“The One Piece Of Writing Every Bernie Sanders Supporter Should Read” Or Something Similarly Self-Aggrandizing

I was hoping that Memo Salazar would come to a well-reasoned, legitimate, or even just reasonably fair argument at some point, but all I got as I read through his puff piece above was a lot of eye-rolling and notes about its flawed premises. I collected them below.

but neither of these issues threatened Wal-Mart’s wallet

You say this as if threatening Wal-Mart’s wallet is a good thing by itself. It’s not; getting them to better care for their employees is a good thing. While that may very well cost them more, the point is getting better care & salary for workers, not tearing a corporation down.

Wal-Mart, with the help of our government, almost single-handedly destroyed it.

Sorry, but this whole premise is nonsense. Wal-Mart played a role, sure, but a much greater role goes to manufacturing industries being redistributed, largely overseas, while not accommodating for the void in employment opportunities that left behind.

about preserving a system that served as the backbone to generations of working Americans.

That would actually be manufacturing work, not unions.

By avoiding the one battle she was in a singular position to fight, Hillary Clinton silently supported the erosion of our middle class.

And now this accusation as if her single Board membership was somehow capable of changing a whole country around into disaster. Really, really way off-base on all parts here. This is an incredibly naïve understanding of Board members’ roles in a corporation, and one corporation’s role in the world’s largest economy.

literally: they’ve donated half a million bucks to her foundation, and another half a million to her wallet as payment for two speeches. Count ’em: two speeches.

So have tons of other organizations, companies, city governments and even other countries. Are we supposed to revoke international trade agreements, revolt against our cities, and protest a whole swath of economic drivers, just because Hillary is getting paid better than most men for giving speeches? Or rather, getting paid equal pay to her husband for doing the same work? Her speeches at Goldman Sachs are a relatively insignificant part of her career as a professional speaker, but they sure work as effective scare tactics.

To understand why Bernie supporters are so fervently anti-Hillary, one needs a genuine understanding of our Economic past and present.

This is particularly weak argument, given that Bernie’s understanding of current economic policies was just shown to be kind of embarrassing.

Now, is any of this Hillary’s fault? Well, no, not directly.

Or at all, given that you listed a bunch of things she had literally no involvement in whatsoever, many of which she wasn’t even born for. Way to demonstrate your principled honesty and integrity.

neo-liberalism, which has nothing to do with being liberal, and everything to do with having unshakeable faith in the idea that a free market with no governmental supervision whatsoever yields the best results.

You seem completely oblivious to the fact that Hillary Clinton’s platform is actually quite oppositional to this whole “no governmental supervision” idea. She’s repeatedly talked about using the mechanisms created under Dodd-Frank to separate financial dependencies between banks that threaten to destabilize the economy, something Barney Frank himself criticizes Sanders over because the latter doesn’t seem to understand it at all.

Yes, they disagreed on some social issues, and you’d probably rather have a beer with Bill than [Ronald Reagan].

This is a really weird and creepy comparison to make.

When Clinton apologists accuse Sanders of having a “one-note platform,” this is what they’re referring to- the fact that Bernie is always bringing things back to economics.

Firstly, some of his plans are bad economics, relatively speaking (the GOP economics are significantly worse, for sure). Secondly, Sanders’ myopia about economics is a legitimate concern for voters, who have needs beyond economic stability, and whose needs are not at all simply addressed by having better pay or a (better) job.

But if you understand American History, and hell, World History, you realize that it is pretty much all about economics.

The naïveté and condescension of claiming someone doesn’t “understand” history while simultaneously simplifying it all down to “pretty much” just economics is… staggering.

Voting to invade Iraq was an irresponsible and cowardly Congressional decision destroying the lives of thousands of civilians, sowing the seeds for future terrorists (read: ISIS)

You condescend about “World History” and in the next paragraph display a stunning lack of awareness of how the seeds for ISIS did not start with Iraq at all (unless you want to casually ignore a big chunk of the history preceding Iraq).

Did Hillary Clinton vote for the invasion of Iraq? Yes, she did. Did Bernie Sanders vote for the invasion of Iraq? No, he didn’t.

So ever since Bernie Sanders’ incredible hawkishness in the 90’s led to his top staffer to resign in protest, he’s become a more pacifist and principled person. That’s great, I support him on that change of heart. But that does not mean his vote against the Iraq war (other than funding it) is somehow this gigantic important thing you’re making it out to be.

You can take potshots at Bernie’s age or his idealism

Well, I would argue you can’t, because those would be unfair criticisms. But criticizing his lack of understanding of current economic & financial law, despite being central to his platform, or his lack of realism about the current political climate, are not potshots.

the man’s record is spotless

This isn’t a tell at all of your bias. Have you even bothered to look at Sanders with a critical eye? Because I was once very similarly infatuated with his policies and record, but then I put on a critical hat and stopped idolizing him and dismissing his missteps as being “unfair treatment by the establishment” or some similar argument. He’s still great, but not “spotless.”

Assuming you care about the people you share this country with, you have to accept the facts for what they are

All your many assertions are hardly “facts”.

The reason you can allow your mind to even consider Hillary is that your life isn’t in the same spot as those of millions of Americans

The reason you can allow your mind to even consider Bernie Sanders’ “political revolution” as it is being presented today is that your life isn’t in the same spot as millions of Americans who are not so privileged.

all these angry people to the left and right of you are not going away. And if Hillary does become president, they’re just going to increase in number, the way they did during the last 8 years of Obama’s presidency.

You apparently missed the memo that Obama and Clinton have been working for years to unify the country in a revolution of politics, but the current GOP establishment has been obstructing them every step of the way. To blame Obama (and by proxy, Clinton) of this problem is incredibly disingenuous and naïve.

Right now, you have the Bernie option. In eight years, it’s very likely that you won’t

Now who’s taking potshots at Bernie’s age? ;)

In all seriousness, though, it’s much more likely that if we elect Hillary Clinton this year, we’ll have a number of Bernie-like options 4 and 8 years from now. Because she’ll break the glass ceiling and inspire millions of girls and women to aim higher and be more involved in politics, paving the way for women like Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris or Donna Edwards to follow in her footsteps.

frustrated Americans angered by sixteen straight years of Democratic Presidents who have failed to affect any significant change

First of all, classy assumption that a Hillary Clinton presidency will be bad. Secondly, classy misrepresentation of Obama’s presidency. Americans frustrated with Obama not being progressive enough need to start talking to their Republican neighbors and families about not voting for the obstructionists that shut down government, that refuse to nominate a next Supreme Court justice, that issue recommendations to state governments to attack civil rights.

None of those are Obama’s fault, so if your frustration is aimed at him, it’s incredibly misplaced.

that’s why we need a balanced economy that allows for both private enterprise to grow and the government to apply brakes as needed.

You mean like the Dodd-Frank act that gives us legal powers to regulate and break up the banks, which Hillary Clinton has repeatedly stated she plans to use to accomplish this goal where needed? Sanders seems to not even understand how Dodd-Frank already gives him the power and opportunity for that, or that it doesn’t require a major revolution.

That’s not environmentalist hyperbole, that’s the hard-scientific-data conclusion given by every single legitimate scientist working today.

The fact that you blame Obama and Clinton for this rather than the obstructionist GOP Senators that bring snowballs into Congress to deny climate change is… I don’t have the words to describe how wrong that is.

Yes, Bernie has double the experience of not only his opponent, but of the most famous Democratic president of the 20th Century, and six time that of Obama. Do with that what you will.

Be unimpressed? All his experience hasn’t seemed to have given him much evolution over his insights and awareness over the issues. His single-mindedness over economic policy is defensible; that his focus hasn’t updated much with the times is not.

I’m sure her four years as Secretary of State gave her a lot of insight on things

Yes, like understanding Foreign Policy, something Sanders does a disappointing job with when asked about it.

convincing Obama to trounce into Libya and assassinate Qaddafi (same thing we did in Iraq, basically) which only served to transform the country into an incapacitated mess and an incubator for terrorists. ISIS is thriving because of what we did to Libya.

That’s actually for a lot of different, more intricate and nuanced reasons. Clinton played a role, yes. Your attempt to pin this on her, however, is disgraceful and deeply uninformed.

Even the incredibly-pro-Hillary corporate rag called The New York Times

Yes, that’s why they let a Koch-funded group’s spokesman write an op-ed smearing Clinton for 11 pages. Because they’re so pro-Hillary. If the NYT is a “corporate rag” then Hillary Clinton can’t be “the establishment.”

Putting a person like Hillary Clinton in charge just so you can check something off America’s progressive bucket list is not just a bad move- it’s a dangerous move.

Nothing says “I am keenly aware of my societally-ingrained internalized misogyny” like reducing Hillary Clinton’s tremendously impressive career and her overwhelming experience, both foreign and domestic, down to just her gender.

I could point out every poll and statistic out there predicting that Americans will most likely never elect Hillary

So a couple of polls here and there somehow disprove the easily demonstrable fact that Hillary Clinton has received far more votes than any other candidate on either side? Ridiculous. She’s leading in delegates and in popular votes, across parties, but you’re talking about American voters as if they aren’t currently making it abundantly clear they overwhelmingly favor Hillary Clinton.

If Hillary were a woman with integrity

You mean besides being quite famously described as fundamentally honest and trustworthy, and making more honest statements than Bernie Sanders (albeit by a tiny margin)? If anyone here is lacking in integrity, it’s you.

I fear that a Hillary victory will actually set feminism back several decades

Firstly, echoing Men’s Rights Activists’ claims does not look well on anyone. More importantly, you should probably do some actual reading on feminism and women in power, the major impact of female role models, or fact that Hillary Clinton has pushed for major changes worldwide fighting for girls and women’s rights—to much acclaim—before making embarrassingly bogus claims like this.

for once her tenure is over, too many frustrated people will unfairly say “a woman president? Never again.”

This is such a ridiculously sexist notion that it baffles me you didn’t realize it while writing it. Let’s just paint the entire country as so deeply sexist and uncritical! No one would ever think to say “after GW Bush, a white male President? Never again.” ? Hmm.

if anyone deserves to be president more than Bernie Sanders, it just might be Elizabeth Warren

She’s an effective Senator, but that is a different job altogether than being President. Warren’s strengths do not benefit her for the President’s responsibilities. Warren’s run for the Senate was also met with a deluge of misogynist hostility, same as we’re seeing for Clinton now. There is a trend you might want to pick up on, here.

But Hillary doesn’t deserve your vote.

I take it from this line that if Clinton does become the nominee, you plan to leave women, black people, LGBTQ people, Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, and lower-class people dangling come November? How very principled of you.

She doesn’t care about you- she never has.

Perhaps if you stopped listening to (or echoing) talking points by groups funded by the Koch brothers and other GOP billionaires, who are literally spending hundreds of millions just to smear Clinton’s public image with lies, you would realize that while she may not be perfect, she damn well has the interests of ordinary citizens at heart. Because of all the candidates in this entire election season, I feel pretty strongly that Hillary Clinton will and does care about me, and about you, and about marginalized people everywhere — and more so than anyone else.

Maybe it’s because instead of trying to position Hillary Clinton as some evil enemy, I see her as a flawed candidate who’s being forced to walk an impossibly narrow line while being held to enormous double standards.

Or maybe I’m just not principled enough.