June 17, 2016

Sanders' demands & the path forward - What if it were two men?

Pardon my girl-dar, but I'm catching a little whiff of less-than-equal treatment and paternalism in the media's treatment of Mr. Sanders and his behavior since the end of the Democratic primaries. It saddens me to my core to say this, but I have come to believe that Mr. Sanders would not be making demands of his victor if he had lost the same contest to a man, and more importantly; I do not believe the media or so many others would be entertaining it with any seriousness were the contest between two men.

The content of the demands Mr. Sanders is making of the party he so recently joined has been noted and addressed by the media as transparently self-oriented. That's fine, but what about the very fact that this man who lost, is now not only failing to concede graciously in accordance with all traditions of politics and basic sportsmanship to the female who bettered him, but also making demands targeted most pointedly at powerful women (and fewer men I notice) in the party?

When Mr. Trump mused that he may remove the chairman of the RNC if he won his party's nomination, the statement was treated rightly as vindictive and childish; a threat to act as a spiteful and belligerent winner. Mr. Sanders is the loser, not the winner, and yet he has not merely mused upon, but demanded the right to oust the powerful female chair of our party and install his own choice.

Unless and until Mr. Sanders makes a gracious concession and changes his tone towards the nominee and the party he so recently hooked his wagon to, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party should quietly dismiss him. This is not an appeal merely out of reaction to discerned paternalism, but also a matter of respect for the voters, and the future of the party.

We should not set a precedent in this party whereby the runner-up gets to pick the platform, blame and subsequently oust the chair because they are mad about losing, and in short, demand that the party bend to the will of the losing campaign. This would make a mockery of voting. The voters choose a winner because they trust that winner and her/his vision to carry the party forward. The voters speak to endorse a leader who will shape the platform, the party organization, the process, and the Presidency. To cede leadership to the losing campaign is to disrespect the entire process and point of asking voters to make that choice.

That the winner of the process becomes the leader, that the victor chooses the path forward has never been a subject of question before, so why would it be now? On what basis might this man who lost feel entitled to dictate to women of power in this party what course they should take? I am a big believer in Occam's razor. Most often the obvious answer is in fact the correct one.

If someone can demonstrate an example of a time when Mr. Sanders lost to a man and behaved in a similar fashion I'm willing to look at it objectively and reconsider. We do have another example, curiously enough, of Mr. Sanders losing an election to a woman, and how he behaved then.
That Time Bernie Sanders Said He Was a Bigger Feminist Than His Female Opponent
Some of the parallels are rather stark and a bit disquieting.

The two-term governor who defeated Sanders endorses Hillary.
When Bernie Sanders ran against me in Vermont
Again, if someone can demonstrate Mr. Sanders showing this kind of pettish fractiousness following contests with men, I will happily give it fair reading.

Any parts or points of Mr. Sanders agenda should be brought forth as a request, not a demand, in the spirit of cooperation. The Democratic Party, with Hillary as the leader elected by the Democratic voters, should then decide what points to consider or adopt as she sees beneficial to the party and her campaign moving forward. It's obvious to many that the changes Mr. Sanders is demanding for the party he just recently and only "kind of" joined, are not-too-coincidentally exactly the ones he thinks would have allowed him to win. It seems rather self-serving because it is; but nonetheless it seems likely the campaigns will search for common ground.

There is room on the path forward for Mr. Sanders, but there must be no doubt that it is Secretary Clinton, at the behest of the voters of our party who has been chosen to make those decisions great and small that will guide our journey.

June 16, 2016

Sanders' demands & the path forward - What if it were two men?

This is kind of an expanded x-post from a reply I formed in GD-P, but honestly it's a point I've not seen brought up yet.

Pardon my girl-dar, but I'm catching a little whiff of less-than-equal treatment and paternalism in the media's treatment of Mr. Sanders and his behavior since the end of the Democratic primaries. It saddens me to my core to say this, but I have come to believe that Mr. Sanders would not be making demands of his victor if he had lost the same contest to a man, and more importantly; I do not believe the media or so many others would be entertaining it with any seriousness were the contest between two men.

The content of the demands Mr. Sanders is making of the party he so recently joined has been noted and addressed by the media as transparently self-oriented. That's fine, but what about the very fact that this man who lost, is now not only failing to concede graciously in accordance with all traditions of politics and basic sportsmanship to the female who bettered him, but also making demands targeted most pointedly at powerful women (and fewer men I notice) in the party?

When Mr. Trump mused that he may remove the chairman of the RNC if he won his party's nomination, the statement was treated rightly as vindictive and childish; a threat to act as a spiteful and belligerent winner. Mr. Sanders is the loser, not the winner, and yet he has not merely mused upon, but demanded the right to oust the powerful female chair of our party and install his own choice.

Unless and until Mr. Sanders makes a gracious concession and changes his tone towards the nominee and the party he so recently hooked his wagon to, the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party should quietly dismiss him. This is not an appeal merely out of reaction to discerned paternalism, but also a matter of respect for the voters, and the future of the party.

We should not set a precedent in this party whereby the runner-up gets to pick the platform, blame and subsequently oust the chair because they are mad about losing, and in short, demand that the party bend to the will of the losing campaign. This would make a mockery of voting. The voters choose a winner because they trust that winner and her/his vision to carry the party forward. The voters speak to endorse a leader who will shape the platform, the party organization, the process, and the Presidency. To cede leadership to the losing campaign is to disrespect the entire process and point of asking voters to make that choice.

That the winner of the process becomes the leader, that the victor chooses the path forward has never been a subject of question before, so why would it be now? On what basis might this man who lost feel entitled to dictate to women of power in this party what course they should take? I am a big believer in Occam's razor. Most often the obvious answer is in fact the correct one.

If someone can demonstrate an example of a time when Mr. Sanders lost to a man and behaved in a similar fashion I'm willing to look at it objectively and reconsider. We do have another example, curiously enough, of Mr. Sanders losing an election to a woman, and how he behaved then.
That Time Bernie Sanders Said He Was a Bigger Feminist Than His Female Opponent
Some of the parallels are rather stark and a bit disquieting.

The two-term governor who defeated Sanders endorses Hillary.
When Bernie Sanders ran against me in Vermont
Again, if someone can demonstrate Mr. Sanders showing this kind of pettish fractiousness following contests with men, I will happily give it fair reading.

Any parts or points of Mr. Sanders agenda should be brought forth as a request, not a demand, in the spirit of cooperation. The Democratic Party, with Hillary as the leader elected by the Democratic voters, should then decide what points to consider or adopt as she sees beneficial to the party and her campaign moving forward. It's obvious to many that the changes Mr. Sanders is demanding for the party he just recently and only "kind of" joined, are not-too-coincidentally exactly the ones he thinks would have allowed him to win. It seems rather self-serving because it is; but nonetheless it seems likely the campaigns will search for common ground.

There is room on the path forward for Mr. Sanders, but there must be no doubt that it is Secretary Clinton, at the behest of the voters of our party who has been chosen to make those decisions great and small that will guide our journey.

June 7, 2016

The media "calling it" yesterday was good for nobody at all.

It set Senator Sanders back on his feet, kicked him when he was down and unprepared. It left him in a very awkward position, and a very defensive one. This was no benefit certainly to him, and I don't think putting him on the defensive did Hillary any favors either. I think it left his voters with an iron will to show up today. Not that that's a bad thing! Everyone should show up. Everyone should vote! I'm just saying, it seems to me like it's more beneficial to his turnout.

It also was terribly unfair to Secretary Clinton. It robbed her of a very important and special moment with her voters and with her volunteers. It probably depressed her turnout at least as much as Sen. Sanders. I think probably a little more. She should have been able to celebrate this milestone - earning more than half of the pledged delegates, with her voters, her volunteers, and her family. No matter who your candidate was, this night is historic, and it wasn't just taken from her, it was taken from all of us.

June 3, 2016

How about this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512115510

He can still get his agenda done. He can hold her feet to the fire. He can be the catalyst of very real change that can benefit millions. Think of all that he could get done, if we come together and secure the supreme court for 40 years, the House, and the Senate.

Here in Montana, there is real talk that we could get more Dems in office here and in Washington due to the "Trump effect." I expect that will be a story throughout the states.

I won't ask for your response now. I was on the loosing end in 2008 and I fully understand how raw and scathing and deep that pain is. I was in so not ready at this time in 2008 to talk about it. At all.

But some people reached out to me, here and there, now and then. And I thought about it. Long story short I voted for Obama twice.

We all have our own walk. I'm only asking for you to think about it over the next few months. When you're out at the lake, or the park; at work or at the store, look at the fragile among us, the vulnerable. It just can't be him.