Bernie decided to run as a Democrat under the assumption that he would receive at least as fair of treatment .
Oh … what “unfair treatment” did he receive? He knew the rules and while some things need to be changed, impugning the process as corrupt or illegitimate is dangerous. Dangerous to the Democratic Party and dangerous to unity which is self-defeating by giving Trump even the slightest opening. Even Sanders is acknowledging the process wasn’t rigged … perhaps antiquated but not illegitimate. And please do not try to tell me there weren’t enough debates — I am a political junkie and was tired of them by the end. A common complaint is “when” they were held and a weak argument in my opinion — everyone has a virtual computer in every pocket, car, purse, backpack or room in their homes. DVRs also work wonders. Here are some relevant links:
Bernie Sanders is no victim of a ‘rigged’ system
The System Isn’t ‘Rigged’ Against Sanders
Bernie has run his course: The Sanders campaign has stopped being about winning and is now mostly about whining
Grievance, Demands, and Tantrums; the Unhappy End of the Sanders Campaign
To the Sanders Campaign, Some Voters Do Seem to Be More Equal Than Others
Bernie Sanders declares war on reality
Ignore it all you want, but THAT is what is damaging our party, not Bernie pointing it out.
I am not ignoring anything but are you dismissing Bernie’s own words as follows:
“I wouldn’t use the word ‘rigged,’ because we knew what the rules were,” Sanders said on “Face the Nation.”
From MSNBC on Sanders’ “Face the Nation” comments:
“I suspect the response might have disappointed some Sanders supporters who are heavily invested in the idea that the system has been manipulated, deliberately, by party officials for the express purpose of making it impossible for the senator to prevail.”
This really resonated with me from an article in “New York Magazine” called “Sanders Admits the Nomination Isn’t Rigged, But Superdelegates Should Swing It”:
“So Sanders now seems to be trying to have it all ways, so long as those ways result in his nomination. He says he wants superdelegates to support him based on vote totals, except perhaps in states where those outcomes were close — which is most of them. And he finally goes on the record as saying that he doesn’t believe the Democratic Party’s nomination process is rigged, but if the outcome he clearly wants actually happens, and superdelegates go ahead and select the party’s nominee independent of what a majority of voters have decided, that would indeed be a demonstration that the system is rigged — not against Sanders and his supporters— but against the overall Democratic electorate.
Granted this is not a new strategy, but considering the Sanders campaign’s increasingly die-hard tactics, and at least some indications that they may challenge Clinton and her allies at the convention in Philadelphia, it begs the question: Is there any outcome in which Clinton is awarded the nomination that Sanders and his campaign would consider legitimate?”
And the rest of your diatribe is just more evidence that you are more interested in bashing Bernie with disinformation than actually doing something constructive for the party and progress.
Wait … what “diatribe” … what “disinformation”? My first paragraph is supported by dozens of articles (some were cited above) and my own observations. I don’t need to deal in disinformation — first it’s not my style and second there is a treasure trove of truth to select from.
I looked at the last paragraph and have no idea what you took issue with. Was it quoting David Plouffe? If so, you should write him because he indeed called it fraud … and way back in April too. Was it about Tad Devine? If so, just look at Sanders’ FEC filing for March. I know you are an avid Sanders supporter … and I also know the issues you’ve traditionally stood up for. In that regard, how do supporters justify Bernie railing against millionaires and money in politics but then paying a high-priced Washington political consultant like Devine $810,211.44 … in a single month? Or did you take issue with me bringing up “gang rape”? If so, too bad. Not much makes me angry but when grown men write about women fantasizing about being raped by three men simultaneously, that will do it. What kind of person writes “his typical fantasy a woman on her knees, a woman tied up, a woman abused”? Yes Bernie wrote that and no, I am not taking him “out of context”. I read his essay and he could have made his point without the misogynistic and degrading references — they told me something about the man whether he disavowed it 2015 or not. You “WERE” a respected progressive who we steadfastly supported over the years … can you seriously support what Sanders wrote as a 31-year old man? If so, you have lost your credibility. I liked many of his ideas but after reading that essay never saw him in the same way — and I know dozens of women who agree. The only thing left was my reference to Bernie Bros … no that can’t be it because the problem was well known and documented as was Sanders’ tepid response to it. I can personally assure you that I have been harassed, belittled, threatened, called the “c”, “b” and “w” words, subjected to sexually violent and degrading comments and had attempts to hack my accounts. These things were all because I support Secretary Clinton and it was way out of bounds. I never thought I would say this but they were much worse than fringers from the Tea Party after health care passed … and it saddens me that this exists on the left — I had no idea. Just as Obama’s candidacy revealed racism was alive and thriving, Clinton’s has shown the same about sexism and misogyny. If you want to deny the Bernie Bro factor despite national journalists like Joan Walsh writing about it, then you need to take your blinders off. I sometimes think Sanders supporters get upset when Bernie Bros are discussed which shouldn’t happen because no one is saying it applies to everyone … but to deny there is large faction of them is absurd. Visit any comment section and you’ll find them in 10 seconds. Maybe you took issue with the fact that I view Sanders as misogynistic but I saw enough of his finger wagging, radial essays, interruptions and behavior to make an informed decision on the man. As Michelle Goldberg of Slate wrote “there’s probably no way to quantify precise varieties of belittlement. All I can say is that I think many women will recognize it”. She nailed it.
Finally, I do not like caucuses and hope they are eliminated — I think attendees may be prone to peer pressure and that they disenfranchise poorer voters resulting in low turnout. Look at Washington state: Clinton lost the caucus by 73 to 27% but won the primary by 53 to 47% — the participants in the primary were three times that of the caucus. There is significant evidence that Secretary Clinton would have won much earlier if every state had a primary but that does not mean that I will impugn the entire process — yet this is what Sanders’ supporters continually do when things do not go their way. There has been an exhaustive process and he lost. Changes need to be made but claiming the entire system is corrupt or unfair is more likely to have a destabilizing effect on the party than pointing out what I feel are legitimate critiques of Sanders.
I am surprised you didn’t recognize who I am — I do believe you have voiced your admiration for my work many times over the past decade. I am truly stunned at some of the propaganda you are pushing about Sanders — it’s not the Ole Olsen or “Novenator” I used to respect. But this primary is causing rifts among people who are generally friends — Michelle Goldberg also wrote about that. As she said “it’s a split between liberalism and the left, between those who seek greater representation within the existing system and those who would replace it entirely”. Much to my surprise I have realized I am a moderate liberal … or is it just that the left has moved much further away? Whatever the truth is, people who agree on 80% of the issues are now arguing which is unfortunate. This thing needs to end next week before it gets worse.
