Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
THE big weakness in this argument is that superdelegates will care more about winning in November than about maintenance of the existing neo-liberal/neo-conservative duopoly of governance in the US. They may decide that Sanders is a worse danger to their own careers and future prospects than is a Trump presidency.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri May 13th, 2016 at 11:14:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
AS you know I don't have a direct skin in this game, except insofar as the identity of the next US President effects us all.  Either Sanders or Clinton would be a huge improvement on Trump as far as I am concerned, and my only concern is which of them might be more effective in implementing progressive policies.  I don't share your antipathy to Hillary because both she and her husband had a hugely beneficial impact on resolving the Troubles in Northern Ireland, and in that context I see her as anything but a neo-con.

If I have a problem with both Clintons, it is that both have shown a willingness to make compromises with the powers that be to secure their own political futures that have proved to be hugely damaging to almost everyone else.  Top of that list I would put her vote for the Iraq war and Bill's support for financial de-regulation, welfare reform, and his notorious crime bill.

However we must not forget that in doing so, they were only accepting the political balance of power at the time, and not fighting against it hard enough.  That makes them triangulators, compromisers, pragmatists, centrists, or at worst, Machiavellian political operators in my book, not far right neo-conservative or neo-liberal ideologues in my book.

It seems to me that in casually lumping her in with Neo-conservative ideologues, Sanders' supporters are doing the work of the right wing media in attempting to divide the Democratic Party and leaving the way free for the republican nominee, who, too my minds, is an altogether more danger animal.  By all means make the case for Sanders, and hope he wins the nomination, or failing that has a strong presence in and influence of a Hillary administration.  But I think you need to be more nuanced in your criticism of Hillary.  She may end up being the best you can get, and, moreover, the better for having a strong Dem Congressional Majority which is only achievable by the Sanders and Clinton wings of the party working together.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat May 14th, 2016 at 06:24:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't see any necessary conflict between being a neo-liberal and a triangulator and trying to heal a wound in your ally's side. And I don't hate Hillary so much as I don't believe she will do what so obviously - at least to most progressives - needs to be done with the financial sector and the economy, and that, to me, is FAR more significant than any second or third issue on my agenda. I supported her instead of Obama after Edwards destroyed himself because, from his rhetoric, I could not assure myself that Obama would be even as good as her as president. Fortunately, Obama turned out to be much better than he might have been given his vague promises and I am glad he prevailed. Meanwhile I got to see much more of Hillary in action, which did not further recommend her to me.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Sat May 14th, 2016 at 09:34:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series