I think change actually does occur on an individual level when we
change our values. And I think if 150 million of us adopted new
values it would have an impact on our lives. But the change that must
take place, a non violent change, will take as long as it has taken us
to arrive at this place. In other words, not in my lifetime.
Probably not in my great, great grand children's lifetimes, either.
I see it as a designed process. We begin agreeing on certain aspects
of our collective lives. And over time we add, alter and explore,
building a new role for Man.
Of course there is always the possibility that our Masters will
attempt to force us in other directions, and that will bring about
violence. But this is why we need to move slowly, building and
testing to be certain we are not going to merely replace the present
system, and not allowing ourselves to be diverted even if we do need
to defend ourselves at some point.
How do we begin to think in terms of "managing" our world rather than
"controlling" it? Or is Manage even the way we need to go? Perhaps
we should talk about "sharing" our planet, rather than managing it,
since we've done a rather dismal job of that.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/4/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, a complete change. But how? If I change my consciousness and goals,
but
the power stays where it is and manifests itself as it does, then my change
of consciousness and your's an 150 million others, won't change what life
is
like.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl Jarvis
Sent: Monday, April 04, 2016 10:45 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: carjar82
Subject: [blind-democracy] Democratic and Republican Parties Pose Hard
Questions For Sanders Campaign and His Supporters: How can Independents
make
their votes count?
Joe, Chuck and All Others Wanting a Say in the Presidential Election.
We Americans have become so accustomed to this Two Party System, that we
forget it was never envisioned by our "Fore Fathers".
Even though the vote was limited to White Land-holding Males over the age
of
21, it was intended that voters would cast their support for individuals,
not for Parties. Even so, if you glance back through American History, you
will see a time when a number of political parties vied for major state and
federal offices. But as time passed, those in control began to find this
multi political system to be messy and hard to control. Remember, control
is the name of the game.
The present "Two-Headed, One Party" System did not come about by chance.
In
the mid 50's to the mid 60's, when I was at my most politically active, the
struggle was on. The two major parties in my state of Washington, wanted
to
demand that voters register as either Democrat or Republican, and at
election time they would be handed a ballot containing only the candidates
of the Party of their choice.
We fought this concept again and again.
You must admit that the American Corporate Oligarchy has done a pretty fair
job of looking like a democracy while maintaining tight control in those
issues that matter to it. The Oligarchy Citizens are doing just fine.
Their government takes good care of them. They have control of the money,
the factories...both here and abroad, the military...and more and more that
means the local Military Police, the Educational Criteria, the Mass Media,
and a never ending supply of Labor and Cannon Fodder. While we, the
working
class, go about grumbling over what we think is an incompetent government,
that same government is managing to rake in the world's wealth.
And the Oligarchy can afford to allow "Third Parties" to spring up, as long
as they can be controlled and rendered ineffectual. Our history is strewn
with the bodies of dead "Third Parties". In my lifetime I have seen such
far-sighted men and women as Henry Wallace, Ralph Nader, Jill Stein and
many
others, pushed aside by the power of the Two-Headed Monster. And as we
wander about with our thumbs up our hinies, believing that we might be able
to squeeze in a candidate or two and make changes to the System, the
Republicrats go about cinching down our restraints.
Complete change is the only answer. But change to what? Do we want to
toss
out the oppressive gang of Corporate Robbers and put ourselves in their
posh
homes and offices? If all we want is to exchange places, then forget it.
Trading our overalls for suits will only start the clock ticking, counting
the minutes until we are tossed aside.
We need to rethink our place in Nature. We need a System that enables us
to
live relatively free, independent, comfortable lives as members of this
Planet, not Masters. To do this will take a revolution. But not a
revolution of guns and murder. A revolution within our minds.
A different road to success than the one we are now traveling. This road
is
the road to Hell.
Carl Jarvis
On 4/4/16, joe harcz Comcast <joeharcz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
He joined the Party for what that is worth Chuck! He is running in theprimaries.
Democratic Party.
By the way both Parties have welcomed "defectors" from the other
Party. For example, Republicans took in a swath of Southern Democratts
from Thurmond to Graham and many of them ran as Republicans in their
ourinterests.
Democrats welcomed in folks like Arlen Spector even recently.
This said, and while Irespect you highly I disagree with your core
contentions. I simply disagree.
I vote, and organize, personally not on Party loyalty, but rather on
issues.
While by far the bulk of folks I've worked for from John Glenn, to Tom
Harkin, to Obama in presidential campaigns were/are Democrats I have
been known to pull the lever for members of other parties especially
if my local or state Democrats were proven to be corrupt and against
disabilities.
Oh, I almost forgot my active support and my role as a Democratic
Party state delegate while I was 19 for McGovern.
Forgive the ramble but often the Party or individuals within it
haven't been loyal to us, and most especially those of us with
Party.
Now, I'm not per say a third party guy in most cases but I've sure
been known to vote Green or even some other party in protest as a sort
of a vote for "none of the above".
And I'll tell you their is a social democratic wing in the Democratic
And if they split off and created a third party I'd join it in aheartbeat.
California.
But, on this you might disagree with me.
----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Krugman (Redacted sender "ckrugman" for DMARC)
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2016 11:03 AM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump and Clinton's Big Night Poses
Hard Questions For Sanders Campaign and His Youthful Supporters
The issue is that technically Sanders does not claim to be a
Democrat. He is registered as an "independent" Senator although he
caucuses with the democrats. I feel let down by the Democratic party
because it has allowed Sanders to take over as an independent and as a
long standing party member I strongly believe that does make a
difference. This is why I say that I feel let down by the Democratic
party as this undermines party membership and loyalty. For those of
you who are members of third parties would you be satisfied if an
outsider someone who might be an ally on some issues is given carte
blanch opportunities to run without actually being a party member? I
believe that it is rationale like this that causes us to get stuck
with "top Two" primaries like we now have shoved down our throats in
ChuckI"ve missed.
Chuck
From: Alice Dampman Humel
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:45 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump and Clinton's Big Night Poses
Hard Questions For Sanders Campaign and His Youthful Supporters
Chuck,
I seem to be missing messages, so I only saw yours now below Frank's
reply.
I copy from your message:
"I feel that as a loyal longstanding Democrat I have been let down
by the democratic party when they gave him a carte blanche pass to run
and say whatever he wants. While I sympathize with people who are
struggling economically I don't think that Bernie Sanders is the answer"
You feel let down by the Democratic Party because they allowed a
candidate to speak his outh without muzzling him or otherwise
dictating what he is allowed to say, restricting what he can declare
his platform to be? I don't understand that.
If Sanders does not provide the possibility of an answer to the
things he has outlined as big problems, in his candidacy, where do you
think any other possibility lies?
And, another question, if he is indeed still technically an
independent in Vermont, so what? And I do believe he is the Democratic
senator from Vermont, but you may be aware of some technical detail that
Aliceis the answer.
On Mar 29, 2016, at 4:51 PM, Frank Ventura
<frank.ventura@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Chuck, while my heart wants to disagree with you my head
reluctantly acknowledges that you probably are correct.
Frank
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles
Krugman
Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 5:29 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump and Clinton's Big Night Poses
Hard Questions For Sanders Campaign and His Youthful Supporters
Well Frank, this is how I've always felt about Bernie and Jill.
While Sanders has caucused with the democrats in the Senate he is
still technically registered as an independent in Vermont as I
understand it. I feel that as a loyal longstanding Democrat I have
been let down by the democratic party when they gave him a carte
blanche pass to run and say whatever he wants. While I sympathize with
people who are struggling economically I don't think that Bernie Sanders
Chuckprivate security forces guard their nicely manicured lawns.
-----Original Message-----
From: Frank Ventura
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 1:08 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump and Clinton's Big Night Poses
Hard Questions For Sanders Campaign and His Youthful Supporters
Chuck, while I did vote for Sanders in the primary, I am already
regretting it. Sadly, Sanders is starting to sound more and more like
Jill Stein; that is someone who merely wants to derail the democratic
party and put a Republican in the oval office out of some sort of
protest. The sad truth is that after Stein and Sanders get their
jollies with their protest against the mainstream Democratic party
they will go back to their comfy suburban homes and sit back with a
glass of wine; while the rest of us working class suffer the onslaught
of President Trump or President Cruz and all the horrors for our
nation that it has brought. So a year from now when President Trump's
death squads are roaming the streets killing the working class Bernie
and Jill will be sitting back watching it all on Foxnews while their
Frankbuys in to the capitalistic mentality.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles
Krugman
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 2:00 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump and Clinton's Big Night Poses
Hard Questions For Sanders Campaign and His Youthful Supporters
Miriam, in 2008 you voted for a typical Chicago politician.
Spending time in Chicago growing up in the sixties I found the
political machine in power fascinating. My problem is that I just
don't like or agree with Bernie Sanders and don't believe he is
electable nor does he possess the image of an American president.
While There are lots of things I didn't like about the Clinton
Administration and I believe that Hillary was an active participant in
the decisionmaking process and since I don't support the extreme
principles of third parties I feel that in this election I'm voting
for the lesser of the evils. I guess that there is still part of me that
ChuckDemocrats, aside from social issues, LGBT rights, abortion rights, are not
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 11:43 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump and Clinton's Big Night Poses
Hard Questions For Sanders Campaign and His Youthful Supporters
I live in New York which, probably, will continue to be a blue state.
However, whatever kind of state it is, my vote, if Bernie isn't
the Democratic candidate, will go to Jill Stein. It won't go to Trump
and it won't go to the Clinton machine. In 2008, I thought I was
voting for a Democratic candidate who represented the values in which
I believed. I knew that he was a bit to the right in terms of
Afghanistan, but I tought he was a Liberal Democrat who believed in
the rule of law, in open government. I discovered that I'd voted for
an opportunist, an elitist, for a President who would ignore the
constitution whenever it got in the way of his appeasement of the
security state, of a President who was ready to cut social security
benefits, and who made unacceptable bargains with Republicans before
it was necessary to do so. And he is the more Ppogressive of the two.
If I vote for Hillary, I'd be voting for someone whose Neo Liberal
policies are more warlike, who is even more comfortable with the
elites, who will increase the US appeasement of Israel, whose concern
about African Americans is pure fiction, and who uses her femaleness
as a means to gain support from femininsts. I can't, in good
consciience do it. No, I don't want Trump as President. But the fact
that Clinton uses whatever words , she thinks, will get votes from the
Democratic base, doesn't reassure me. I listened to Robert Sheer's
discussion with Thomas Frank this morning on an audio clip on
Truthdig. Are you aware that Bill Clinton was about to privatize
social security? What stopped him? The Monica Lewinsky scandal. These
anymore the party of the working people.
is unthinkable.
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles
Krugman (Redacted sender "ckrugman" for DMARC)
Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 2:07 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump and Clinton's Big Night Poses
Hard Questions For Sanders Campaign and His Youthful Supporters
whether we might like it or not any vote that doesn't go to
Hillary including those on principle to minor candidates could very
strongly result in the trump presidency that no thinking person wants.
Chuck
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 8:21 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump and Clinton's Big Night Poses
Hard Questions For Sanders Campaign and His Youthful Supporters
Well, voting for Clinton means voting for more of what we have now
which means more wealth going to the 1%, more power for trans national
corporations, larger even less regulated banks, and an escalation of war.
Voting for trump may very well mean and out and out war at home on
minorities along with what I outlined above. One can't tell what Trump
will actdually do in terms of international policy because his
statements are contradictory. I caught a short interview with the
author of a biography of Trump on NPR last night. Briefly, he said
Trump never reads books, does not focus on one subject when you talk
with him, but thinks just the way he sounds in his speeches, and his
basically and ego maniac, although he didn't use that term. I can't
visualize myself voting for Hillary because I can't think of any
positives in her favor. But certainly, the prospect of a Trump Presidency
choice!
Miriam
Miriam
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Carl
Jarvis
Sent: Wednesday, March 16, 2016 10:27 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Trump and Clinton's Big Night Poses
Hard Questions For Sanders Campaign and His Youthful Supporters
As the World turns...so turn firm resolves.
Of course it's early yet, but winning the primary appears to be
slipping from the old, experienced hands of Senator Bernie Sanders.
To date I have held to my resolve to vote for Sanders, and then if
he does not win the Party nomination, to vote for Jill Stein, of the
Green Party.
But that was before the Republicans trotted out their Party's
Best, the Clown Crew.
And, as we all guffawed and chuckled over their noisy sideshow, an
awful thing happened. One of the clowns began to look like something
out of the 1940's. A full blown Fascist!
Ranting and raving and telling one big lie after another, Donald
Trump rose like the Phoenix, out of the ashes of the Third Reich.
Despite the Republican Party's denial that he has the popular
Party support, Trump stomps about, stirring up the rank and file, and
winning in state after state.
We now are upon the brink of National disaster. One direction
leads to a Fascist State, and the other leads to a Corporate State.
And we have only ourselves to blame.
If the choice comes down to Clinton or Trump, or even Clinton or
Cruz, we will need to decide if we hold to our original plan to
support Stein, or to "throw away" our vote in an effort to block the
takeover of our emerging Corporate State by the Fascist State. What a
Just a fair warning that I am not ruling out a vote for HillaryYouthful Supporters [5] http://www.alternet.org/ [6]
Clinton.
Carl Jarvis
On 3/16/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org) Home > Trump and
Clinton's Big Night Poses Hard Questions For Sanders Campaign
and His
Youthful Supporters ________________________________________
Trump and Clinton's Big Night Poses Hard Questions For Sanders
Campaign and His Youthful Supporters By Steven Rosenfeld [1] /
AlterNet [2] March 15, 2016 Bernie Sanders' historic and
expectation-surpassing bid for the Democratic presidential
nomination
ran into hard reality in several pivotal primary contests Tuesday,
where he could not break Hillary Clinton's hold on voters in
several
critical battleground states needed to win in the fall-notably Ohio
and Florida.
While Sanders supporters will point to his narrow victory in
Missouri,
and overwhelming support among independents who voted in the
Democratic primary, Clinton's victories in those fall battleground
states-as well as South Carolina and Illinois-means that it is
virtually impossible for Sanders to win the delegates needed [3]
for
the party's nomination. That fact undoubtedly will take days to
seep
into his remarkable grassroots campaign, where it remains to be
seen
how Sanders will continue his quest or align himself with
Clinton-who
he's criticized for some stances but praised as a person of
integrity.
The backdrop for that as-yet unknown calculation is the deeply
disconcerting continuing rise of Donald Trump toward the Republican
nomination, who has continued to amass a delegate lead-winning in
Florida, Illinois, South Carolina and Missouri. Although Ohio Gov.
John Kasich beat Trump in his home state, his first victory on
2016,
his chances-based on the GOP's delegate nomination math-are an even
longer shot than Sanders catching up with Clinton and wresting the
nomination. Under the current Republican National Committee rules,
a
candidate needs to have won at least eight states to have their
name
placed in nomination for the presidency. That renders Kasich's
pledge
to supporters that he will win this fall as little more than
campaign
magical thinking.
"Only one campaign has beaten Donald Trump over and over and
over again,"
said Sen. Ted Cruz, also striking a defiant tone despite losing in
every state Tuesday, including by several thousand votes in
Missouri
to
Trump.
Cruz recited his pledge to recast the federal government and
judiciary
in the most ideological right-wing mold possible, go after enemies
abroad, and said he was the only alternative to Trump. "Starting
tomorrow morning, there is a clear choice," Cruz said, posturing
before supporters in Texas.
Trump's victory in Florida prompted Marco Rubio to suspend his
campaign, telling his backers that it was not in "God's plans"
for him
to win "in
2016
or maybe ever." He also implored Republicans to reject the hateful
politics pedaled by Trump, saying, "I ask the American people,
'Do not
give into the fear. Do not give into the frustration.'"
Tuesday's top two storylines-Trump's rise and Clinton all-but
ending
Sanders' chances of winning sufficient delegates to be the
nominee-came together in her remarks, where she underscored that
she
had won fair and square but tried to reach out to Sanders' team.
"Our
campaign has won more votes than any other campaign-Democrat or
Republican," began Clinton, in remarks from Palm Beach, "and I
want to
congratulate Sen. Sanders for the vigorous campaign he has waged."
Clinton said she needed the support of Democrats across the
country,
and then focused on Trump but cited many issues raised by Sanders.
"Tonight, it is clearer than ever that this may be one of the most
consequential campaigns of our lifetimes," she said. "The next
president will walk into the oval office next year in January,
and sit
down at that desk, and start making decisions that will affect the
lives and the livelihoods of everyone in this country and indeed,
everyone on this planet."
Clinton said the next president has three major challenges: making
positive differences in people's lives, keeping America safe and
bringing the country together. The first example she gave was a
direct
nod to Sanders and his popularity with voters under age 35. "Young
people across America struggling under the weight of student
debt find
it difficult to imagine the futures they want," she said, "and they
deserve a president who will relieve them of that burden and help
future generations go to college without borrowing a dime." Clinton
continued with another issue that he raised first. "And you know
grandparents who worry about retirement deserve a president who
will
protect and then expand Social Security for those who need it
most-not
cut or privatize it."
Her to-do list continued: affordable child care; paid family leave;
equal pay for equal work for women; good jobs with rising
incomes-in
construction, manufacturing, small business and renewable energy;
standing up for workers and the middle class-"not China, not Wall
Street and not overpaid corporate executives." She said that she
knows
how to make these promises become realities, and then slammed
Trump,
especially his anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim stances, and his
embrace
of torture and threatening adversaries.
"That doesn't make him strong, it makes him wrong," she said.
"We have to take on all forms of inequality and discrimination,"
Clinton said. "Together, we have to defend all of our rights-civil
rights and voting rights; worker's rights and women's rights; LGBT
rights and rights for people with disabilities. And that starts
with
standing with President Obama when he nominates a justice to the
Supreme Court."
Whether or not Sanders' supporters will buy Clinton's words and see
how much he has sharpened her embrace and articulation of a
progressive agenda remains to be seen. There is no doubt that the
short-term messaging from the Sanders' campaign will be that
they will
keep plowing ahead and fight for delegates in the remaining
states. As
of Tuesday, half the states have voted. The math has Clinton
with 300
more [3] pledged delegates than Sanders. That is not counting
super-delegates, the elected officers and party officials, where
she
has 427 to his 26 [3]. Sanders reportedly spent
$12 million in ads for Tuesday's contests, compared to Clinton's $7
million.
Many of Sanders' supporters have not been involved in political
campaigns before, and will have a hard time immediately
processing
Tuesday's results.
But there are some big unanswered questions about what is next for
them in 2016-and what Clinton will also do to bring these two
campaigns
together.
Sanders has taken positions that appeal to the disaffected
voters who
have been drawn in by Trump and Cruz. One can only hope that the
Democratic Party knows it will need the millions of young economic
progressives to turn out in November. And they may not unless they
have a candidate they can believe in.
Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet,
including America's retirement crisis, democracy and voting rights,
and campaigns and elections. He is the author of "Count My Vote:
A
Citizen's Guide to Voting"
(AlterNet Books, 2008).
Share on Facebook Share
Share on Twitter Tweet
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [4]
[5]
________________________________________
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trump-and-clintons-big-night-pos
es-har d-questions-sanders-campaign-and-his-youthful
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/steven-rosenfeld
[2] http://alternet.org
[3]
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-
and-re
sults.html?action=click&contentCollection=Election%202016&regi
on=Foo
ter&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext
&m oduleDetail=undefined&pgtype=Multimedia
[4] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Trump and
Clinton's Big Night Poses Hard Questions For Sanders Campaign
and His
Youthful Supporters [5] http://www.alternet.org/ [6]
http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org) Home > Trump and
Clinton's Big Night Poses Hard Questions For Sanders Campaign
and His
Youthful Supporters
Trump and Clinton's Big Night Poses Hard Questions For Sanders
Campaign and His Youthful Supporters By Steven Rosenfeld [1] /
AlterNet [2] March 15, 2016 Bernie Sanders' historic and
expectation-surpassing bid for the Democratic presidential
nomination
ran into hard reality in several pivotal primary contests Tuesday,
where he could not break Hillary Clinton's hold on voters in
several
critical battleground states needed to win in the fall-notably Ohio
and Florida.
While Sanders supporters will point to his narrow victory in
Missouri,
and overwhelming support among independents who voted in the
Democratic primary, Clinton's victories in those fall battleground
states-as well as South Carolina and Illinois-means that it is
virtually impossible for Sanders to win the delegates needed [3]
for
the party's nomination. That fact undoubtedly will take days to
seep
into his remarkable grassroots campaign, where it remains to be
seen
how Sanders will continue his quest or align himself with
Clinton-who
he's criticized for some stances but praised as a person of
integrity.
The backdrop for that as-yet unknown calculation is the deeply
disconcerting continuing rise of Donald Trump toward the Republican
nomination, who has continued to amass a delegate lead-winning in
Florida, Illinois, South Carolina and Missouri. Although Ohio Gov.
John Kasich beat Trump in his home state, his first victory on
2016,
his chances-based on the GOP's delegate nomination math-are an even
longer shot than Sanders catching up with Clinton and wresting the
nomination. Under the current Republican National Committee rules,
a
candidate needs to have won at least eight states to have their
name
placed in nomination for the presidency. That renders Kasich's
pledge
to supporters that he will win this fall as little more than
campaign
magical thinking.
"Only one campaign has beaten Donald Trump over and over and
over again,"
said Sen. Ted Cruz, also striking a defiant tone despite losing in
every state Tuesday, including by several thousand votes in
Missouri
to
Trump.
Cruz recited his pledge to recast the federal government and
judiciary
in the most ideological right-wing mold possible, go after enemies
abroad, and said he was the only alternative to Trump. "Starting
tomorrow morning, there is a clear choice," Cruz said, posturing
before supporters in Texas.
Trump's victory in Florida prompted Marco Rubio to suspend his
campaign, telling his backers that it was not in "God's plans"
for him
to win "in
2016
or maybe ever." He also implored Republicans to reject the hateful
politics pedaled by Trump, saying, "I ask the American people,
'Do not
give into the fear. Do not give into the frustration.'"
Tuesday's top two storylines-Trump's rise and Clinton all-but
ending
Sanders' chances of winning sufficient delegates to be the
nominee-came together in her remarks, where she underscored that
she
had won fair and square but tried to reach out to Sanders' team.
"Our
campaign has won more votes than any other campaign-Democrat or
Republican," began Clinton, in remarks from Palm Beach, "and I
want to
congratulate Sen. Sanders for the vigorous campaign he has waged."
Clinton said she needed the support of Democrats across the
country,
and then focused on Trump but cited many issues raised by Sanders.
"Tonight, it is clearer than ever that this may be one of the most
consequential campaigns of our lifetimes," she said. "The next
president will walk into the oval office next year in January,
and sit
down at that desk, and start making decisions that will affect the
lives and the livelihoods of everyone in this country and indeed,
everyone on this planet."
Clinton said the next president has three major challenges: making
positive differences in people's lives, keeping America safe and
bringing the country together. The first example she gave was a
direct
nod to Sanders and his popularity with voters under age 35. "Young
people across America struggling under the weight of student
debt find
it difficult to imagine the futures they want," she said, "and they
deserve a president who will relieve them of that burden and help
future generations go to college without borrowing a dime." Clinton
continued with another issue that he raised first. "And you know
grandparents who worry about retirement deserve a president who
will
protect and then expand Social Security for those who need it
most-not
cut or privatize it."
Her to-do list continued: affordable child care; paid family leave;
equal pay for equal work for women; good jobs with rising
incomes-in
construction, manufacturing, small business and renewable energy;
standing up for workers and the middle class-"not China, not Wall
Street and not overpaid corporate executives." She said that she
knows
how to make these promises become realities, and then slammed
Trump,
especially his anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim stances, and his
embrace
of torture and threatening adversaries.
"That doesn't make him strong, it makes him wrong," she said.
"We have to take on all forms of inequality and discrimination,"
Clinton said. "Together, we have to defend all of our rights-civil
rights and voting rights; worker's rights and women's rights; LGBT
rights and rights for people with disabilities. And that starts
with
standing with President Obama when he nominates a justice to the
Supreme Court."
Whether or not Sanders' supporters will buy Clinton's words and see
how much he has sharpened her embrace and articulation of a
progressive agenda remains to be seen. There is no doubt that the
short-term messaging from the Sanders' campaign will be that
they will
keep plowing ahead and fight for delegates in the remaining
states. As
of Tuesday, half the states have voted. The math has Clinton
with 300
more [3] pledged delegates than Sanders. That is not counting
super-delegates, the elected officers and party officials, where
she
has 427 to his 26 [3]. Sanders reportedly spent
$12 million in ads for Tuesday's contests, compared to Clinton's $7
million.
Many of Sanders' supporters have not been involved in political
campaigns before, and will have a hard time immediately
processing
Tuesday's results.
But there are some big unanswered questions about what is next for
them in 2016-and what Clinton will also do to bring these two
campaigns
together.
Sanders has taken positions that appeal to the disaffected
voters who
have been drawn in by Trump and Cruz. One can only hope that the
Democratic Party knows it will need the millions of young economic
progressives to turn out in November. And they may not unless they
have a candidate they can believe in.
Steven Rosenfeld covers national political issues for AlterNet,
including America's retirement crisis, democracy and voting rights,
and campaigns and elections. He is the author of "Count My Vote:
A
Citizen's Guide to Voting"
(AlterNet Books, 2008).
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Report typos and corrections to 'corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx'. [4]
Error!
Hyperlink reference not valid.[5]
Source URL:
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trump-and-clintons-big-night-pos
es-har d-questions-sanders-campaign-and-his-youthful
Links:
[1] http://www.alternet.org/authors/steven-rosenfeld
[2] http://alternet.org
[3]
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/primary-calendar-
and-re
sults.html?action=click&contentCollection=Election%202016&regi
on=Foo
ter&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext
&m oduleDetail=undefined&pgtype=Multimedia
[4] mailto:corrections@xxxxxxxxxxxx?Subject=Typo on Trump and
Clinton's Big Night Poses Hard Questions For Sanders Campaign
and His
http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2For what it's worth, our"Founding Fathers" never envisioned a Two Party System of government.
