The Democratic Choice: Change or Continuity

[eridani]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/19/democratic-choice-change-or-continuity

The contrast was most stark when the candidates addressed the question of how they would get anything done.

Clinton argued that she’d continue Obama’s frustrated efforts to reach out to Republicans:

“I will go anywhere, to meet with anyone, at any time to find common ground. Because maybe you can’t only find a little sliver of common ground to cooperate with somebody from the other party, but who knows? If you’re successful there, maybe you can build even more. That’s what I would do.”

Sanders, by contrast, argued that nothing significant will change so long as the system remains corrupted by big money and special interests.

“Let’s be honest and let’s be truthful. Very little is going to be done to transform our economy and to create the kind of middle class we need unless we end a corrupt campaign finance system which is undermining American democracy…[W]hat we’ve got to do is create a political revolution which revitalizes American democracy; which brings millions of young people and working people into the political process. To say loudly and clearly, that the government of the United States of America belongs to all of us and not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors.”

[Art_from_Ark]

1. We need change

but in a leftward direction. We've gone far too rightward since Reagan turned the word "liberal" into an epithet.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. 1% or 99%

[jalan48]

3. It pretty obvious that the 2000 Presidential election was stolen and possibly the 2004 as well.

Why on earth would Hillary "reach out" to these asses? To get what done?

[Proserpina]

4. To preserve the illusions of "democracy"

and gratuities, of course. To do the puppetmasters' bidding...don't rock the boat! Don't queer the pitch! Let the 1% continue their conquest.

It's like a dutiful housewife's daily dusting of a Superfund site...conventional, and pointless.

[jalan48]

5. I agree with you.

I'm just amazed at how quickly many Democrats forget the rage they had just a few years ago over the blatant actions on the part of the Republicans and Neo-Cons. Now "reaching out" is acceptable when it should be the opposite. Your explanation about doing the "puppetmasters' bidding' seems the most logical explanation for people like Hillary. I'm not sure which is more depressing, candidates like Hillary or those with collective amnesia about recent events.

[Proserpina]

6. It's not just amnesia...it's the "thought police"

and the complete disregard and censorship of factual information if the source can be slandered as RW-sourced, as if the Left had a monopoly on truth, facts, law, history, or any other wellspring of human knowledge.

How many times on this site alone have posters been battered and tombstoned for being the first to bring an inconvenient or unpleasant truth to the attention of the membership? How many sources have been later accepted that were previously derided? How many heroes were shown up as somewhat less than heroic? How many "Commies" were finally admitted to be nothing of the kind?

Under these operating guidelines, D U cannot even claim superior ethics.

I will believe in justice when the unjustly tombstoned are free to rejoin us.

[draa]

8. Always spot on. Preach it to the masses.

[merrily]

7. Nope. The Democratic Choice: Change for the better or change for the worse.

Bernie will be a change for the better. He has already put us on a path of return to New Deal politics and getting money out of campaigns.

If Hillary wins the primary, the nation will keep going right, as it has been since the first DLC/New Democrat/Third Way President, William Jefferson Clinton.