.
Winning or losing the political game as we know it has real consequences. It determines which human being ultimately gets to make the final call on whether to invade another country for example. It determines who gets to select the Supreme Court Judges who decide whether unlimited campaign donations from an individual donor are a form of protected free speech or, in the case of the 2000 Presidential Elections, who gets to take the oath of office to sit inside the oval office. All status quo choices are not equal, many flow from good intentions and often do some good, many have more selfish intentions and end up harmful to the interests of most average Americans. What all status quo choices have in common though is that none of them fundamentally challenge the basic status quo.
I believe that Hillary Clinton is the current benign face of the status quo - and I do not say that in any way as an insult. I like Hillary Clinton. I supported her before and I can support her again. When she horse trades on the political market I believe she keeps our interests in mind, which is not what I would say about virtually any of the leaders in today's Republican Party. She horse trades in the designated trading areas with formally recognized traders using officially accepted forms of currency with values determined by the central societal bank of the establishment. Standing on that playing field, playing by those rules, there are few as effective as Hillary Clinton is at racking up some points for our side. If the status quo can't be fundamentally changed than I want someone like Hillary Clinton fighting for our team.
But it is the status quo itself that is harming most Americans. Millions of us have been cornered by it with our backs against the wall, while millions more fall toward us threatening to crush us all under the collective weight of suffering. In 2008 I was voting to buy us a little time while we searched for the means to fundamentally alter a status quo stacked against us. In November I will do the same if I have no better choice. Right now though I do, in the candidacy of Bernie Sanders. This is the chance that I have been waiting for. I will back a reformer if the only alternative is deeper oppression. I will first choose a revolutionary though committed to bringing deep and essential substantive change. Bernie Sanders has spent a long life time preparing for this very moment. He could not be clearer on what must be done, and I can not be clearer that he is the man best prepared for the challenge in front of him, in front of all of us, in challenging the status quo .
= new reply since forum marked as read
This sign from yesterday's Feel the Bern Rose Parade March says it all:
.
brings one to smart & reasoned choices. and you are a really smart and reasonable individual Tom!
re:
" I have gotten the feeling some may think it will be without any cost but it isn't true."
Agreed.
re:
" I would like to see the cost of Medicare going down, this may be the priority and then get a national health insurance."
I don't see Medicare cost going down, because the size of the trust find is already declining. I think the only way it could possibly go down for some is to get everyone into the system and lower medical costs and/or raise total available funds overall. In other words, national health insurance may be the best route to get the individual cost of Medicare down. I don't know that it would happen, but I don't see any other likely way it could happen. I mean, how would you suggest financing the cost of what you want (Medicare costs per person going down), if not by expanding it into a universal system? Though honestly, I wouldn't expect it to go down regardless, at least in the near term. Nobody is campaigning on reducing what we as individuals pay into these systems. Well, no Dem, anyway. Are you sure you're in the right party?
Seriously, that is kind of the distinction when it comes to social programs... Repubs often want to cut what people pay and also cut benefits; Dems want to maintain or increase benefits, but not cut what people pay. Or as they say, you generally can't have your cake and eat it too. Maybe, if we get universal health care, there will eventually be enough surplus to reduce individual costs, but I don't see it happening now.
As for regime change, the only reason it came up is that you listed ILA as a bad vote. Maybe it is... nobody is claiming that anyone gets every position right 100% of the time. But if you're going to suggest that Hillary would make the better decisions of the two (as in your post #29 that started this thread), it doesn't really make sense to list "bad" Sanders positions that were the same as Hillary's positions.
You make a compelling case for Sanders. 
