Maddow: Senator, let me ask you about another issue in terms of the way the campaign is going forward. Your policies on issues like gay rights and reproductive choice are very consistent and should be very attractive to progressive groups, but there has been a series of of high profile endorsements from groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL, they've gone out of their way to make very early endorsements for Secretary Clinton. Just today, Human Rights Campaign, the gay rights group, announced their Clinton endorsement. Are you competing for those groups' endorsements and not getting them, or are you not trying to get them?
Sanders: Rachel, I would love to have the endorsements of every progressive organization in America. We're very proud to have received recently the endorsement of MoveOn.org. We have received the endorsement of Democracy For America. These are grass-roots organizations representing millions of workers. What we are doing in this campaign, and it just blows my mind every day because I see it clearly, we're taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we're taking on the political establishment. I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund (sic), in Planned Parenthood, but you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very long time and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the political establishment. I will challenge anybody with regards to to my record on LGBT issues. You know I was one of the few, relatively few, to oppose and vote against DOMA, etc. In terms of women's rights I believe we have a 100% lifetime pro-choice record. But, you know, that's what happens in politics. Look, I'm gonna do well and hopefully win not because of establishment support. What we are going to do well at, and are doing well at, is rallying the grass roots of this country. We've been going all over the country having just huge turnouts of people coming to our rallies. We have two and a half million individual campaign contributions. More than any campaign in history. So, Rachel, I concede. I'm not going to get establishment support. I'm not going to get the support of the governors and the senators, with a few exceptions. Or many of the major organizations. Why we are doing so well, why I believe we are ahead now in New Hampshire, why we're closing the gap in Iowa, why we are gaining in Nevada and South Carolina and why we're doing better and better all over the country is not from the establishment, it is from the grass roots of America.
Here's the bit where he's extremely explicit:
we're taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we're taking on the political establishment. I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund (sic), in Planned Parenthood, but you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very long time and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the political establishment.
We are taking on the political establishment.
PP and HRC are part of the political establishment.
Ergo, we are taking on PP and HRC.
There's nothing ambiguous here.
Reading it all. It seems pretty clear what he is saying. PP has decided to be against him and he is willing to take on that challenge. If this is the mole hill you guys wanna die on to attack Bernie, I dunno be my guest.
I think portraying PP as something you are fighting against, especially these days, is a pretty shitty thing for a left-wing politician in the US to be doing.
If that is how you choose to read it then by all means read it that way. I see it as he is being challenged by the establishment and he is challenging them back. End game terms do you think he will defund them? Again no.
To me he pivoted to Hillary and her cronies within PP. I know we can have uncharitable and overtly charitable reads on this but I am not sure what people think the endgame is for saying Bernie explicitly attacked PP. Do you think he would defund it? No, no he would not.
"These groups" could not have possibly been referring to anything but Planned Parenthood or the Human Right's Campaign.
I don't think he'd defund them, but I'm sure as hell willing to believe he'd sacrifice them for political gain elsewhere.
Nothing in his voting record or anything he has said supports this sort of extreme view of him. So far we have Mr Magoo Bernie, will accidentally remove important measures of healthcare by trying to get medicare legislation done, and Despot Bernie that will destroy all that wronged him in his quest for legistlation. Maybe we should shoot for a more grounded version.
Bernie explicitly said that he did not support statewide same-sex marriage in Vermont in 2006 because it would be too divisive after the fight for Civil Unions in 2000. Combined with this statement, there is absolutely reason to believe he will sacrifice them if it is politically savvy to do so.
I am not suggesting that Bernie will support Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood out of a quest for revenge, but I can definitely see Bernie failing to make a public push for transgender rights in office because it would be too politically expensive.
And you think transgender rights is a hill that Hillary Clinton will die on?
Yes, and Hillary's response to transgender issues is much more comprehensive than Sanders, along with her dedicated activism on the issue. I've read both candidate's positions.
Comprehensive? In what way? She has more words but do those words do more than what Bernie's say? My reading of both of them is that there isnt any major difference. Will give Hillary credit for word count though.
In the fact that she actually lays out specific policy proposals, as opposed to a few general guidelines?
Which is probably why the HRC endorsed her in the first place.
You have to take a pretty long walk to get from "the establishment is supporting my opponent" to "if you support me you can't support planned parenthood." Most of which really seems to be taking place in the minds of the viewer.
That isn't what anybody has said, nor is it what anybody is saying Bernie has said.
What we are saying is that:
Bernie says he is fighting the establishment.
Bernie links PP and the HRC with the establishment.
Regardless of whether Clinton is also establishment (duh), or whether Sanders would actively campaign against LGBT rights (he wouldn't), he's very clearly made those organizations a target to mitigate the fact they didn't endorse him, and that has greatly shifted my opinion on where these issues are on Bernie's list of priorities.
And I disagree that he making them targets. On multiple levels.
Level 1: this is very clearly a conversation that he doesn't care to have. If he wanted to push back directly against HRC or PP, he would have done it in a controlled setting where he managed the way it came up, and he would have said something far more hurtful than a fundamentally true statement about those groups and their place in party politics, and then pivot right back into unrelated messaging about his crowds.
Level 2: Making a political endorsement is a signal to the rest of that race that you are now an entity to be engaged with. It doesn't matter if you're Bono, Sarah Palin, McDonald's or Planned Parenthood. They could have chosen to stay out of this fight, but they didn't for reasons I have already covered in depth. They painted a target on themselves, in full knowledge of what they were doing, and they got the equivalent of a brush off for doing it (seriously, the man repeated their names, acknowledged their endorsement of Clinton and then just moved on to grassroots organizing pivel).
I don't see anything Sanders did as particularly out of line. Much less vilifying two groups that he's been a staunch ally to.
To me he pivoted to Hillary and her cronies within PP. I know we can have uncharitable and overtly charitable reads on this but I am not sure what people think the endgame is for saying Bernie explicitly attacked PP. Do you think he would defund it? No, no he would not.
"These groups" could not have possibly been referring to anything but Planned Parenthood or the Human Right's Campaign.
I don't think he'd defund them, but I'm sure as hell willing to believe he'd sacrifice them for political gain elsewhere.
Nothing in his voting record or anything he has said supports this sort of extreme view of him. So far we have Mr Magoo Bernie, will accidentally remove important measures of healthcare by trying to get medicare legislation done, and Despot Bernie that will destroy all that wronged him in his quest for legistlation. Maybe we should shoot for a more grounded version.
Bernie explicitly said that he did not support statewide same-sex marriage in Vermont in 2006 because it would be too divisive after the fight for Civil Unions in 2000. Combined with this statement, there is absolutely reason to believe he will sacrifice them if it is politically savvy to do so.
I am not suggesting that Bernie will support Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood out of a quest for revenge, but I can definitely see Bernie failing to make a public push for transgender rights in office because it would be too politically expensive.
And you think transgender rights is a hill that Hillary Clinton will die on?
Yes, and Hillary's response to transgender issues is much more comprehensive than Sanders, along with her dedicated activism on the issue. I've read both candidate's positions.
Comprehensive? In what way? She has more words but do those words do more than what Bernie's say? My reading of both of them is that there isnt any major difference. Will give Hillary credit for word count though.
Sanders makes no mention of any issues with LGBT in the military. Clinton has, and has actively campaigned on allowing LGBT to openly serve since at least the 90s, and continues to do so. Sanders also has a very limited proposal on healthcare for LGBT individuals as compared to Clinton. Further, detailed policy proposals actually do mean a lot to me! I actually like that Clinton has more details and lists more problems that affect the LGBT community and how she would improve them. For a very small detail, Clinton also has a section specifically for transgender issues and mentions transgender individuals specifically more often than Bernie, who only explicitly talks about the difficulties they face w.r.t. law enforcement discrimination.
Maddow: Senator, let me ask you about another issue in terms of the way the campaign is going forward. Your policies on issues like gay rights and reproductive choice are very consistent and should be very attractive to progressive groups, but there has been a series of of high profile endorsements from groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL, they've gone out of their way to make very early endorsements for Secretary Clinton. Just today, Human Rights Campaign, the gay rights group, announced their Clinton endorsement. Are you competing for those groups' endorsements and not getting them, or are you not trying to get them?
Sanders: Rachel, I would love to have the endorsements of every progressive organization in America. We're very proud to have received recently the endorsement of MoveOn.org. We have received the endorsement of Democracy For America. These are grass-roots organizations representing millions of workers. What we are doing in this campaign, and it just blows my mind every day because I see it clearly, we're taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we're taking on the political establishment. I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund (sic), in Planned Parenthood, but you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very long time and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the political establishment. I will challenge anybody with regards to to my record on LGBT issues. You know I was one of the few, relatively few, to oppose and vote against DOMA, etc. In terms of women's rights I believe we have a 100% lifetime pro-choice record. But, you know, that's what happens in politics. Look, I'm gonna do well and hopefully win not because of establishment support. What we are going to do well at, and are doing well at, is rallying the grass roots of this country. We've been going all over the country having just huge turnouts of people coming to our rallies. We have two and a half million individual campaign contributions. More than any campaign in history. So, Rachel, I concede. I'm not going to get establishment support. I'm not going to get the support of the governors and the senators, with a few exceptions. Or many of the major organizations. Why we are doing so well, why I believe we are ahead now in New Hampshire, why we're closing the gap in Iowa, why we are gaining in Nevada and South Carolina and why we're doing better and better all over the country is not from the establishment, it is from the grass roots of America.
Here's the bit where he's extremely explicit:
we're taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we're taking on the political establishment. I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund (sic), in Planned Parenthood, but you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very long time and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the political establishment.
We are taking on the political establishment.
PP and HRC are part of the political establishment.
Ergo, we are taking on PP and HRC.
There's nothing ambiguous here.
Reading it all. It seems pretty clear what he is saying. PP has decided to be against him and he is willing to take on that challenge. If this is the mole hill you guys wanna die on to attack Bernie, I dunno be my guest.
I think portraying PP as something you are fighting against, especially these days, is a pretty shitty thing for a left-wing politician in the US to be doing.
If that is how you choose to read it then by all means read it that way. I see it as he is being challenged by the establishment and he is challenging them back. End game terms do you think he will defund them? Again no.
There is more you can do to hurt Planned Parenthood or stall it than just defund it entirely. If Sander's simply doesn't make it a top priority, it's not going to get better. Maybe you think Clinton would be just as likely or more likely to let it slip, or would be unable to achieve anything even if she tried, but I don't.
Maddow: Senator, let me ask you about another issue in terms of the way the campaign is going forward. Your policies on issues like gay rights and reproductive choice are very consistent and should be very attractive to progressive groups, but there has been a series of of high profile endorsements from groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL, they've gone out of their way to make very early endorsements for Secretary Clinton. Just today, Human Rights Campaign, the gay rights group, announced their Clinton endorsement. Are you competing for those groups' endorsements and not getting them, or are you not trying to get them?
Sanders: Rachel, I would love to have the endorsements of every progressive organization in America. We're very proud to have received recently the endorsement of MoveOn.org. We have received the endorsement of Democracy For America. These are grass-roots organizations representing millions of workers. What we are doing in this campaign, and it just blows my mind every day because I see it clearly, we're taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we're taking on the political establishment. I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund (sic), in Planned Parenthood, but you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very long time and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the political establishment. I will challenge anybody with regards to to my record on LGBT issues. You know I was one of the few, relatively few, to oppose and vote against DOMA, etc. In terms of women's rights I believe we have a 100% lifetime pro-choice record. But, you know, that's what happens in politics. Look, I'm gonna do well and hopefully win not because of establishment support. What we are going to do well at, and are doing well at, is rallying the grass roots of this country. We've been going all over the country having just huge turnouts of people coming to our rallies. We have two and a half million individual campaign contributions. More than any campaign in history. So, Rachel, I concede. I'm not going to get establishment support. I'm not going to get the support of the governors and the senators, with a few exceptions. Or many of the major organizations. Why we are doing so well, why I believe we are ahead now in New Hampshire, why we're closing the gap in Iowa, why we are gaining in Nevada and South Carolina and why we're doing better and better all over the country is not from the establishment, it is from the grass roots of America.
Here's the bit where he's extremely explicit:
we're taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we're taking on the political establishment. I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund (sic), in Planned Parenthood, but you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very long time and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the political establishment.
We are taking on the political establishment.
PP and HRC are part of the political establishment.
Ergo, we are taking on PP and HRC.
There's nothing ambiguous here.
Reading it all. It seems pretty clear what he is saying. PP has decided to be against him and he is willing to take on that challenge. If this is the mole hill you guys wanna die on to attack Bernie, I dunno be my guest.
I think portraying PP as something you are fighting against, especially these days, is a pretty shitty thing for a left-wing politician in the US to be doing.
If that is how you choose to read it then by all means read it that way. I see it as he is being challenged by the establishment and he is challenging them back. End game terms do you think he will defund them? Again no.
There is no other way to read it. Like, the top of this very quote tree shows the quote. He is crystal clear in what he is saying.
He is not being challenged by the establishment here. PP (and HRC) are just endorsing someone else and he is hitting back at them for it. And that's a real shitty thing for a left-wing politician in the US to be doing, given that PP especially does not need more people making negative comments about them.
Frankly, to pretend that the only actions possible here are defund or not defund (has anyone even suggested this was a possibility? Where are you getting this from?) is just silly and an attempt to narrow the scope of possible responses so that you can ignore what he's saying.
Human Rights Campaign is not exactly completely beloved by the LGBT community. For example, their troubled history with transgender support, issues with intersectionality, generally being predisposed more towards appearing "respectable" with respect towards a still rather bigoted status quo and corporate leanings tend to earn them ire from many activists in the community.
To me he pivoted to Hillary and her cronies within PP. I know we can have uncharitable and overtly charitable reads on this but I am not sure what people think the endgame is for saying Bernie explicitly attacked PP. Do you think he would defund it? No, no he would not.
"These groups" could not have possibly been referring to anything but Planned Parenthood or the Human Right's Campaign.
I don't think he'd defund them, but I'm sure as hell willing to believe he'd sacrifice them for political gain elsewhere.
Nothing in his voting record or anything he has said supports this sort of extreme view of him. So far we have Mr Magoo Bernie, will accidentally remove important measures of healthcare by trying to get medicare legislation done, and Despot Bernie that will destroy all that wronged him in his quest for legistlation. Maybe we should shoot for a more grounded version.
Bernie explicitly said that he did not support statewide same-sex marriage in Vermont in 2006 because it would be too divisive after the fight for Civil Unions in 2000. Combined with this statement, there is absolutely reason to believe he will sacrifice them if it is politically savvy to do so.
I am not suggesting that Bernie will support Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood out of a quest for revenge, but I can definitely see Bernie failing to make a public push for transgender rights in office because it would be too politically expensive.
And you think transgender rights is a hill that Hillary Clinton will die on?
Yes, and Hillary's response to transgender issues is much more comprehensive than Sanders, along with her dedicated activism on the issue. I've read both candidate's positions.
Comprehensive? In what way? She has more words but do those words do more than what Bernie's say? My reading of both of them is that there isnt any major difference. Will give Hillary credit for word count though.
In the fact that she actually lays out specific policy proposals, as opposed to a few general guidelines?
Which is probably why the HRC endorsed her in the first place.
(I am also sure that the President's history with and genesis in politics being within the Clinton administration had nothing to do with this as well)
You have to take a pretty long walk to get from "the establishment is supporting my opponent" to "if you support me you can't support planned parenthood." Most of which really seems to be taking place in the minds of the viewer.
That isn't what anybody has said, nor is it what anybody is saying Bernie has said.
What we are saying is that:
Bernie says he is fighting the establishment.
Bernie links PP and the HRC with the establishment.
Regardless of whether Clinton is also establishment (duh), or whether Sanders would actively campaign against LGBT rights (he wouldn't), he's very clearly made those organizations a target to mitigate the fact they didn't endorse him, and that has greatly shifted my opinion on where these issues are on Bernie's list of priorities.
And I disagree that he making them targets. On multiple levels.
Level 1: this is very clearly a conversation that he doesn't care to have. If he wanted to push back directly against HRC or PP, he would have done it in a controlled setting where he managed the way it came up, and he would have said something far more hurtful than a fundamentally true statement about those groups and their place in party politics, and then pivot right back into unrelated messaging about his crowds.
Level 2: Making a political endorsement is a signal to the rest of that race that you are now an entity to be engaged with. It doesn't matter if you're Bono, Sarah Palin, McDonald's or Planned Parenthood. They could have chosen to stay out of this fight, but they didn't for reasons I have already covered in depth. They painted a target on themselves, in full knowledge of what they were doing, and they got the equivalent of a brush off for doing it (seriously, the man repeated their names, acknowledged their endorsement of Clinton and then just moved on to grassroots organizing pivel).
I don't see anything Sanders did as particularly out of line. Much less vilifying two groups that he's been a staunch ally to.
Level 1: Just because he didn't want to have the conversation doesn't mean he has to attack them. Hillary didn't take a free shot to say why she'd be better than Obama. Sanders declined multiple free shots on Clinton's emails, Bill, etc. The fact that this shot is the one he's taking is not trivial! And he had enough answer wrapped around his response he could have entirely cut the "I'm fighting the establishment" line, entirely declined to link them to the establishment, and still had a coherent statement along the lines of: "I'm trying to get progressive, grassroots progressive endorsements, as I have gotten with the MoveOn foundation. And I believe that I am creating a strong grassroots movement, and I will continue to fight for LGBT and women's rights with that support. With that said, yes, I was not expecting to receive their endorsement in the primary; I didn't expect them to endorse anybody!"
Level 2 isn't a disagreement with the idea he's attacking them, it's a disagreement with the idea that attacking them is the wrong thing to do. Your entire argument in level 2 acknowledges that he is attacking them! But I don't think it's wrong that he's attacking them because politics is supposed to be above board, I think it's wrong that he's attacking them because they're incredibly important organizations!
Maybe I'm just wired differently. But why is being part of the establishment bad exactly? Does Sanders think he's going to rebuild the entire liberal/progressive political world? Does he not know that there is no more "establishment" job in the world that President of the United States? I mean maybe Pope or Emperor of Japan,but other than that...
What exactly does he think he's running for? He's campaigning to be "The Man"
Because being anti-establishment is popular since elites have been gloriously fucking everything up for 35 years.
What elites? Reagan was anti establishment. Ted Kennedy was establishment. Gingrich and Delay and The Tea Party and Palin and Trump and Paul are antiestablishment. I find the idea that the establishment rather than the intentional erosion of our trust in the establishment - in government, in science, in experts - in favor of "common sense", "telling it how it is" and truthiness truly strange and inconsistent with the normal consensus around here
As a representation of what I mean when I say she says a lot of words but says the same thing as Bernie.
Work with Congress to pass the Equality Act. The Equality Act would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes to add gender identity and sexual orientation to the list of protected classes such as race, sex, national origin, and religion. The Act would provide LGBT individuals explicit and comprehensive protection from discrimination in all facets of American life—employment, housing, schools, access to credit, public education, jury service, and public accommodations. Clinton will fight for the passage of the Equality Act to secure full federal equality for LGBT Americans.
Sign into law the Equality Act, the Every Child Deserves a Family Act, and any other bill that prohibits discrimination against LGBT people.
Where is the depth or breadth? She says what the Bill is but so does Bernie.
To me he pivoted to Hillary and her cronies within PP. I know we can have uncharitable and overtly charitable reads on this but I am not sure what people think the endgame is for saying Bernie explicitly attacked PP. Do you think he would defund it? No, no he would not.
Yes, because the only explanation for PP to endorse Clinton is because her supporters pushed it. It couldn't be because Sanders has been going around talking about "Medicare for All" while not speaking one entire word about the Hyde Amendment - the law that would completely restrict the plan that he was pushing from covering abortions, and thus would defund Planned Parenthood as a provider under his plan.
And this goes, once again, to his biggest glaring weakness - that his constant focus on class and corporations leaves him myopic to other issues. Arguing that Planned Parenthood is part of the "political establishment" that needs to be shaken up is an incredibly insulting way to describe an organization that has been living with a bullseye on its back (in some cases literally) for the past decade.
So, we're playing the game where the literal decades of consistent support vanish because he hasn't mentioned it within the last news cycle on abortion, too, huh?
He was co-sponsering (not merely voting for) pro-choice bills in 1993, voted against the Hyde amendment in 1993, and has been a consistent advocate of a woman's right to choose since then. I could probably go back more than
around a quarter century, but I think we know that will be offhandedly and trivially dismissed, so let's keep this research light.
To clarify, I don't think that being part of the establishment is bad! I don't think that it would be an attack if Clinton called Planned Parenthood establishment (though I'd find that very strange even before all this). But Sanders is explicitly campaigning against the establishment, so it is an attack coming from him, especially when he directly links it to Wall Street, who literally everybody is going to bat against.
Maddow: Senator, let me ask you about another issue in terms of the way the campaign is going forward. Your policies on issues like gay rights and reproductive choice are very consistent and should be very attractive to progressive groups, but there has been a series of of high profile endorsements from groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL, they've gone out of their way to make very early endorsements for Secretary Clinton. Just today, Human Rights Campaign, the gay rights group, announced their Clinton endorsement. Are you competing for those groups' endorsements and not getting them, or are you not trying to get them?
Sanders: Rachel, I would love to have the endorsements of every progressive organization in America. We're very proud to have received recently the endorsement of MoveOn.org. We have received the endorsement of Democracy For America. These are grass-roots organizations representing millions of workers. What we are doing in this campaign, and it just blows my mind every day because I see it clearly, we're taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we're taking on the political establishment. I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund (sic), in Planned Parenthood, but you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very long time and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the political establishment. I will challenge anybody with regards to to my record on LGBT issues. You know I was one of the few, relatively few, to oppose and vote against DOMA, etc. In terms of women's rights I believe we have a 100% lifetime pro-choice record. But, you know, that's what happens in politics. Look, I'm gonna do well and hopefully win not because of establishment support. What we are going to do well at, and are doing well at, is rallying the grass roots of this country. We've been going all over the country having just huge turnouts of people coming to our rallies. We have two and a half million individual campaign contributions. More than any campaign in history. So, Rachel, I concede. I'm not going to get establishment support. I'm not going to get the support of the governors and the senators, with a few exceptions. Or many of the major organizations. Why we are doing so well, why I believe we are ahead now in New Hampshire, why we're closing the gap in Iowa, why we are gaining in Nevada and South Carolina and why we're doing better and better all over the country is not from the establishment, it is from the grass roots of America.
Here's the bit where he's extremely explicit:
we're taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we're taking on the political establishment. I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund (sic), in Planned Parenthood, but you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very long time and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the political establishment.
We are taking on the political establishment.
PP and HRC are part of the political establishment.
Ergo, we are taking on PP and HRC.
There's nothing ambiguous here.
Reading it all. It seems pretty clear what he is saying. PP has decided to be against him and he is willing to take on that challenge. If this is the mole hill you guys wanna die on to attack Bernie, I dunno be my guest.
I think portraying PP as something you are fighting against, especially these days, is a pretty shitty thing for a left-wing politician in the US to be doing.
If that is how you choose to read it then by all means read it that way. I see it as he is being challenged by the establishment and he is challenging them back. End game terms do you think he will defund them? Again no.
There is no other way to read it. Like, the top of this very quote tree shows the quote. He is crystal clear in what he is saying.
He is not being challenged by the establishment here. PP (and HRC) are just endorsing someone else and he is hitting back at them for it. And that's a real shitty thing for a left-wing politician in the US to be doing, given that PP especially does not need more people making negative comments about them.
And they're choosing to endorse another candidate based on the fact that their policies align better with these groups. For Planned Parenthood, it's the fact that Clinton actually discusses and argues for reproductive rights in her stump speeches, while with the HRC, it has to do with the fact that Clinton's LGBT rights plank is much more detailed and thought out.
Which is why the argument that Sanders only had the choices to push back or surrender is a load of gooseshit. Because he has a third option - to actually listen to these groups, and figure out what issues are important to them.
To me he pivoted to Hillary and her cronies within PP. I know we can have uncharitable and overtly charitable reads on this but I am not sure what people think the endgame is for saying Bernie explicitly attacked PP. Do you think he would defund it? No, no he would not.
"These groups" could not have possibly been referring to anything but Planned Parenthood or the Human Right's Campaign.
I don't think he'd defund them, but I'm sure as hell willing to believe he'd sacrifice them for political gain elsewhere.
Nothing in his voting record or anything he has said supports this sort of extreme view of him. So far we have Mr Magoo Bernie, will accidentally remove important measures of healthcare by trying to get medicare legislation done, and Despot Bernie that will destroy all that wronged him in his quest for legistlation. Maybe we should shoot for a more grounded version.
Bernie explicitly said that he did not support statewide same-sex marriage in Vermont in 2006 because it would be too divisive after the fight for Civil Unions in 2000. Combined with this statement, there is absolutely reason to believe he will sacrifice them if it is politically savvy to do so.
I am not suggesting that Bernie will support Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood out of a quest for revenge, but I can definitely see Bernie failing to make a public push for transgender rights in office because it would be too politically expensive.
And you think transgender rights is a hill that Hillary Clinton will die on?
Yes, and Hillary's response to transgender issues is much more comprehensive than Sanders, along with her dedicated activism on the issue. I've read both candidate's positions.
Comprehensive? In what way? She has more words but do those words do more than what Bernie's say? My reading of both of them is that there isnt any major difference. Will give Hillary credit for word count though.
Sanders makes no mention of any issues with LGBT in the military. Clinton has, and has actively campaigned on allowing LGBT to openly serve since at least the 90s, and continues to do so. Sanders also has a very limited proposal on healthcare for LGBT individuals as compared to Clinton. Further, detailed policy proposals actually do mean a lot to me! I actually like that Clinton has more details and lists more problems that affect the LGBT community and how she would improve them. For a very small detail, Clinton also has a section specifically for transgender issues and mentions transgender individuals specifically more often than Bernie, who only explicitly talks about the difficulties they face w.r.t. law enforcement discrimination.
LGBT in the military were set back for decades at the behest of a Clinton administration and yes Hillary is not Bill but she supported dont ask dont tell. It is being spun now(Funny this didnt get spun until she started running) that dont ask dont tell was actually this grand scheme to thwart the plans of republicans to ban gays in the military or crackdown harder on them. To your other points I guess she talks more about the laws specifics but ultimately they are the same laws. I guess if you dont know how to use the internet this would be a bonus. Kudos to Clinton for have a section about transgender issues. Again clinton does have more words but those words say the same thing.
Maddow: Senator, let me ask you about another issue in terms of the way the campaign is going forward. Your policies on issues like gay rights and reproductive choice are very consistent and should be very attractive to progressive groups, but there has been a series of of high profile endorsements from groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL, they've gone out of their way to make very early endorsements for Secretary Clinton. Just today, Human Rights Campaign, the gay rights group, announced their Clinton endorsement. Are you competing for those groups' endorsements and not getting them, or are you not trying to get them?
Sanders: Rachel, I would love to have the endorsements of every progressive organization in America. We're very proud to have received recently the endorsement of MoveOn.org. We have received the endorsement of Democracy For America. These are grass-roots organizations representing millions of workers. What we are doing in this campaign, and it just blows my mind every day because I see it clearly, we're taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we're taking on the political establishment. I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund (sic), in Planned Parenthood, but you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very long time and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the political establishment. I will challenge anybody with regards to to my record on LGBT issues. You know I was one of the few, relatively few, to oppose and vote against DOMA, etc. In terms of women's rights I believe we have a 100% lifetime pro-choice record. But, you know, that's what happens in politics. Look, I'm gonna do well and hopefully win not because of establishment support. What we are going to do well at, and are doing well at, is rallying the grass roots of this country. We've been going all over the country having just huge turnouts of people coming to our rallies. We have two and a half million individual campaign contributions. More than any campaign in history. So, Rachel, I concede. I'm not going to get establishment support. I'm not going to get the support of the governors and the senators, with a few exceptions. Or many of the major organizations. Why we are doing so well, why I believe we are ahead now in New Hampshire, why we're closing the gap in Iowa, why we are gaining in Nevada and South Carolina and why we're doing better and better all over the country is not from the establishment, it is from the grass roots of America.
Here's the bit where he's extremely explicit:
we're taking on not only Wall Street and the economic establishment, we're taking on the political establishment. I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights Fund (sic), in Planned Parenthood, but you know what, Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very long time and some of these groups are, in fact, part of the political establishment.
We are taking on the political establishment.
PP and HRC are part of the political establishment.
Ergo, we are taking on PP and HRC.
There's nothing ambiguous here.
Reading it all. It seems pretty clear what he is saying. PP has decided to be against him and he is willing to take on that challenge. If this is the mole hill you guys wanna die on to attack Bernie, I dunno be my guest.
I think portraying PP as something you are fighting against, especially these days, is a pretty shitty thing for a left-wing politician in the US to be doing.
If that is how you choose to read it then by all means read it that way. I see it as he is being challenged by the establishment and he is challenging them back. End game terms do you think he will defund them? Again no.
There is no other way to read it. Like, the top of this very quote tree shows the quote. He is crystal clear in what he is saying.
He is not being challenged by the establishment here. PP (and HRC) are just endorsing someone else and he is hitting back at them for it. And that's a real shitty thing for a left-wing politician in the US to be doing, given that PP especially does not need more people making negative comments about them.
And they're choosing to endorse another candidate based on the fact that their policies align better with these groups. For Planned Parenthood, it's the fact that Clinton actually discusses and argues for reproductive rights in her stump speeches, while with the HRC, it has to do with the fact that Clinton's LGBT rights plank is much more detailed and thought out.
Which is why the argument that Sanders only had the choices to push back or surrender is a load of gooseshit. Because he has a third option - to actually listen to these groups, and figure out what issues are important to them.
That's not really his third option here though. His third rhetorical option is more spinning the question as a way to toot his own horn about his own record and stances.
The idea that he had to hit back is just nonsense. A better response is to simply go something like "I don't know why PP and HRC suddenly decided to endorse Clinton given that <insert talk about all the stuff you've done and plan to do on the issue till the interviewer makes you stop>".
Rather then trying to excite your supporters via another "the establishment is against us" point, try to excite them by showing how awesome your own platform on these issues are. And Sanders should have no issues talking about his stances on these issues, he's got good ones.
To me he pivoted to Hillary and her cronies within PP. I know we can have uncharitable and overtly charitable reads on this but I am not sure what people think the endgame is for saying Bernie explicitly attacked PP. Do you think he would defund it? No, no he would not.
"These groups" could not have possibly been referring to anything but Planned Parenthood or the Human Right's Campaign.
I don't think he'd defund them, but I'm sure as hell willing to believe he'd sacrifice them for political gain elsewhere.
Nothing in his voting record or anything he has said supports this sort of extreme view of him. So far we have Mr Magoo Bernie, will accidentally remove important measures of healthcare by trying to get medicare legislation done, and Despot Bernie that will destroy all that wronged him in his quest for legistlation. Maybe we should shoot for a more grounded version.
Bernie explicitly said that he did not support statewide same-sex marriage in Vermont in 2006 because it would be too divisive after the fight for Civil Unions in 2000. Combined with this statement, there is absolutely reason to believe he will sacrifice them if it is politically savvy to do so.
I am not suggesting that Bernie will support Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood out of a quest for revenge, but I can definitely see Bernie failing to make a public push for transgender rights in office because it would be too politically expensive.
And you think transgender rights is a hill that Hillary Clinton will die on?
Yes, and Hillary's response to transgender issues is much more comprehensive than Sanders, along with her dedicated activism on the issue. I've read both candidate's positions.
Comprehensive? In what way? She has more words but do those words do more than what Bernie's say? My reading of both of them is that there isnt any major difference. Will give Hillary credit for word count though.
Sanders makes no mention of any issues with LGBT in the military. Clinton has, and has actively campaigned on allowing LGBT to openly serve since at least the 90s, and continues to do so. Sanders also has a very limited proposal on healthcare for LGBT individuals as compared to Clinton. Further, detailed policy proposals actually do mean a lot to me! I actually like that Clinton has more details and lists more problems that affect the LGBT community and how she would improve them. For a very small detail, Clinton also has a section specifically for transgender issues and mentions transgender individuals specifically more often than Bernie, who only explicitly talks about the difficulties they face w.r.t. law enforcement discrimination.
LGBT in the military were set back for decades at the behest of a Clinton administration and yes Hillary is not Bill but she supported dont ask dont tell. It is being spun now(Funny this didnt get spun until she started running) that dont ask dont tell was actually this grand scheme to thwart the plans of republicans to ban gays in the military or crackdown harder on them. To your other points I guess she talks more about the laws specifics but ultimately they are the same laws. I guess if you dont know how to use the internet this would be a bonus. Kudos to Clinton for have a section about transgender issues. Again clinton does have more words but those words say the same thing.
To me he pivoted to Hillary and her cronies within PP. I know we can have uncharitable and overtly charitable reads on this but I am not sure what people think the endgame is for saying Bernie explicitly attacked PP. Do you think he would defund it? No, no he would not.
"These groups" could not have possibly been referring to anything but Planned Parenthood or the Human Right's Campaign.
I don't think he'd defund them, but I'm sure as hell willing to believe he'd sacrifice them for political gain elsewhere.
Nothing in his voting record or anything he has said supports this sort of extreme view of him. So far we have Mr Magoo Bernie, will accidentally remove important measures of healthcare by trying to get medicare legislation done, and Despot Bernie that will destroy all that wronged him in his quest for legistlation. Maybe we should shoot for a more grounded version.
Bernie explicitly said that he did not support statewide same-sex marriage in Vermont in 2006 because it would be too divisive after the fight for Civil Unions in 2000. Combined with this statement, there is absolutely reason to believe he will sacrifice them if it is politically savvy to do so.
I am not suggesting that Bernie will support Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood out of a quest for revenge, but I can definitely see Bernie failing to make a public push for transgender rights in office because it would be too politically expensive.
And you think transgender rights is a hill that Hillary Clinton will die on?
Yes, and Hillary's response to transgender issues is much more comprehensive than Sanders, along with her dedicated activism on the issue. I've read both candidate's positions.
Comprehensive? In what way? She has more words but do those words do more than what Bernie's say? My reading of both of them is that there isnt any major difference. Will give Hillary credit for word count though.
Sanders makes no mention of any issues with LGBT in the military. Clinton has, and has actively campaigned on allowing LGBT to openly serve since at least the 90s, and continues to do so. Sanders also has a very limited proposal on healthcare for LGBT individuals as compared to Clinton. Further, detailed policy proposals actually do mean a lot to me! I actually like that Clinton has more details and lists more problems that affect the LGBT community and how she would improve them. For a very small detail, Clinton also has a section specifically for transgender issues and mentions transgender individuals specifically more often than Bernie, who only explicitly talks about the difficulties they face w.r.t. law enforcement discrimination.
LGBT in the military were set back for decades at the behest of a Clinton administration and yes Hillary is not Bill but she supported dont ask dont tell. It is being spun now(Funny this didnt get spun until she started running) that dont ask dont tell was actually this grand scheme to thwart the plans of republicans to ban gays in the military or crackdown harder on them. To your other points I guess she talks more about the laws specifics but ultimately they are the same laws. I guess if you dont know how to use the internet this would be a bonus. Kudos to Clinton for have a section about transgender issues. Again clinton does have more words but those words say the same thing.
I've always heard of DADT as a compromise that was made to prevent service members from being investigated for their sexual orientation (essentially strengthening their position from "openly hostile to" to "secretly tolerating"), and seeing as the Clinton's campaigned on open military service before DADT was implemented, I'm inclined to believe that.
Further, as I've said, I linked Clinton and Sander's most detailed proposals. Clinton has a summary section that is similar but still more comprehensive than Bernie's, if you insist on casually dismissing length as a factor.
Finally, the entire point was that I was asked "Do I think transgender rights is a hill Hillary Clinton will die on." And yes, I do! I also don't think Bernie will magically negate progress in that area, but I'm far more doubtful Bernie will actually act in an activist fashion on those issues rather than simply being a veto stonewall while focusing on things he considers more important, much like their senate tenures on these same issues.
To me he pivoted to Hillary and her cronies within PP. I know we can have uncharitable and overtly charitable reads on this but I am not sure what people think the endgame is for saying Bernie explicitly attacked PP. Do you think he would defund it? No, no he would not.
"These groups" could not have possibly been referring to anything but Planned Parenthood or the Human Right's Campaign.
I don't think he'd defund them, but I'm sure as hell willing to believe he'd sacrifice them for political gain elsewhere.
Nothing in his voting record or anything he has said supports this sort of extreme view of him. So far we have Mr Magoo Bernie, will accidentally remove important measures of healthcare by trying to get medicare legislation done, and Despot Bernie that will destroy all that wronged him in his quest for legistlation. Maybe we should shoot for a more grounded version.
Bernie explicitly said that he did not support statewide same-sex marriage in Vermont in 2006 because it would be too divisive after the fight for Civil Unions in 2000. Combined with this statement, there is absolutely reason to believe he will sacrifice them if it is politically savvy to do so.
I am not suggesting that Bernie will support Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood out of a quest for revenge, but I can definitely see Bernie failing to make a public push for transgender rights in office because it would be too politically expensive.
And you think transgender rights is a hill that Hillary Clinton will die on?
Yes, and Hillary's response to transgender issues is much more comprehensive than Sanders, along with her dedicated activism on the issue. I've read both candidate's positions.
Comprehensive? In what way? She has more words but do those words do more than what Bernie's say? My reading of both of them is that there isnt any major difference. Will give Hillary credit for word count though.
Sanders makes no mention of any issues with LGBT in the military. Clinton has, and has actively campaigned on allowing LGBT to openly serve since at least the 90s, and continues to do so. Sanders also has a very limited proposal on healthcare for LGBT individuals as compared to Clinton. Further, detailed policy proposals actually do mean a lot to me! I actually like that Clinton has more details and lists more problems that affect the LGBT community and how she would improve them. For a very small detail, Clinton also has a section specifically for transgender issues and mentions transgender individuals specifically more often than Bernie, who only explicitly talks about the difficulties they face w.r.t. law enforcement discrimination.
LGBT in the military were set back for decades at the behest of a Clinton administration and yes Hillary is not Bill but she supported dont ask dont tell. It is being spun now(Funny this didnt get spun until she started running) that dont ask dont tell was actually this grand scheme to thwart the plans of republicans to ban gays in the military or crackdown harder on them. To your other points I guess she talks more about the laws specifics but ultimately they are the same laws. I guess if you dont know how to use the internet this would be a bonus. Kudos to Clinton for have a section about transgender issues. Again clinton does have more words but those words say the same thing.
Uh what? People have been talking about the reasons for DADT and DOMA and why they aren't as bad as portrayed since only a few years after they passed. Even if you think it's just spin, it's very old spin that has pre-dates Clinton's current campaign. And even her last one.
Also you are confusing the reasoning for DADT and DOMA. DADT is generally said to have been an improvement on previous policy (which was that it was flat out against the rules to be gay in the military, whether you told or not). It's DOMA where people say it was a compromise to thwart plans for worse things.
To me he pivoted to Hillary and her cronies within PP. I know we can have uncharitable and overtly charitable reads on this but I am not sure what people think the endgame is for saying Bernie explicitly attacked PP. Do you think he would defund it? No, no he would not.
"These groups" could not have possibly been referring to anything but Planned Parenthood or the Human Right's Campaign.
I don't think he'd defund them, but I'm sure as hell willing to believe he'd sacrifice them for political gain elsewhere.
Nothing in his voting record or anything he has said supports this sort of extreme view of him. So far we have Mr Magoo Bernie, will accidentally remove important measures of healthcare by trying to get medicare legislation done, and Despot Bernie that will destroy all that wronged him in his quest for legistlation. Maybe we should shoot for a more grounded version.
Bernie explicitly said that he did not support statewide same-sex marriage in Vermont in 2006 because it would be too divisive after the fight for Civil Unions in 2000. Combined with this statement, there is absolutely reason to believe he will sacrifice them if it is politically savvy to do so.
I am not suggesting that Bernie will support Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood out of a quest for revenge, but I can definitely see Bernie failing to make a public push for transgender rights in office because it would be too politically expensive.
And you think transgender rights is a hill that Hillary Clinton will die on?
Yes, and Hillary's response to transgender issues is much more comprehensive than Sanders, along with her dedicated activism on the issue. I've read both candidate's positions.
Comprehensive? In what way? She has more words but do those words do more than what Bernie's say? My reading of both of them is that there isnt any major difference. Will give Hillary credit for word count though.
Sanders makes no mention of any issues with LGBT in the military. Clinton has, and has actively campaigned on allowing LGBT to openly serve since at least the 90s, and continues to do so. Sanders also has a very limited proposal on healthcare for LGBT individuals as compared to Clinton. Further, detailed policy proposals actually do mean a lot to me! I actually like that Clinton has more details and lists more problems that affect the LGBT community and how she would improve them. For a very small detail, Clinton also has a section specifically for transgender issues and mentions transgender individuals specifically more often than Bernie, who only explicitly talks about the difficulties they face w.r.t. law enforcement discrimination.
LGBT in the military were set back for decades at the behest of a Clinton administration and yes Hillary is not Bill but she supported dont ask dont tell. It is being spun now(Funny this didnt get spun until she started running) that dont ask dont tell was actually this grand scheme to thwart the plans of republicans to ban gays in the military or crackdown harder on them. To your other points I guess she talks more about the laws specifics but ultimately they are the same laws. I guess if you dont know how to use the internet this would be a bonus. Kudos to Clinton for have a section about transgender issues. Again clinton does have more words but those words say the same thing.
I've always heard of DADT as a compromise that was made to prevent service members from being investigated for their sexual orientation (essentially strengthening their position from "openly hostile to" to "secretly tolerating"), and seeing as the Clinton's campaigned on open military service before DADT was implemented, I'm inclined to believe that.
Further, as I've said, I linked Clinton and Sander's most detailed proposals. Clinton has a summary section that is similar but still more comprehensive than Bernie's, if you insist on casually dismissing length as a factor.
Finally, the entire point was that I was asked "Do I think transgender rights is a hill Hillary Clinton will die on." And yes, I do! I also don't think Bernie will magically negate progress in that area, but I'm far more doubtful Bernie will actually act in an activist fashion on those issues rather than simply being a veto stonewall while focusing on things he considers more important, much like their senate tenures on these same issues.
Her reputation as a compromise minded person(often lauded as her best asset) would lead me to believe otherwise.
To me he pivoted to Hillary and her cronies within PP. I know we can have uncharitable and overtly charitable reads on this but I am not sure what people think the endgame is for saying Bernie explicitly attacked PP. Do you think he would defund it? No, no he would not.
"These groups" could not have possibly been referring to anything but Planned Parenthood or the Human Right's Campaign.
I don't think he'd defund them, but I'm sure as hell willing to believe he'd sacrifice them for political gain elsewhere.
Nothing in his voting record or anything he has said supports this sort of extreme view of him. So far we have Mr Magoo Bernie, will accidentally remove important measures of healthcare by trying to get medicare legislation done, and Despot Bernie that will destroy all that wronged him in his quest for legistlation. Maybe we should shoot for a more grounded version.
Bernie explicitly said that he did not support statewide same-sex marriage in Vermont in 2006 because it would be too divisive after the fight for Civil Unions in 2000. Combined with this statement, there is absolutely reason to believe he will sacrifice them if it is politically savvy to do so.
I am not suggesting that Bernie will support Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood out of a quest for revenge, but I can definitely see Bernie failing to make a public push for transgender rights in office because it would be too politically expensive.
And you think transgender rights is a hill that Hillary Clinton will die on?
Yes, and Hillary's response to transgender issues is much more comprehensive than Sanders, along with her dedicated activism on the issue. I've read both candidate's positions.
Comprehensive? In what way? She has more words but do those words do more than what Bernie's say? My reading of both of them is that there isnt any major difference. Will give Hillary credit for word count though.
Sanders makes no mention of any issues with LGBT in the military. Clinton has, and has actively campaigned on allowing LGBT to openly serve since at least the 90s, and continues to do so. Sanders also has a very limited proposal on healthcare for LGBT individuals as compared to Clinton. Further, detailed policy proposals actually do mean a lot to me! I actually like that Clinton has more details and lists more problems that affect the LGBT community and how she would improve them. For a very small detail, Clinton also has a section specifically for transgender issues and mentions transgender individuals specifically more often than Bernie, who only explicitly talks about the difficulties they face w.r.t. law enforcement discrimination.
LGBT in the military were set back for decades at the behest of a Clinton administration and yes Hillary is not Bill but she supported dont ask dont tell. It is being spun now(Funny this didnt get spun until she started running) that dont ask dont tell was actually this grand scheme to thwart the plans of republicans to ban gays in the military or crackdown harder on them. To your other points I guess she talks more about the laws specifics but ultimately they are the same laws. I guess if you dont know how to use the internet this would be a bonus. Kudos to Clinton for have a section about transgender issues. Again clinton does have more words but those words say the same thing.
I've always heard of DADT as a compromise that was made to prevent service members from being investigated for their sexual orientation (essentially strengthening their position from "openly hostile to" to "secretly tolerating"), and seeing as the Clinton's campaigned on open military service before DADT was implemented, I'm inclined to believe that.
Further, as I've said, I linked Clinton and Sander's most detailed proposals. Clinton has a summary section that is similar but still more comprehensive than Bernie's, if you insist on casually dismissing length as a factor.
Finally, the entire point was that I was asked "Do I think transgender rights is a hill Hillary Clinton will die on." And yes, I do! I also don't think Bernie will magically negate progress in that area, but I'm far more doubtful Bernie will actually act in an activist fashion on those issues rather than simply being a veto stonewall while focusing on things he considers more important, much like their senate tenures on these same issues.
Her reputation as a compromise minded person(often lauded as her best asset) would lead me to believe otherwise.
As far as hills that Clinton will die on, I am going to say that Women's Rights would be #1, and LGBT would be #2. Her compromise-mindedness may make her more willing to accept an incremental gain, but I have no doubt she would keep fighting to get there her entire presidency.
I ate an engineer
+1
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
To clarify, I don't think that being part of the establishment is bad! I don't think that it would be an attack if Clinton called Planned Parenthood establishment (though I'd find that very strange even before all this). But Sanders is explicitly campaigning against the establishment, so it is an attack coming from him, especially when he directly links it to Wall Street, who literally everybody is going to bat against.
to expand my thoughts on this sentiment as well
Bernie got some of his best fundraising numbers shortly after the database things happened. When he was able to accuse the DNC (the establishment) of freezing him out because they favoured Hillary.
The DNC is the establishment.
Bernie is fighting against the Establishment
To help Bernie win against the Establishment, send Bernie money
And it worked. He got a huge boost in fundraising because the big, bad DNC and DWS were keeping him down and out because of things that his staffers did that were illegal
Planned Parenthood and the Human RIghts Campaign endorsed Hillary.
Well they're just all part of the Establishment (just like the DNC, wink wink)
Bernie is fighting against the Establishment, He's told us this many many many times before.
Against Wall Street, Against the DNC and all other parts of the Establishment.
PP and HRC gave those endorsements because they are in part, part of the Establishment
Bernie himself isn't a part of the Establishment, oh no. He's an Independent Senator, not really A Democrat Senator.
He hasn't campaigned for the DNC in the past, and raises no money for the DNC.
But he's running as a Democrat.
He caucuses as a Democrat in the Senate.
He's got really realy solid Democrat credentials.
But he's an 'outsider' not part of the Establishment.
I like Bernie, I do. I like this ideals and his politics and his goals. But some of the things that have happened with his campaign, how it's running and the messaging of it have been turning my once great enthusiasm for him off.
Unrelated to Bernie but my take on being highly critical, some may say antiestablishment, of the DNC is the complete mismanagement of the party and the zero effort to resolve those issues. The lack of strategy at the local level and the running away from Obama in mid terms. The lack of resolve on democrat issues and the inability to whip the party adequately on very important issues. Republican lite is a moniker it justly deserves. That is my problem with the establishment.
Unrelated to Bernie but my take on being highly critical, some may say antiestablishment, of the DNC is the complete mismanagement of the party and the zero effort to resolve those issues. The lack of strategy at the local level and the running away from Obama in mid terms. The lack of resolve on democrat issues and the inability to whip the party adequately on very important issues. Republican lite is a moniker it justly deserves. That is my problem with the establishment.
That's a perfectly reasonable stance to be had and I am not certain anybody is really happy with the way the DNC is being run. I would certainly rather them be a stronger party regardless of which candidate wins, though I am legitimately unsure of how Sanders anti-DNC rhetoric would play into his restructuring of the party.
E: Also I think the big difference between this and the way Sanders seems to be anti-DNC is that this is a belief that the DNC has failed, while Sander's statements imply the DNC is an actual enemy. The two are very distinct flavors.
milski on
I ate an engineer
+3
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
The DNC, particularly under DWS's leadership and anything after Dean has been lackluster. It's why I won't give them any money.
and I get being against the DNC, against the 'establishment' for those reasons. and I can totally back up those reasons.
Should the DNC do more for downticket, local races and politicians? Hell yes.
But, and I put this politely and not really wanting to start a shit storm, so could the main candidates running for the higher offices.
O'Malley had a moment, just one, in the last Debate where he called out both Hillary and Bernie for not campaigning for down-ticket Democrats. I believe the race he mentioned was for the Senator (Congressperson?) from South Carolina.
It's one thing to say "down with the DNC they don't do anything for the down ticket races" and then go out and do that stuff yourself (campaign, raise funds, stump, etc).
It's another thing to say "down with the DNC, they don't do anything for the down ticket races) and then.... stay at home and do nothing for them yourself either.
I think portraying PP as something you are fighting against, especially these days, is a pretty shitty thing for a left-wing politician in the US to be doing.
Then it's a shitty thing for them to try and pick sides in a left-wing primary. If they didn't want to open themselves up to accusations of bias and attacks then they shouldn't have gotten involved in politics.
It's like UNICEF started picking candidates or something. It makes them look really really bad.
I'm sure many local candidates had asked Clinton for an endorsement and that makes sense she is of a high public profile. Before this race unless you followed politics to a high degree you probably didn't know who Sanders was,so I doubt many if any down ticket candidates asked Sanders to do anything for them.
Also I can't think of anyone more deep into DNC establishment politics than Clinton. Wasn't Shultz Hillary's campaign advisor? So when I talk about my problems with the DNC Clinton in my mind is the DNC. The good and the bad. Maybe that gives her an edge in changing the DNC. I do know but considering how this primary is going it would lead me to believe Clinton would not.
psn: PhasenWeeple
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Human Rights Campaign is not exactly completely beloved by the LGBT community. For example, their troubled history with transgender support, issues with intersectionality, generally being predisposed more towards appearing "respectable" with respect towards a still rather bigoted status quo and corporate leanings tend to earn them ire from many activists in the community.
From what I understand, it's not that they're against Trans rights so much as not willing to go to the mat and make an effort for them (which is still awful! But a different kind of awful!) So if they hitch their wagon to someone they know will do that, there is probably some strategy of getting some of the (for lack of a better word) credit.
If that is how you choose to read it then by all means read it that way. I see it as he is being challenged by the establishment and he is challenging them back. End game terms do you think he will defund them? Again no.
Except PP isn't the establishment, Hillary is. He gains nothing from disparaging PP, in fact this solidifies with PP that made the right choice. This isn't about the end game (though with Sanders his end game is murky - is he going to change it everything or be a poster boy for the left sitting in the big chair who acts like Hillary 2.0? Because it can't be both with what I've seen in his campaign), it's about looking petty with bad optics and Sanders can't afford to fuck up as much as he's been doing. Especially when his own staff have been regularly being douches, which makes him look bad at leadership either by condoning their actions or he's incompetent at judging people to hire for staff. He apparently didn't learn the lesson got from Mark Penn in the '08 primary.
Maybe I'm just wired differently. But why is being part of the establishment bad exactly? Does Sanders think he's going to rebuild the entire liberal/progressive political world? Does he not know that there is no more "establishment" job in the world that President of the United States? I mean maybe Pope or Emperor of Japan,but other than that...
What exactly does he think he's running for? He's campaigning to be "The Man"
Because being anti-establishment is popular since elites have been gloriously fucking everything up for 35 years.
What elites? Reagan was anti establishment. Ted Kennedy was establishment. Gingrich and Delay and The Tea Party and Palin and Trump and Paul are antiestablishment. I find the idea that the establishment rather than the intentional erosion of our trust in the establishment - in government, in science, in experts - in favor of "common sense", "telling it how it is" and truthiness truly strange and inconsistent with the normal consensus around here
Reagan may have begun as anti-establishment, he's been in the establishment for decades now. You can't find a Republican who doesn't worship the ground he walks on.
I think portraying PP as something you are fighting against, especially these days, is a pretty shitty thing for a left-wing politician in the US to be doing.
Then it's a shitty thing for them to try and pick sides in a left-wing primary. If they didn't want to open themselves up to accusations of bias and attacks then they shouldn't have gotten involved in politics.
It's like UNICEF started picking candidates or something. It makes them look really really bad.
That does not follow. Again, there are ways to say "I'm better then Clinton on these issues" without painting PP as being part of the group Sanders is opposing. To say otherwise is to deny him responsibility for his own words.
I think portraying PP as something you are fighting against, especially these days, is a pretty shitty thing for a left-wing politician in the US to be doing.
Then it's a shitty thing for them to try and pick sides in a left-wing primary. If they didn't want to open themselves up to accusations of bias and attacks then they shouldn't have gotten involved in politics.
It's like UNICEF started picking candidates or something. It makes them look really really bad.
Why should they be the one whose at fault? They picked a candidate to endorse, that's politics. Considering what they've been through lately I can see the logical with that decision. Since Bernie isn't going to defund them in office nobody loses. They definitely wouldn't be doing this in the other primary, this is the only one in town. This hurts Bernie more than it hurts them, when it didn't have to. He can't afford to look petty right now, not them. They're not running for president, he is. His campaign should have been neutral (saying nothing or giving the reason highlighted) or complimented them both on the endorsement. The last thing is important since he's meant to be running a clean campaign. This gives the appearance that his campaign is worried the endorsement for your reasons, only that it's spiteful they didn't endorse Bernie.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
Deebaseron my way to work in a suit and a tieAhhhh...come on fucking guyRegistered Userregular
in an unprecedented move, planned parenthood endorsed a primary candidate that just so happened to hire the daughter of the CEO 4 months ago.
The "optics" of this aren't good. It looks like cronyism mixed with throwing everything at sander's wall and hoping something sticks.
in an unprecedented move, planned parenthood endorsed a primary candidate that just so happened to hire the daughter of the CEO 4 months ago.
The "optics" of this aren't good. It looks like cronyism mixed with throwing everything at sander's wall and hoping something sticks.
To be fair this is an election, of course he (and they) are going to get hammered when they expose weaknesses to their competitors. And Bernie gave them enough room to paint him as someone who has bad optics with this situation. This is why optics has to maintained better by Bernie's campaign, a thousand cuts will kill his chances - while they wouldn't be a fatal blow to Hillary's. Bernie is not perfect with optics in this election.
Maddow: "PP and HRC support Hillary. What are you going to do to win them back?"
Bernie: "Not much. They're establishment, they're supporting Hillary, whatcha gonna do? Let me tell you about my economic plans..."
Reading anything more sinister into it seems an incredible reach. But some guys are going to support Hillary, whatcha gonna do?
edit: I would further draw from this an implication that reproductive rights and LGBT stuff will not be his priority in office; he wants to spend his capital on economic issues. That's a pretty far cry from being the grand enemy of progressive causes that some people wish to paint him as, like the only possible positions are relentless cheerleader or arch nemesis, but whatevs.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Maddow: "PP and HRC support Hillary. What are you going to do to win them back?"
Bernie: "Not much. They're establishment, they're supporting Hillary, whatcha gonna do? Let me tell you about my economic plans..."
Reading anything more sinister into it seems an incredible reach. But some guys are going to support Hillary, whatcha gonna do?
edit: I would further draw from this an implication that reproductive rights and LGBT stuff will not be his priority in office; he wants to spend his capital on economic issues. That's a pretty far cry from being the grand enemy of progressive causes that some people wish to paint him as, like the only possible positions are relentless cheerleader or arch nemesis, but whatevs.
There is also the implication that he is fighting the establishment, and HRC/PP are establishment.
I'm not going to assume he is thinking of them as enemy, more likely it's a slip of the tongue, but it does not look good for him to paint PP as the enemy, even by accident.
And i don't think anyone (here) is painting him as enemy of progressive causes.
But people will call him on mistakes, mistatements and being a goose when it comes to non economic issues.
HE is focused on economy and class issues, everything else seems to be an afterthought, at best, and completely ignored at worst (until someone brings it up, at which point he tries to tie to economy and class).
Attempting to dismiss substantive problems people have with Sander's positions on the issues as "'Sander is totally racist' chants" has no place in a healthy discussion of the campaign.
Forgive me, but the objections raised to Sanders's racial justice policies have never been substantive. AngelHedgie for one has repeatedly failed to name a single justice policy that he wishes Sanders would support, or name a single way in which Hillary Clinton is superior on these issues.
Sanders seems to have no racial justice policy.
As far as i can tell, he completely ignores any racial factor and goes for economical class instead.
And that, is the objection (some) people have.
He might not be doing anything wrong in relation to race, but he is not doing anything right either, he completely ignoresthe issue as much as he can.
And that is, in my opinion, terrible.
Now, if you can point to any speeches, policies, whatever, where Sanders talks about racial injustice and how to fix it without pivoting to class argument, great, feel free to link to it, i'm sure lot of us here would love to read/watch it.
Just trying to sweep this away by strawman arguments and claiming people are calling Sanders racist is not going to work.
What, specifically, would you have him change about his policies to be more friendly to African Americans?
What would Clinton do that he wouldn't to positively benefit African Americans?
I would agree with pretty much all that, though I'm not sure if his comments even rise to the level of mistakes, except in the sense that he gave ammo to the people who really want to pan him.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm in no disagreement that his messaging is worse than Clinton's by a country mile outside of his core demographic,
Clinton is great at being all things to all people, she's one of the best politicians alive.
But I think when you get down to brass tacks he's either Hillary's equal or better in basically every way in "things a president can actually do" except speeches.
Posts
If that is how you choose to read it then by all means read it that way. I see it as he is being challenged by the establishment and he is challenging them back. End game terms do you think he will defund them? Again no.
In the fact that she actually lays out specific policy proposals, as opposed to a few general guidelines?
Which is probably why the HRC endorsed her in the first place.
And I disagree that he making them targets. On multiple levels.
Level 1: this is very clearly a conversation that he doesn't care to have. If he wanted to push back directly against HRC or PP, he would have done it in a controlled setting where he managed the way it came up, and he would have said something far more hurtful than a fundamentally true statement about those groups and their place in party politics, and then pivot right back into unrelated messaging about his crowds.
Level 2: Making a political endorsement is a signal to the rest of that race that you are now an entity to be engaged with. It doesn't matter if you're Bono, Sarah Palin, McDonald's or Planned Parenthood. They could have chosen to stay out of this fight, but they didn't for reasons I have already covered in depth. They painted a target on themselves, in full knowledge of what they were doing, and they got the equivalent of a brush off for doing it (seriously, the man repeated their names, acknowledged their endorsement of Clinton and then just moved on to grassroots organizing pivel).
I don't see anything Sanders did as particularly out of line. Much less vilifying two groups that he's been a staunch ally to.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Sanders makes no mention of any issues with LGBT in the military. Clinton has, and has actively campaigned on allowing LGBT to openly serve since at least the 90s, and continues to do so. Sanders also has a very limited proposal on healthcare for LGBT individuals as compared to Clinton. Further, detailed policy proposals actually do mean a lot to me! I actually like that Clinton has more details and lists more problems that affect the LGBT community and how she would improve them. For a very small detail, Clinton also has a section specifically for transgender issues and mentions transgender individuals specifically more often than Bernie, who only explicitly talks about the difficulties they face w.r.t. law enforcement discrimination.
There is more you can do to hurt Planned Parenthood or stall it than just defund it entirely. If Sander's simply doesn't make it a top priority, it's not going to get better. Maybe you think Clinton would be just as likely or more likely to let it slip, or would be unable to achieve anything even if she tried, but I don't.
There is no other way to read it. Like, the top of this very quote tree shows the quote. He is crystal clear in what he is saying.
He is not being challenged by the establishment here. PP (and HRC) are just endorsing someone else and he is hitting back at them for it. And that's a real shitty thing for a left-wing politician in the US to be doing, given that PP especially does not need more people making negative comments about them.
Frankly, to pretend that the only actions possible here are defund or not defund (has anyone even suggested this was a possibility? Where are you getting this from?) is just silly and an attempt to narrow the scope of possible responses so that you can ignore what he's saying.
http://sundial.csun.edu/2011/10/equality-for-some-a-critique-of-the-human-rights-campaign/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/derrick-clifton/human-rights-campaign-same-sex-marriage_b_2973131.html
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=7291
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28430-human-rights-campaign-under-fire-in-lgbt-community
(I am also sure that the President's history with and genesis in politics being within the Clinton administration had nothing to do with this as well)
Level 1: Just because he didn't want to have the conversation doesn't mean he has to attack them. Hillary didn't take a free shot to say why she'd be better than Obama. Sanders declined multiple free shots on Clinton's emails, Bill, etc. The fact that this shot is the one he's taking is not trivial! And he had enough answer wrapped around his response he could have entirely cut the "I'm fighting the establishment" line, entirely declined to link them to the establishment, and still had a coherent statement along the lines of: "I'm trying to get progressive, grassroots progressive endorsements, as I have gotten with the MoveOn foundation. And I believe that I am creating a strong grassroots movement, and I will continue to fight for LGBT and women's rights with that support. With that said, yes, I was not expecting to receive their endorsement in the primary; I didn't expect them to endorse anybody!"
Level 2 isn't a disagreement with the idea he's attacking them, it's a disagreement with the idea that attacking them is the wrong thing to do. Your entire argument in level 2 acknowledges that he is attacking them! But I don't think it's wrong that he's attacking them because politics is supposed to be above board, I think it's wrong that he's attacking them because they're incredibly important organizations!
What elites? Reagan was anti establishment. Ted Kennedy was establishment. Gingrich and Delay and The Tea Party and Palin and Trump and Paul are antiestablishment. I find the idea that the establishment rather than the intentional erosion of our trust in the establishment - in government, in science, in experts - in favor of "common sense", "telling it how it is" and truthiness truly strange and inconsistent with the normal consensus around here
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
If you wanted the summary of her positions, you could just go to the summary.
I linked the in depth version to contrast, because Sanders does not have that level of detail. And I like that level of detail!
So, we're playing the game where the literal decades of consistent support vanish because he hasn't mentioned it within the last news cycle on abortion, too, huh?
He was co-sponsering (not merely voting for) pro-choice bills in 1993, voted against the Hyde amendment in 1993, and has been a consistent advocate of a woman's right to choose since then. I could probably go back more than
around a quarter century, but I think we know that will be offhandedly and trivially dismissed, so let's keep this research light.
And they're choosing to endorse another candidate based on the fact that their policies align better with these groups. For Planned Parenthood, it's the fact that Clinton actually discusses and argues for reproductive rights in her stump speeches, while with the HRC, it has to do with the fact that Clinton's LGBT rights plank is much more detailed and thought out.
Which is why the argument that Sanders only had the choices to push back or surrender is a load of gooseshit. Because he has a third option - to actually listen to these groups, and figure out what issues are important to them.
LGBT in the military were set back for decades at the behest of a Clinton administration and yes Hillary is not Bill but she supported dont ask dont tell. It is being spun now(Funny this didnt get spun until she started running) that dont ask dont tell was actually this grand scheme to thwart the plans of republicans to ban gays in the military or crackdown harder on them. To your other points I guess she talks more about the laws specifics but ultimately they are the same laws. I guess if you dont know how to use the internet this would be a bonus. Kudos to Clinton for have a section about transgender issues. Again clinton does have more words but those words say the same thing.
That's not really his third option here though. His third rhetorical option is more spinning the question as a way to toot his own horn about his own record and stances.
The idea that he had to hit back is just nonsense. A better response is to simply go something like "I don't know why PP and HRC suddenly decided to endorse Clinton given that <insert talk about all the stuff you've done and plan to do on the issue till the interviewer makes you stop>".
Rather then trying to excite your supporters via another "the establishment is against us" point, try to excite them by showing how awesome your own platform on these issues are. And Sanders should have no issues talking about his stances on these issues, he's got good ones.
Dude, I did an entire thread on that topic 7 years ago.
I've always heard of DADT as a compromise that was made to prevent service members from being investigated for their sexual orientation (essentially strengthening their position from "openly hostile to" to "secretly tolerating"), and seeing as the Clinton's campaigned on open military service before DADT was implemented, I'm inclined to believe that.
Further, as I've said, I linked Clinton and Sander's most detailed proposals. Clinton has a summary section that is similar but still more comprehensive than Bernie's, if you insist on casually dismissing length as a factor.
Finally, the entire point was that I was asked "Do I think transgender rights is a hill Hillary Clinton will die on." And yes, I do! I also don't think Bernie will magically negate progress in that area, but I'm far more doubtful Bernie will actually act in an activist fashion on those issues rather than simply being a veto stonewall while focusing on things he considers more important, much like their senate tenures on these same issues.
Uh what? People have been talking about the reasons for DADT and DOMA and why they aren't as bad as portrayed since only a few years after they passed. Even if you think it's just spin, it's very old spin that has pre-dates Clinton's current campaign. And even her last one.
Also you are confusing the reasoning for DADT and DOMA. DADT is generally said to have been an improvement on previous policy (which was that it was flat out against the rules to be gay in the military, whether you told or not). It's DOMA where people say it was a compromise to thwart plans for worse things.
Her reputation as a compromise minded person(often lauded as her best asset) would lead me to believe otherwise.
As far as hills that Clinton will die on, I am going to say that Women's Rights would be #1, and LGBT would be #2. Her compromise-mindedness may make her more willing to accept an incremental gain, but I have no doubt she would keep fighting to get there her entire presidency.
to expand my thoughts on this sentiment as well
Bernie got some of his best fundraising numbers shortly after the database things happened. When he was able to accuse the DNC (the establishment) of freezing him out because they favoured Hillary.
The DNC is the establishment.
Bernie is fighting against the Establishment
To help Bernie win against the Establishment, send Bernie money
And it worked. He got a huge boost in fundraising because the big, bad DNC and DWS were keeping him down and out because of things that his staffers did that were illegal
Planned Parenthood and the Human RIghts Campaign endorsed Hillary.
Well they're just all part of the Establishment (just like the DNC, wink wink)
Bernie is fighting against the Establishment, He's told us this many many many times before.
Against Wall Street, Against the DNC and all other parts of the Establishment.
PP and HRC gave those endorsements because they are in part, part of the Establishment
Bernie himself isn't a part of the Establishment, oh no. He's an Independent Senator, not really A Democrat Senator.
He hasn't campaigned for the DNC in the past, and raises no money for the DNC.
But he's running as a Democrat.
He caucuses as a Democrat in the Senate.
He's got really realy solid Democrat credentials.
But he's an 'outsider' not part of the Establishment.
I like Bernie, I do. I like this ideals and his politics and his goals. But some of the things that have happened with his campaign, how it's running and the messaging of it have been turning my once great enthusiasm for him off.
This is just another thing.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
That's a perfectly reasonable stance to be had and I am not certain anybody is really happy with the way the DNC is being run. I would certainly rather them be a stronger party regardless of which candidate wins, though I am legitimately unsure of how Sanders anti-DNC rhetoric would play into his restructuring of the party.
E: Also I think the big difference between this and the way Sanders seems to be anti-DNC is that this is a belief that the DNC has failed, while Sander's statements imply the DNC is an actual enemy. The two are very distinct flavors.
The DNC, particularly under DWS's leadership and anything after Dean has been lackluster. It's why I won't give them any money.
and I get being against the DNC, against the 'establishment' for those reasons. and I can totally back up those reasons.
Should the DNC do more for downticket, local races and politicians? Hell yes.
But, and I put this politely and not really wanting to start a shit storm, so could the main candidates running for the higher offices.
O'Malley had a moment, just one, in the last Debate where he called out both Hillary and Bernie for not campaigning for down-ticket Democrats. I believe the race he mentioned was for the Senator (Congressperson?) from South Carolina.
It's one thing to say "down with the DNC they don't do anything for the down ticket races" and then go out and do that stuff yourself (campaign, raise funds, stump, etc).
It's another thing to say "down with the DNC, they don't do anything for the down ticket races) and then.... stay at home and do nothing for them yourself either.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Then it's a shitty thing for them to try and pick sides in a left-wing primary. If they didn't want to open themselves up to accusations of bias and attacks then they shouldn't have gotten involved in politics.
It's like UNICEF started picking candidates or something. It makes them look really really bad.
Also I can't think of anyone more deep into DNC establishment politics than Clinton. Wasn't Shultz Hillary's campaign advisor? So when I talk about my problems with the DNC Clinton in my mind is the DNC. The good and the bad. Maybe that gives her an edge in changing the DNC. I do know but considering how this primary is going it would lead me to believe Clinton would not.
From what I understand, it's not that they're against Trans rights so much as not willing to go to the mat and make an effort for them (which is still awful! But a different kind of awful!) So if they hitch their wagon to someone they know will do that, there is probably some strategy of getting some of the (for lack of a better word) credit.
Except PP isn't the establishment, Hillary is. He gains nothing from disparaging PP, in fact this solidifies with PP that made the right choice. This isn't about the end game (though with Sanders his end game is murky - is he going to change it everything or be a poster boy for the left sitting in the big chair who acts like Hillary 2.0? Because it can't be both with what I've seen in his campaign), it's about looking petty with bad optics and Sanders can't afford to fuck up as much as he's been doing. Especially when his own staff have been regularly being douches, which makes him look bad at leadership either by condoning their actions or he's incompetent at judging people to hire for staff. He apparently didn't learn the lesson got from Mark Penn in the '08 primary.
Reagan may have begun as anti-establishment, he's been in the establishment for decades now. You can't find a Republican who doesn't worship the ground he walks on.
That does not follow. Again, there are ways to say "I'm better then Clinton on these issues" without painting PP as being part of the group Sanders is opposing. To say otherwise is to deny him responsibility for his own words.
Why should they be the one whose at fault? They picked a candidate to endorse, that's politics. Considering what they've been through lately I can see the logical with that decision. Since Bernie isn't going to defund them in office nobody loses. They definitely wouldn't be doing this in the other primary, this is the only one in town. This hurts Bernie more than it hurts them, when it didn't have to. He can't afford to look petty right now, not them. They're not running for president, he is. His campaign should have been neutral (saying nothing or giving the reason highlighted) or complimented them both on the endorsement. The last thing is important since he's meant to be running a clean campaign. This gives the appearance that his campaign is worried the endorsement for your reasons, only that it's spiteful they didn't endorse Bernie.
The "optics" of this aren't good. It looks like cronyism mixed with throwing everything at sander's wall and hoping something sticks.
To be fair this is an election, of course he (and they) are going to get hammered when they expose weaknesses to their competitors. And Bernie gave them enough room to paint him as someone who has bad optics with this situation. This is why optics has to maintained better by Bernie's campaign, a thousand cuts will kill his chances - while they wouldn't be a fatal blow to Hillary's. Bernie is not perfect with optics in this election.
Maddow: "PP and HRC support Hillary. What are you going to do to win them back?"
Bernie: "Not much. They're establishment, they're supporting Hillary, whatcha gonna do? Let me tell you about my economic plans..."
Reading anything more sinister into it seems an incredible reach. But some guys are going to support Hillary, whatcha gonna do?
edit: I would further draw from this an implication that reproductive rights and LGBT stuff will not be his priority in office; he wants to spend his capital on economic issues. That's a pretty far cry from being the grand enemy of progressive causes that some people wish to paint him as, like the only possible positions are relentless cheerleader or arch nemesis, but whatevs.
Bernie Sanders isn't considered part of that establishment so of course they wouldn't support him, they're not going to shit where they eat.
That's all Sanders meant.
There is also the implication that he is fighting the establishment, and HRC/PP are establishment.
I'm not going to assume he is thinking of them as enemy, more likely it's a slip of the tongue, but it does not look good for him to paint PP as the enemy, even by accident.
And i don't think anyone (here) is painting him as enemy of progressive causes.
But people will call him on mistakes, mistatements and being a goose when it comes to non economic issues.
HE is focused on economy and class issues, everything else seems to be an afterthought, at best, and completely ignored at worst (until someone brings it up, at which point he tries to tie to economy and class).
What, specifically, would you have him change about his policies to be more friendly to African Americans?
What would Clinton do that he wouldn't to positively benefit African Americans?
Clinton is great at being all things to all people, she's one of the best politicians alive.
But I think when you get down to brass tacks he's either Hillary's equal or better in basically every way in "things a president can actually do" except speeches.