|
>Nobody who even slightly followed politics thought he was >unrealistic.
This initial sentence disqualifies everything else you said in this stanza. Prior to him proving he was a viable threat by winning Iowa, the establishment politic - en masse - regarded Obama as too inexperienced and regarded his chances of beating Clinton as negligible. Post Bush, the tide had shifted and the country had the appetite for a Democrat - but Clinton began the race as the presumptive nominee, just as she is now.
>Considering that BOTH of the leading 2008 candidates made it >central to their platforms, that both of them put together >detailed proposals to make it happen (in contrast to Bernie's >Medicare For All proposal, which is filled with magic >asterisks),
To be clear - Bernie helped author the ACA.
>Note one thing that we thought might be possible in 2008 but >turned out not to be possible: the public option. With a large >majority in the House, and a supermajority in the Senate, we >were unable to include even the option of a non-profit >alternative to private insurance.
>And now, the Sanders supporters seem to think that without a >majority in either house, and without the momentum and public >interest in the issue that existed in 2008, somehow, on the >force of his own charisma I guess, he'd be able not only to >finally create that public option, but to make it the ONLY >option. It's fucking ludicrous.
I know it's a wild & crazy idea -- but taking genuine stances on policy is integral to having integrity/credibility on an issue. Bernie has been fighting for the public option for decades - he's supposed to change tune now and pander for the vote? Sorry bruh - he's not a Clinton. Primary politics is littered with ideas that will never actually come to fruition - from all candidates.
>(Iran Deal) Why? Who said that? That was diplomacy, the one thing that the >President has broad leverage to undertake, without any major >interference from the Congress.
Without congressional approval, the Iran Nuclear Deal would not have been enacted. Yes - Obama had veto power - but if he did veto - two-thirds of the House and Senate must vote to override the veto, or the veto becomes sustained.
>The nuclear agreement is a huge, important, impressive >accomplishment, but it was never an unrealistic idea. All it >took was guts.
It was a paradigm-shift foreign policy move that the GOP, Saudi Arabia, and Israel exerted as much effort and energy as they could to oppose; a monumental accomplishment, and one that was extremely difficult to pull off unless you operate with diplomatic brilliance and judgment. it just so happened that Obama & Kerry are the exceptions to the rule: Extraordinary government leaders with gifted diplomatic competencies. I don't think any other administration (including a Clinton administration) could have pulled that off with such patience and efficacy.
>That said, it's not set in stone. If a Republican gets elected >in November, then he'll have just as much leeway to gut this >deal, and most of the rest of Obama's recent accomplishments, >which he's been forced to push through by executive order. All >the more reason that real progressives need to be supporting >the candidate who would actually be strong in a general >election.
Clinton supporters keep saying this - but the data says otherwise. In the bulk of recent reputable polls (as of one week ago) - Sanders has out-performed Clinton versus both Trump and Cruz in a general election (with a wide lead over Trump).
Bernie Sanders has received more small donations from supporters than any other presidential campaign in history. He's not a fringe candidate.
>>Marriage Equality in all 50 states? LOL > >Was a decision by the Supreme Court, which the President had >no power over one way or the other.
No? Let's see:
Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The Court struck down the ban on gay marriage with a 5-4 vote. Sotomayor voted with the majority. Had somebody else been appointed to the Court - the dissent could've very well been standing law. So when you say a President has "no power" over the Court one way or the other - that's a fairly egregious mischaracterization of the well-chronicled presidential power over the Court.
>This decision was prompted by a sea-change in public opinion.
Sure - but the very function of the Supreme Court is to be shielded from public opinion, unlike the other two branches of government.
hat's massive >wishful thinking. And unfortunately, it's exactly what Bernie >would need to be an effective President, even if he somehow >got elected.
Would every thing Bernie is proposing be effectuated if he were president? Of course not. Does that mean he should "know his place" - go back to Vermont -a nd not fight for what he (and his record-breaking number of supporters) are passionate about? Absolutely not.
Here's one thing that Bernie Sanders could influence as President: Instituting massive campaign finance reform and breaking up the oligarchical control over our political system. That alone might be worth a one-term Sanders presidency.
-->
|