by Tom Kando
On Feb. 9, Bernie Sanders gave Hillary Clinton a serious drubbing in New Hampshire - defeating her by OVER 20%.
Sanders was particularly popular with young(er) voters. At my age, “young” means just about everybody. But for now, I’ll just define “young” as people who are, say, about as old as my children and younger, which means around forty or less...
So let me tell you young folks why you are making a grave mistake if you plan to make Bernie Sanders the Democratic presidential nominee:
ONE: Sanders will NEVER be elected president of the United States. Never. One thing which young people don’t see is the unbridgeable chasm that separates reality from idealism. Only through experience does one learn to appreciate the difference. When I was young, I campaigned for Gene McCarthy, George McGovern and other Quixotic figures. It felt real good. And none of them were ever elected.
Other things being equal, I would probably vote for Sanders myself. But other things are NOT equal!
On February 9, I saw the Bill O’Reilly’s, Megyn Kelly’s and the other reactionary jackals on Fox News laughing, jubilant about the size of Sanders’ victory over Clinton. They were almost ready to start campaigning for Sanders, whom O’Reilly called “Che” and “Fidel.”
Don’t you see that nominating Sanders as the Democratic flag bearer ASSURES the victory of his Republican rival, NO MATTER WHO THAT TURNS OUT TO BE? Whether it is Trump, or Kasich, or Bush, or Cruz, or Rubio, ANY ONE of them will win. Electing an avowed socialist to the presidency of the United States of America is an IMPOSSIBILITY. It would be easier to elect an atheist Muslim polygamist murderer than to elect a socialist.
TWO: She is the best qualified for the job.
THREE: Why is this country not deeply ashamed over its steadfast inability to put a woman in charge? The record is clear. The excuses always change. With Hillary, it’s “not that she is a woman; she just is not the right woman; she can’t be trusted, blah, blah.” With the next female candidate, they’ll come up with some other ad hoc bs. Meanwhile, women have been in charge in Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, Germany, India, Israel, Pakistan for crying out loud, and innumerable other countries. But not in the good old USA.
It took the US half a century longer to grant women the right to vote than it did to do so for blacks (15th amendment: 1870; 19th amendment: 1919).
Obama’s victory over Hillary eight years ago can plausibly be attributed to the fact that sexism trumps racism, when it comes to entrusting someone with decision-making power.
Madeleine Albright and Gloria Steinem were right, the other day, when they scolded young women because many of them are too pro-Sanders.
From the nineteen sixties onward, there arose something called “Feminism,” remember? (I hated it at first, just as one tends to hate a bitter but necessary medicine).
There was talk of very subversive things, for example women having the right to control their own bodies. Imagine that!
In 2016, we read here and there that some states (Texas for instance) are considering outlawing abortion altogether. Who is to say that the US Supreme Court might not become so reactionary as to, at some point, declare Roe v. Wade unconstitutional? The Nazis’ slogan was “Kinder, Kuche and Kirche.” It’ll never happen here, right?
Look, my female friends: Wouldn’t now be a good time for you to get a little bit pissed off?
© Tom Kando 2016
leave comment here
23 comments:
Tom, you are absolutely correct about this. Both of our kids want Bernie Sanders. And they voted for Ralph Nader! Which of course is how we got Bush the Second.
Exactly!
Perfect example.
I wish, as a woman, I could get behind Hilary, but her international politics are very bad. I desperately want our nation to have a female leader (it's long overdue for women to be in leadership roles with actual teeth), but her leadership is ABSOLUTELY not what we need right now. With everything happening overseas, not the least of which is the refugee crisis in Europe, her past actions and proposed way of handling things would inflame the problems. She is not the diplomat we need. And, yes, I am afraid that you also might be right and people voting for Sanders may cause us to have a truly wretched Republican leader, but I won't vote for her just to "be on the safe side," so to speak. She does not stand for the world I want my kids to inherit and that's why I'm going to take the gamble on Sanders.
DKK
I left Berkleley for India in Oct. 1972 confident that McGovern would win. I know you're right. Besides, Hillary is uniquly qualified in foreign relations. Bernie is great leading a revolution, but let's not lose the White House.
Good points Tom but aside from this massive win in NH I don't think Bernie has any chance once he hits the southern states. So while it may be concerning right now in the afterglow of the primary, I'm pretty sure he's peaked. When McGovern was nominated, the anti-war movement was wide and deep enough to carry him through the democratic primaries. But in the general election there were enough democrats ( northern & southern) that were threatened by the counter culture, to cross over and vote for Nixon. I don't see the current anger against wall street and the banks as being equivalent to the anti-war movement and thus as much of a mobilizer to drive Bernie to the nomination. IMHO
The current (2014) population age pyramid of the US is at its fattest between the ages of 20 and 54. Current 40 year olds were babies in the early 70's. A 54 year old person today was five years old when the Vietnam war protests began in 1967. Hardly interested in politics.
My point is that today's majority of the US voting population is not aware of historical similarities making it impossible for a revolutionary socialist leader to become president. Woman or not, Hillary's dishonest reputation has backfired. Today, a better informed great majority will vote for Bernie Sandersý. At least I hope so. Otherwise how can any systemic change ever be achieved?
Do what you wish with my thoughts.
Bravo to you on today's piece about Hillary.
Thank you for your comments.
Carol and Lita seem to see things my way. Dan makes a good point.
As to Dani and Juliette:
I respect your sentiments.
However, remember Santayana’s famous words: ”Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
And by the way: As population pyramids go, that of the US actually shows a rapidly AGING population. Most other countries in the world have “pyramids” that look much more like real pyramids - with a much wider base and narrower top. Check it out. My point: Americans are more likely to remember (and cling to) the past than many others, because they are relatively old. That’s probably also one reason why the country is becoming so conservative.
More importantly: It never ceases to amaze me how people have bought into the “dishonest Hillary” refrain. Sure, the (media-reinforced) image is there, but where is the evidence? Much of the anti-Hillary animus is guided by “impressions,” not facts. Of course, one can cherry pick things to support anything, but it is not clear that she is more dishonest or would have a more malevolent foreign or domestic policy than Sanders. Just one example: her position on guns is better than his. Her husband’s nickname was “slick Willie,” yet he was one of the best presidents we ever had. No one is perfect, but when you choose for the”perfect” over the “good,” you run the risk of achieving neither.
In my original post, I forgot the third and most important reason to vote for Hillary: She is by far the most qualified for the job. I just revised and retitled the article.
Thank you, Tom. Most younger women do not realize how life was for us older women. Many of us started with the choices: teacher or nurse. If we walked a different path, we have scars to prove it. Now women can enter almost any career they choose. Hillary was somewhat younger than my class, but she has met wall upon wall. She is truly amazing, how she shows very little bitterness. And her book "It takes a Village to raise a Child" is right on. She is focused and intelligent. Take this time to let a woman be our President, a suitable and tried and true person any American should be proud of. And Tom is correct about idealism. Let us be realistic and down to earth. Decide now to make Hillary your choice. Then get busy to elect democrats, or at least independents, for Congress so she will be able to work with Congress to bring solutions to the many problems that we should be addressing.
Terry,
you put things wonderfully. Better than I ever could.
While I'm commenting on a comment, let me vent a bit:
Yesterday, I heard a man and his wife argue about who to vote for. She was pro-Hillary, and he said that he could never vote for her. She is sixties-something, he in his seventies or so. So they both follow the pattern.
At one point he said that no woman will ever be capable of steering a whole country.
She replied the obvious - what about the dozens of other countries where women HAVE done it, and done it well?
His reply: “Oh well, those puny European countries, maybe, but not a big country like America...”
This is a good example of the imbecility of so many anti-Hillary arguments. No point in mentioning that the two largest countries on earth (India and China) have both been ruled by women. Arguing with many of these guys is hopeless. Is it brain calcification, or some other form of early dementia?
One: "Sanders will NEVER be elected president of the United States. Never."
Sanders will be elected if people vote for him. Just as Obama was largely elected by the youth vote.
Two: "She is the best qualified for the job."
Like putting Top Secret and above Top Secret information on her private server where anybody (e.g. Al Queda) can hack it?
Or Chelsea Clinton getting paid $30 Million for "financial advice" to Wall Street even though she has no financial education or experience etc...?
Three: "... put a woman in charge?"
People need to put the best qualified person in charge. The above statement is sexist. It speaks volumes that women are not voting for Hillary Clinton. Why? Because she is a sleazeoid.
Hillary Clinton is a right wing warhawk and a corporate backside-kisser . Vote for her if you want blood on your hands and an empty wallet.
These comments are predictable. The main argument on the Left against Hillary Clinton is that she is not Left enough. From the perspective of people like Joaquin Walking and BobM, she is a right-winger. Whatever.
My point is that she is probably as far Left as America will go. We’ll see in November who is right - Joaquin or me. If Joaquin is correct and Sanders is elected President, I’ll be ecstatic.
BobM’s RSN articles are not so bad.
But my problem with Hillary haters is this (and in many ways those on the left resemble those on the right):
It never ceases to amaze me how people have bought into the “dishonest Hillary” refrain. Sure, the (media-reinforc ed) image is there, but where is the evidence? Much of the anti-Hillary animus is guided by “impressions,” inventions and labels, not facts.
Top Secret? The top-secret messages she allegedly sent through her private account were classified “top secret” RETROACTIVELY. They were not top secret at the timer she sent them.
Chelsea getting $30 million for “financial advice”? Where do you get such outlandish and impossible stuff?
“Sleazeoid”? “Warhawk”, etc. These are meaningless labels. I get it. You don’t like her.
I would LOVE it if Sanders were to become our next President. But that can’t happen. So we’ll have a Republican president, handing over ALL THREE branches of the government to the reactionary right. When you choose the ”perfect” over the “good,” you run the risk of achieving neither.
It seems like this fear of nominating a true liberal with some backbone might be PTSD from 30+ years of conservatism defining every single issue and the Democratic Party. Still afraid to even use the word 'liberal' like it's the 1990s. When will people wake up to the fact that their movement is crumbling before our eyes and we have no leaders on the left willing to point it out, offering voters some alternative for moving back to a more stable and sane center. Sanders is risky but he may be exactly what we need, a strong voice for progressives at every level of government. Nothing will get done with the dysfunctional state of Congress and the cultist state of the GOP, no matter which Democrat gets in the White House. What we need more than anything is leadership and a new debate.
I cannot disagree with anything you write
I honestly keep looking for reasons to believe in Hillary. This article is actually a perfect representation of what I have been reading. So, let's see what we learn here:
1. This author does not look at polls, which overwhelmingly show Bernie beating the Republicans by MORE than Hillary.
2. This author can't think of any way that Hillary is more qualified and so he is stuck simply stating it with no justification.
3. This author, in desperately trying to think of a qualification, remembers that HRC is a woman.
That is also the "It's her turn" argument.
All he needs to round out this complete list of reasons to vote for Hillary is the usual 'Bernie can't do everything we want so let's elect someone who does not want to"
Otherwise known as the HRC campaign slogan:
"No, we can't."
HA! Hillary is worse than Obama, but if that's what you want, I hope you get it in spades. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!
Samspoliticalblog's comment cannot be answered. It's not clear what he dislikes about Obama, and in which way(s) Hillary Clinton would be even worse.
As to LionMousePudding: Hillary Clinton's qualifications are numerous: more than two decades ago she put up a valiant fight for universal health coverage, she was a very competent secretary of state, she represented New York in the senate to the great satisfaction of the people of New York, her position on gun control is superior to Sanders', her positions of taxes and reigning in Wall Street lawlessness are well documented, and much more specific than those of most other candidates. These are just off the top of my head, not "desperately trying." I could come up with many more examples.
But the more important point remains: Let's see what happens in November. I sincerely wish you good luck, but I fear that you will not win.
"..women have been in charge in Scandinavia, the United Kingdom, Germany, India, Israel, Pakistan..."
Yes, but would you want any of those women in charge of our country? Hillary is a shill for establishment interests, exactly the people that need to be challenged and displaced. If Bernie is not elected, it'll be because of his political or religious affiliations, not his qualifications for the office.
You don't get it. The world with it's corporate rule is destroying the planet. This is not fiction, it is the best science we have. Only Bernie has the vision to see this. Clinton will do nothing because she really doesn't believe it, has no passion and is worried about the Clinton's 150 million. the Republicans are worse. The Sanders net worth is $400k. The 1% think he is a fool because he is not obsessed with money. They don't get it. We have to gamble on an old democratic socialist. If this country does not have a political revolution we will have a bloody one---and no one wants that.
There is really one issue........an d that is most will vote the Primary as they see fit.
Should their choice not make it, then the only course of action is to vote for the winner.
Otherwise, a NONE vote is a vote for the GOP crazies and will almost guarantee they win the presidency.Coup led with controlling the house.........a disaster.
Should HRC win the nomination, Bernie Sanders will support her-period! A 'write in' of either candidate is a waste of one's vote. Be thankful Bernie entered this fight because HRC is hearing the message and it might temper her 'insider' ways. Any Dem candidate is superior to what is being offered by the GOP.
I would love to see a woman in the White House. Elizabeth Warren would be wonderful. It is not just about experience. You have to know how to think and reason what is best for the American people. She will never be able to do that because all thinking and decisions are being made for her....by her Wall street and Corporate cronies.
Randi: Several of those women have done a commendable job. Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, etc. Currently, Angela Merkel, while under the gun for her controversial stance on refugees, is a fine and competent prime minister. I agree with you that Sanders would be fine president. But, to repeat: Hillary Clinton would also be head and shoulders above all the Republican bozos.
Newell: I do get it. The choice is between half a loaf or none. We can speculate about Hillary Clinton’s motives, but there is no evidence that she is as malicious as you make her out to be. The irrational and exaggerated dislike she elicits never ceases to amaze me. It must be some non-verbal personality thing...
Jcastron gets it! A Clinton-Sanders ticket, (or Sanders-Clinton, either way) would be a dream ticket.
Lark: Sure, Elizabeth Warren would have my enthusiastic vote. But, again, in my opinion your judgment of Hillary Clinton is much too harsh...
Post a Comment
Please limit your comment to 300 words at the most!