Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/06/08/whats-so-funny-joe
It seems so inviting to vote for Joe, doesn’t it? Anything to get Trump out? Don’t fall for it, people. We can win without Joe. Joe is another HC, another establishment Dem who will decry the rich but take their money when it comes down to it. No more half measures. We don’t need to return to the center. We need real change. That’s not Joe, and we all know it. We blew it before with HC. Not this time.
Trump will destroy Biden if it comes to that.
Their problem is that the only candidates that can beat him by flipping a few of the states he carried are candidates that the DNC will literally do everything to stop, not that there’s even many of those anyway.
All that’s happening now is one big focus-testing session for the neoliberal who can fool enough voters into thinking they’re the next hope-and-change candidate. And so far, the pickings are slim.
The Democratic Party leadership, despite all their bluster, are all fine with a re-elected Trump if the alternative is a democratic socialist. Time for People’s Party to arise. Bernie had his chance in 2016 to do so but instead chose to toe the party line. There are more registered Independents than Dems and Repubs combined so voters are ready for an alternative. Electing a progressive Democrat would just be putting a cherry on top of putrid, pile of dung as long as Pelosi, Steny and Chuckles are running the show in Congress.
According to this, you’re wrong about registered Independents, and even if you were right, there are many right wing libertarians registered as Independent. While I’d love to see a viable progressive party, I don’t see enough Democrats leaving the safe confines of the corporate moneybags.
that’s the theory, at least. a third independent party. we’ve tried this before to great calamity–the Reform Party was such a project. But independents are not of the same hive (as the respondent to you points out).
For our political system to be viable–that is, to be responsive to most Americans in some way or another–we have to increase the percentages of representation in the halls of power, and our system as designed just precludes any such thing. It sucks, but it is.
It’s why I don’t ultimately think those of us at or near the bottom can use this system to save ourselves or our biosphere.
Forget Biden. Hope and change won’t beat Agent Orange.
I agree with the author 100% about Biden. I had no respect for him anyway but to hear him the first time he made the joke was as cringe-worthy as many things I’ve heard out of Trump’s mouth.
What I don’t agree with is any remorse Gillibrand isn’t scoring any better in the polls. It looks like she is going to make the debate anyway but other than her stand on Franken (which I agree with), what is she known for? Is she pushing any particular progressive policy like Sanders, Gabbard, or Warren? Her support for key progressive policies such as Medicare for All is weak (though she did cosponsor).
Why is this author trying to make the race Biden vs Gillibrand? There are many other candidates, and if I choose Tusli, Bernie or even Liz, does that have meaning with respect to Gillibrand?
I don’t know why Gillibrand doesn’t have the big donor support. I don’t care for anyone who does (or in the opinion of the author should) have big donor support.
Maybe the author is correct that those big donors are getting revenge on her for standing up for women. Even if that’s the case, aren’t all three, Biden, Gillibrand and this author, neglecting another huge issue of class, that none of the three represent anyone but big donors, which is at least as much of a problem as the front runner not representing women?
I’m somewhat with you (see my post above), but I don’t know if I would go so far as to say the author is trying to get you to ignore other candidates. I think it is more an attempt at a new angle to plug a candidate she is interested in. In a similar vein, the idea (mentioned in a few articles such as https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/24/magazine/pete-buttigieg-smart-harvard-rhodes-scholar-norwegian-language.html) that Julio Castro was a mayor of a larger city that Pete Buttigeig is, went to the same school (I could care less myself) and has federal government experience but isn’t nearly as fawned over is interesting and doesn’t have to bring up other candidates necessarily (the NYT story does: " Julián Castro — a former mayor of San Antonio, a city roughly 15 times the population of South Bend — went to Stanford and Harvard Law School. Cory Booker was a Rhodes scholar, too. Amy Klobuchar went to Yale, and Kirsten Gillibrand, another Ivy Leaguer, speaks Mandarin much better than Buttigieg speaks Norwegian.")
But my pushback is on Gillabrand specifically. I don’t see her as a true progressive though she’s moved in the right direction for a while now and I wouldn’t advocate primarying her (not my state so not my call). But this author is clearly not happy she is not getting much attention by voters or by the press. I feel that way about Gabbard, but not Gillabrand.
I think all strong adherents of candidates feel that way. It is a double edged sword thing though: flying under the radar can help candidates look refreshing, get passes for mistakes, and permit them to push new messages, while intense media coverage can over amplify mistakes and invite new skepticism.
Poor Biden. What’s a guy to do? He knows he can’t win, he’s stuck with big corporate money promises, he’s old, had some rough family problems, and may be a little too old, can’t seem to remember to keep his hands–and lips–off women.
Part of me hopes he gets the nomination just to see how badly he gets punked by Trump.
On the other hand, 4 more years of Trump is a fate no one deserves.
Like 2016 all over again. No one wins except the bankers and the roaches.
The biggest problem I have with Biden is his lifelong servitude to Delaware-based financial corporations. His so called Bankruptcy Reform Act if 2002 was a complete surrender to these interests, making it easy for big shots to declare bankruptcy and much, much harder for working people. Gillibrand, who is depicted in a positive light, in this article also has a long association with corporate criminals dating back to her days as a lawyer shilling for Big Tobacco.
I skimmed the NYT piece about this (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/nyregion/27gillibrand.html). To a certain extent I buy the argument that how she voted as a politician is more relevant than her law experience (she took some big tobacco money though even as it is claimed she voted against them). But I wish a lot fewer lawyers became politicians and we had more doctors, scientists, engineers, writers, community organizers and the like.
I had high hopes for Gillibrand and supported her first run for Congress in my district. My support wavered when she explained to me why she identified with the “blue dog” caucus and why she was weak on gun control. Hey, I live in that rural NY district and I know we are not all yahoos.
Everyone who invites voters to support a third party candidate seem to take for granted that the general public will be informed about a three-way race. The vast majority of voters had no clue about who Jill Stein was despite her being very supportive of Bernie Sanders (She even declared that she would not run, if Bernie were chosen as the Democratic Party candidate for the presidency) as well as being the leader of the internationally recognized Green Party. In fact the Libertarian candidate got four times as many votes than Jill Stein with a debunked Libertarian ideology that is as archaic as Marxism is in its original form.
The reason no one heard of Jill Stein was that all of the MSM ignored her. She was never invited to debates, she never had in depth coverage by newspapers or on radio talk shows and she couldn’t even get on the ballot in all 50 States.
Bernie on the other hand could not be ignored precisely because he latched himself to the Democrats. If Bernie had been chosen instead of HRC, then the MSM would have had no choice but to have Bernie and Donald debate on national TV and in the written press. This was the nightmare that corporate America feared the most. To pretend that the media is not a branch of corporate America, is simply naive. We need to use the existing system (in much the same way as Gorbachev did to bring down the old Soviet Empire) to our advantage. I believe it is in the process now as the majority of Americans in the Democratic Party at least, are beginning to understand how corrupt the old guard are. It won’t be easy, but it is possible.
Just Say NO!! to ‘windsock’ Joe!!
I’ll second THAT Motion!! Lawyers writing complex – and crooked – laws that keep their fellow lawyers busy instead of us just using common sense and fairness when it comes to Justice. It’s been my firm belief for thirty-plus years that all lawyers should be BANNED from public office – that’d be a BIG step toward Draining the
Swamp Cesspool in D.C. – but good luck ever bringing it about . . .