I worry Bernie Sanders may have done some irreparable damage to his reputation. His facebook is continuing to post the same pro-grassroot, anti-establishment messages it always has, but the people largely aren't having it. While I'm not one of them, a lot of people have lost faith in his, what was essentially, an unassailable genuineness. I hope the convention is worth it for him.

From the moment Sanders decided to run as a Democrat there were just two possible outcomes- either he would be the nominee or he would support the nominee if it wasn't him. His more devoted supporters are certainly entitled to be disappointed with the outcome, but expecting some other outcome- like a third-party run or endorsement, is simply detached from political reality. Bernie- an experienced and ultimately pragmatic lawmaker, fully understands the most realistic way to effect change is to continue working within the system.

He said when he started that he wasn't going to run as an independent. Anyone surprised by his endorsement of Clinton hasn't really been paying attention.

Or this is their first election.

Yeah, it's not pretty. :(

I don't believe that Sen. Sanders damaged his reputation. While there will be those who say this is some kind of selling out to the establishment, he's always been clear about two things:

1. Secretary Clinton and he have policy disagreements, but they are far more in agreement than any Republican candidate.
2. The most important part of this election is defeating the Republican candidate, Trump.

I think history will be pretty kind to Sen. Sanders.

The most important part of this election is defeating the Republican candidate

And the most important part of the next election will be defeating the next Republican supervillain, and the one after that, and the one after that. And if, at any point, you dare question why the supposedly progressive party hasn't made any, you know, progress, you'll be told you're a dumb idealist who needs to shut up and vote for the status quo before Doctor Doom wins.

I agree that if there hadn't been any progress, being told to shut up would be wrong.

But there has been progress the past 8 years.
Here's 10 things the Democratic President accomplished.

1. The Affordable Care Act - which allowed me personally to have health insurance after 7 years without.
2. The ARRA - While not enough to make sure there wasn't continuing recession, it kept the economy from going into a Great Depression.
3. Dodd-Frank, credit card reform, and the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
4. Student loan reforms and Pell Grant additions
5. Updated and modernized overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 6. An end to the Iraq War.
7. Reopening diplomatic relations with Cuba
8. Repealing Don't Ask, Don't Tell, adding a federal hate crimes law, legalizing gay marriage across the US.
9. Taking steps to actually deal with global climate change, both domestically and internationally, boosting fuel efficiency standards and negotiating the recent Paris Accord on greenhouse gases.
10. Gave the FDA the power to regulate tobacco, and allowed the states to experiment with marijuana legalization.

And that's not mentioning getting Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor confirmed to the Supreme Court, both further left than the Justices they replaced (Stevens and Souter).

The progressive party has made progress, so kindly, you dumb idealist, STFU.

And what has it cost you?

Are we talking dollars and cents? I pay my taxes. I'm willing to pay for good government.

Or are we talking intangibles? Because it didn't cost me a thing.

Because I know where we've been, and I've known what it is like to sit there, watching the television, reading the news, thinking, "what is happening to my country?" I remember not volunteering for the 2000 campaign, the first Presidential election I could vote for. I remember how that one was lost. I remember thinking there wasn't any way that G.W. Bush could get elected in 2004. When he was, the worst part wasn't that he was still President: it was that so many of my fellow Americans, a majority, had voted for him.

So I was determined not to sit out 2008. Then-Senator Barack Obama was, in fact, my Senator, and my State Senator before that, but he was not who I supported in the primaries. But he won the nomination, and I made sure to work to get him elected. I was part of that campaign, and the work I did for the campaign is one of the few things I am proud of. I knew who we were getting as President, I knew he wasn't a leftist, but I also knew if people created room on his left, he would take it. And most of the time, when there has been room, he has moved left. He has not done many things I wished he would do, but he has still done a hell of a lot of good for this country.

And so here we are, with parts of the left still wanting to throw a tantrum because they haven't gotten everything they've wanted. It's a bitter pill to accept that progress is slow. But it is slow because the status quo likes things the way it is, and the only way to change it is to have your hands at helm.

Progress is the work of a lifetime, part of continuing to become a better individual, a better country, a better world. Sometimes there are steps back, and sometimes there is no movement forward. But that is not today. Today, we continue to move forward, we continue to progress, we continue to make this country and our world a better place. While some, like Secretary Clinton, may not agree with all the goals of progressives, she has always been an ally of progressives, someone who is willing to work to ensure a better tomorrow together. She was not my preferred candidate, but I will be happy to vote for her. Because I know that with her, we will move forward, part of the slow work that is progress.

Thank you for your answer.

HoZay, how's this for privilege? We're waging wars, tanking economies, toppling governments. We're sowing the seeds of chaos, debt slavery, and terrorism. But it's cool because we're making slow and steady social progress and it's not costing us a thing! As long as we settle for the lesser evil we don't have to a worry about losing the right to abortions, or gay marriage, or all the shit we're inflicting on other people around the world because we're just going to sit through it, and wait it out.

Outsource our misery, if you will.

Sure we'll lose more of our rights, our entitlements, and our middle class, but eventually our ruling class is... going to what? Change their mind about liking money and power?

I guess the thing I think about is, what's the end game? Surely there's a time limit on this wait and see approach? The less wealth that circulates among the lower classes is only going to lessen their influence and the amount they can contribute to grassroots campaigns. As Bernie and Trump demonstrated, the difference in media attention is a dramatic game changer. And, I think it's safe to say that all the major social and media networks have shown themselves to be in the bag for profits and the respective establishment they lean towards. This is just me but, in voting for Stein I see an active fight against outsourcing the costs of our privilege, in the lesser evil I see a quickening and voluntary slide towards an inevitable obsolescence of the lower classes.

Just a continuation of my response for you.

InsipidUsername, this isn't directed at you in particular, sorry for unloading on your comment. Referencing a previous thread, opportune time to share.

Raphael, the privilege I was referring to is the freedom to see the advances in health care, gay rights, women's rights, minority rights in general, efforts at economic reform, as culture war trivia, and distraction from the Big Picture of economic justice for all. For many people, these incremental advances are life-changing. Protecting abortion rights is the most important thing there is, if you are the person who needs an abortion. If health care reform means your kid gets the medical treatment that would have been denied, then you don't have the privilege to see that incremental advance as a diversion from a better goal of stopping imperialism.

How convenient then that we all have this privilege to wait it out without an end game in mind, yes?

Waiting it out is your language. What do you mean by that?

This what I have been getting at for days. There are several here making the argument that we should take the high moral ground not vote for Clinton because she isn't a pure enough lefty.

The alternative they tell me won't be that bad, and because it will be just a little bad it will motivate people and we can turn it around by putting forth a TRUE lefty that will save us all.

I'm saying you're outsourcing your own misery across the globe while telling us how it could be so much worse. It is worse, for other people, because you're not taking a stand. We get to wait it out while other people pay. The very party you're claiming I should support in this election has economic policies that actively undermines the mechanisms through which you plan to rehabilitate it. You've got no end game. You are literally and voluntarily putting all your eggs in one basket. A basket known for eating the eggs inside of it! Sooner or later a generation is going to have to break free from the cycle and all supporting the lesser evil now does is ensure future generations will start from a more powerless position.

So you're going to support the lesser of three evils?

I'll the support the path of our country taking responsibility for the costs of our own society. It's no different than protesting against slave labor and obscene working conditions for the products we consume. But most of all, i'll support the path that actually leads to an end game instead of postponement of misery to an inevitable collapse.

Your replies always seem like non-specific sloganeering. If voting and otherwise working with the available political system is too slow, what's your alternative? Convince me, I'm malleable as hell.

Please. Let's be realistic, you're as malleable a glass vase. As far as you're concerned I'm a third party proponent unless Bernie pulls off a miracle.

I am disappoint.

I find it funny when people accuse me of privilege on the Internet, since as a person of color I've had to educate others about the privilege they have.

But I'll cop to a level of privilege as an American. Having traveled internationally and having lived abroad under the aegis of Uncle Sam, I do understand where I stand in that regard.

With regards to foreign policy, I'll admit I'm probably far to the right of many fellow leftists, being both an international relations offensive realist and having been part of the military-industrial complex. Like others my age, the events of 9/11 left an indelible impression that the world is a dangerous place, and there are people in the world that mean to do Americans harm. My experiences since then have reinforced that view.

As for waging wars and toppling governments, that has been happening throughout the history of the country and will continue to happen. The US is the hegemon of the Western Hemisphere, and is the only global power capable of force projection throughout the globe. The real question is whether the US will be smart or dumb about the military interventions it undertakes. While Pres. Obama has made mistakes, they have been far fewer and far lesser in magnitude than his predecessor, and I expect Sec. Clinton to continue Pres. Obama's foreign policy of not doing stupid shit.

Because I worry about the shit we inflict on other people around the world. We see our mistakes both at home and abroad come back to us. But in the post World War II era, it has always been worse in Republican administrations. So if you really care about the lower classes, about the most vulnerable people both at home in America and abroad in the world, then you will act to prevent the horrible foreseeable material consequences that would flow from a government controlled by Trump and a Republican Congress. And that means voting for the lesser evil.

Because there's no wait and see if you want progress. Progress is a constant struggle, always has been, and involves lesser evils and compromises. Progress, when it has occurred in the US, has always happened due to forces inside the political process, inside the party. The President with the greatest record of progressive achievement in the 20th century after FDR was LBJ, for my father's generation the very definition of lesser evil. LBJ was a establishment politician from Texas, with a voting record that showed no indication that he was going to get major progressive legislation passed. Which is what he did, enacting the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, creating Medicare and Medicaid, creating SNAP, Head Start and the Federal Work Study program, creating the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, and enacting the Gun Control Act of 1968. Major progressive reforms are almost always the result of voting for the lesser evil and building coalitions that press them leftward.

If you worry about outsourcing the costs of your privilege, then do something about it - continue to press the party leftwards by organizing and campaigning. Keep the pressure up. Movement conservatives didn't take over the Republican party by voting third party. They tried to get their candidates elected in the primaries, they won some and lost some, but they kept pushing. It's not complicated, and it works. In 2004, when Howard Dean was the leftmost candidate, he flamed out after New Hampshire. Twelve years later, the leftmost candidate, Bernie Sanders, almost won the nomination.

The real act of privilege is to vote for third-party vanity campaigns that are either pointless onanism or actively destructive. The active fight is within the party, not outside it.

Again, this was not directed at you in particular but more of a response to earlier accusations. However, it's no less true. Also, I'm not hearing an endgame. You're all missing some very important pieces of strategy and reality in your 'wait and see' approach while you hide from the costs other pay in your name.

"I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured."

Sshh!! Just enjoy the negative peace :(

I think that belief in an endgame betrays an ignorance of how political change moves the goalposts over time, and how long it takes for real change to occur. The reason I do not have an endgame is not for lack of strategy. It is because it is mistaken to think there is one.

Evolving standards of human decency mean that some thoughts and ideas about how we should behave change over time. Previously unheard of things become acceptable, and boundaries are pushed even further. Gay marriage 40 years ago was a pipe dream, 12 years ago a mayor began issuing marriage licenses, and last year the Supreme Court legalized it across the country. I think we'll begin to see something similar with Universal Basic Income in the coming years. Technological change, increases in efficiency in manufacturing, will begin to cause further disruptions that will only be ameliorated if we ensure everyone has a minimal standard of living.

Revolutions in thought, in changing how people think about things and other people don't happen overnight. My grandfather, a product of his time and place, was a poor, uneducated, white Southern racist. That never changed, even though his son went to college, married a foreign woman of color, and brought home grandchildren, whom he cared about and loved. He still used language that shocks me to this day. Growing up in the South, I know that things get better, that later generations do not accept the old prejudices. I've seen the kids today, and they are better than my generation was when we were growing up. Changing people's hearts is tough, if not impossible. More often than not, old views die out because the people holding them die, not because they change their views.

And I think you're wrong in thinking that pragmatic leftists are hiding from the costs others pay. It is because I've seen the costs others pay first hand that I make the argument I do. I know the consequences of failure. I know the people we hurt and exploit. When we fail, they pay far more than when we and our allies are in power.

The forces on the other side don't stop fighting. They drag their heels, and push back. And most insidiously, on the economic side, is the inevitable fact that capital accumulates, and it does so with great ease. So the forces of progress have to contend both with those standing, blocking the way shouting "No!" and with silent economic forces that continue to increase wealth in those who have it.

This is not a wait and see approach. It is push and engage. Yes, incremental change sucks, but it works over time. Sometimes only slowly, sometimes in sprints on some issues.

I think your lack of an endgame betrays your understanding of how the system is stacked against you. You mention basic income while calling for support of a party that is a proponent of policies aligned directly opposite to the concept. Changing minds doesn't happen incrementally, changing minds happen in response to the stimulus provided. As steele said early, ideas become normalized in relation to the other ideas around them. I bring up the concept of an endgame because as I pointed out to Hozay the party you're calling us to support are pushing economic polices that undercut the method of influence you are claiming to use to fight back. Your voice is being gradually silenced by the shrinking of your classes wealth. Your jobs are being taken away. Your privacy is being taken away. The media is not on your side. Control over the internet, the one open space you might have available to you to multiply the force of your ideas beyond that of your wealth is being taken away. This is not a game with an infinite clock, it is ticking, and it is advancing in faster increments towards the end than the progress you claim you're making.

I think I have a pretty damn good idea of how the system is stacked against me. I've studied economics, the law, and many other things besides. I've been a part of political campaigns, both successful and unsuccessful. I've been in the room when the deals were done, and the sausage was made, and I've had a part in making it happen. I'm not ignorant of the forces arrayed against the Left.

I disagree with you: minds and opinions do change incrementally - in response to stimuli - and often in relation to the ideas around them. The creation of further ideas to the left make some ideas closer to the center more acceptable.

For example, my own journey to supporting the LBGT community and gay marriage took years. As a young man in the South, I had the same prejudices many of my peers did. It wasn't until I met gays and lesbians, people out of the closet, that I became comfortable with the idea of civil unions. It wasn't until I became friends with them that I really understood the unique problems they faced in our society. And it wasn't until I had my own experiences of love and loss that I was catalyzed to supporting gay marriage by the actions of Mayor Newsom in San Francisco in 2004.

Changing minds requires people to be open to change. Persuasion is most effective when the person being persuaded thinks that you are like them. And often, having additional space and options on the left make options to the center easier to accomplish and push.

There are times when stands must be made, where there is no room for compromise, and the terms of the debate have to shift. That is important for issues - not for candidates. Making a stand on this person or that person is counter-productive if your goal is to change policy.

Yes. The Democratic Party does not support my preferred policy ideas in economic areas. Yet.

Fight for $15 started 4 years ago. A $15 minimum wage is in the Democratic Party Platform today.

UBI is ahead of its time, but I do think that technological change, and the disruptions that continual efficiency gains in the manufacturing sector reducing employment there will cause will eventually make it a reality. And it makes ideas like higher minimum wages and support for extended unemployment more acceptable. It has helped provide the space to make expansion of the EITC to low wage workers without children part of the Democratic Party Platform.

Aside from one year in the past 10 years where I made bank, I've been a part of the working poor. There were days where I went hungry. I went years without a job. I know the struggle people have in this country.

I also know that without a Democratic president there wouldn't have been extended unemployment. I know that the FCC wouldn't have tried to step in to allow municipal broadband to expand, reversing state laws passed by lobbyists for AT&T. I know personally that privacy violations were worse under the Bush administration and this one has tried (not always successfully) to balance security and privacy issues.

This is not a game. Your metaphor is completely off, because there is no clock. There are people and what they do. That's it. People are what make up the system, people are what do things in the system. And ultimately, it is people who make changes to the system.

We live in a first-past-the-post electoral system. Structurally, those electoral systems lead to two party systems. Any other parties end up acting purely as spoilers. A vote for a spoiler ends up being a vote for the other party. If you can live with that, fine, we are at an impass. But voting for the leftmost viable candidate in a general election is your best bet for actually getting any of the goals you profess accomplished.

You don't think there's a clock, but you think you've got a handle on the economic disadvantages the left is facing on the whole? We're going to have to agree to strongly disagree then, because I don't believe you do.

Your worldview is even more apocalyptic than the right. How the hell do you get out of bed?

I have people I care about who rely on me.

Ahh Responsibility.

This is something I worry about a lot. As the Democratic Party gets pulled further and further to the right, less and less of the "left" seem to be concerned by our foreign policy. People who say "Drones are good because they put less of our troops at risk." seem to ignore that we used to be against the idea of war because it had consequences, not just here, but afar as well. I do wonder if we'll reach a point of no return where our moral compass will become stuck and the voices that call for it to adjust will be unable to find a platform that lets them be heard.

Lefties leaving the party instead of staying to push it leftward won't help.

Competition of a far left party would probably help quite a bit actually. It normalizes the less extreme views that lean towards that direction and makes them more likely to be accepted by the mainstream. The biggest problem we're going to have with getting Berniecrats elected as Dems is going to come from within the party by status quo party liners who will attempt to dismiss them as radicals. As long as your most legitimate extreme view is coming from the far right, center will always be towards it. That's a defining feature of Third Way politics.

The examples that come to mind all involve moving existing parties right or left. It's easier to get movement in primary contests (or threats of primary opponents) than general elections.

Wait! Steele is complaining about the Republican Party pulling the Democratic Party too far to the right and the only examples you can come up with are movement from primary contests?

Somehow, you misread that sentence.

The examples that come to mind all involve moving existing parties right or left.

Strong personalities can seem to create change. LBJ moved the Ds leftward, Reagan moved the Rs rightward. Economic events and wars and mass protest movements are other ways.
I didn't say primaries are the only way to get movement, but an easier way than third party.

I didn't misread it all. Steele addressed a specific concern of one party moving another party and then how best the left could leverage it. And if you want to talk about primaries, if you think current Hillary Clinton would be a viable candidate if Trump hadn't been playing batshit crazy for the past year you're kidding yourself. The parties don't exist in a vacuum. The Democratic party only had the Republicans to play off of, soon they'll have the libertarians which will absorb even more of the news cycle and make the ideas of the left seem even more outlandish.

Should I just link to here and save us both time? ;)

OK, I'll just go look in The Book for the big list of third-party accomplishments.

The Books! with an S! Hey, if it gets you reading them. ;) It's strange how many people on this site seem to be averse to reading up new material on a topic that they spend so much of their time arguing about. Probably why so many of my discussions have gone to PMs :(

Also, good luck with that. It's almost as if there's a conspiracy against allowing a third party to become viable :P

I read the Thomas Frank book, I just didn't come to the same conclusion you did. I can't be chasing all of your reading list; I'm getting older, and have to budget my time.

I'll keep that in mind. But you're also one of the biggest proponents on this website I've seen for putting the situation we're in on the shoulders of the voters. If you're not going to keep yourself up to date, how can you blame others for doing the same?

I read SE faithfully every day.

And I appreciate that, but the site is an echo chamber and if we want it to grow and keep up with the world we each need to do our part to examine the information happening outside of it. So if you've finished up Listen, Liberal I'd appreciate if you could pop your thoughts into the review post when you have time. :)

I am on Chapter 2

I've made some notes for that. But like, right now, I have to go pick up my wife from work.
:)

The Democratic Party has continued to be pulled further to the left in recent years, not to the right. Even in foreign policy terms, the Democratic Party continues to be the anti-war party.

I think the larger issue is that the Democratic Party has not wanted to engage seriously in discussions of foreign policy due to two facts: we still suffer credible threats of terrorist activity, and the Party doesn't want to appear weak on terror.

The issue of drone strikes is seriously problematic, but the alternative is usually sending in Special Forces to eliminate the target. Sometimes that is the better alternative, and it has been done from time to time. Changing the drone rules of engagement to reduce civilian casualties has been important, but there does need to be more oversight, even if it is classified or limited to Congress. But ultimately, drone strikes will continue so long as people take steps to harm Americans at home or abroad.

While I appreciate the input, InsipidUsername, I'm afraid I'm going to have to join Raph with largely disagreeing with much of what you're saying. As someone who did my own time in the service you remind me of the folks who were a bit too trustful of the chain of command. In addition, information is kind of my thing, with a major obsession over quantifying the how's and why's of belief. If you want to say Democratic party has been pulled to the left on social issues? Sure, I'll agree with that, even if it may be largely pandering on their part. But economically and foreign policy? Noooooo. They serve different corporate interest than the right, to be sure. Which may lean towards different methods of fucking with other countries, but they're not on the side of those who carry the Complex on their shoulders.

I'm not trustful of the chain of command. I once inadvertently scuttled a military plan by reminding them of the Posse Comitatus Act. This plan had been hatched at the flag officer level. This was not something they had been intending to violate, mind you, but it took someone outside the groupthink to make them realize what they were planning was illegal.

It is deeply troubling to me that American citizens have been killed with drone strikes, largely because it strikes me as a due process violation. These were not Americans who were taking up arms and were killed on the battlefield. They were targeted due to terrorist activities, and as such, they should have been captured and tried for their actions in a court of law, not summarily executed via Presidential Finding.

If you're really interested in what goes on behind closed doors, William J. Daugherty's book, Executive Secrets: Covert Action and the Presidency, is a good book to read to understand the process of how covert action is authorized.

As for economic and foreign policy, the Democratic party has pulled to the left on both accounts.

Opposition to the Iraq War was the position the Left took, and time has shown conclusively that was the correct position to take. The Democratic Party has largely followed the President's lead in foreign policy, pulling away from war, leaving Iraq, and trying not to interfere when American interests were not directly implicated. The Democratic Party has largely endorsed diplomacy over military action, and the Iran nuclear deal would not have happened without it. It's not a leftish foreign policy by any means, but it more to left than was true 20 years ago.

As for economic policy, the Party has pulled to the left there as well. While in bed with the entertainment industry and others dependent upon intellectual property, the Party supports the activities of organized labor, has been much tougher on the banks, has had an actual Antitrust Division for what seems like the first time since the Microsoft trial, and has been working to make the Federal Reserve do the other half of its job.

Does the Democratic Party support the Left? No. But politics is often about coalitions, joining with people who don't necessarily agree with you on everything. The Democratic Party is the only major party that believes there's a problem with income inequality. Sec. Clinton has shown that she is willing to be pushed left, on trade, on economic policy, on racial inequality, ending the prison-industrial complex, on tightening financial regulation on the banks, on restraining the worst impulses of capitalism. I say we push her as far as we can.

While I'll give you credit for recognizing the deep associations between the Democratic party and the Entertainment industry and other IP magnates, saying the Democratic party supports the activities of Organized labor is the kind of misapprehension many of us in this thread are talking about. Powerful factions (of which Clinton is one of them) within the Democratic Party are pushing trade agreements that are dangerously threatening to organized labor and the rest of the lower classes. And until she's actually in office (heaven forbid) you've got no proof you're pushing her anywhere on these issues other than to hide behind the curtain of Dark Money. I mean, hell, to quote Barack Obama, "She'll say anything, and change nothing" Can't say I agree with much else you've written either, (much tougher on the banks, really? :P ) though I will take your book recommendation and add it to my list. I just finished up America's War for the Greater Middle East by Bacevich if you'd like a recommendation of my own.

It's not a misapprehension to say the Democratic Party supports organized labor. It does - it doesn't do it enough, it doesn't do it consistently, and not everyone is supportive (I'm looking at you Cory Booker). The Democratic Party has been a bad friend to organized labor over time, much like it has been to other groups in its coalition. A decade ago I wasn't as supportive of unions as I am today. But card check is now in the platform, and President Obama's NRLB has been issuing union favorable rulings left and right.

As for issues of global trade, Sec. Clinton's record on trade is much better than people give her credit for. Clinton opposed CAFTA, which has been a disaster. And while Clinton supported the TPP as Secretary of State, there were three years of negotiations after she left office. Clinton opposed the TPP once it was finalized.

Global trade has the potential to make the entire world better off, especially poorer countries, but as we have experienced with NAFTA, failing to recognize that there will be winners and losers and that we need to help the losers, and failing to ensure that basic protections for workers, the environment, and public health are part of these agreements is a recipe for disaster.

And no, I don't have proof about how Clinton has been pushed, whether she is sincere in her beliefs, or whether this is just political expediency. But let me put it this way: where's your proof that she hasn't changed her opinions?

Because you either accept that people can change, can grow, can evolve, or you don't. I've written elsewhere in this thread how that happened with me. I'm willing to believe that it has happened with her, that she changed her opinion on major issues. If you are unwilling to grant her that possibility, then you are implicitly denying the possibility that people can change, can grow, can evolve, can progress.

I mean, hell, to quote Barack Obama, a guy who worked with her for 4 years, "I’ve seen her determination to give every American a fair shot at opportunity, no matter how tough the fight was. That’s what has always driven her, and it still does."

And yes, Clinton is and was tougher on the banks. If you want to break up the big banks (which I do) and make sure they stay broken up, the real way is for Congress to overturn US v. Philadelphia National Bank by amending our antitrust laws. Banking is different from a competition standpoint as you get larger market capitalizations, so breaking them up is what we should do. So while I agree with Sanders that the big banks should be broken up, that is a process that will take a while, and it will do almost nothing to ensure they don't mess things up in the meanwhile.

The actual proposals that Clinton made are more likely to address issues of financial instability caused by the shadow banking system, a much more pernicious and opaque area that had much more to do with the financial collapse of 2008 than just the size of financial institutions. Mike Konczal had a good review of both Sanders and Clinton's plans early in the campaign:
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9482521/hillary-clinton-financial-reform

This was something that was galling for me to admit during the campaign, both because I supported Sanders, and because I've written elsewhere about how the banking market is different as banks get larger, because the larger the size of the loan, the fewer the banks that are able to offer that. Fewer banks able to offer that loan product means less competition, so as bank size increases, the less competition they face. But the question of the size of banks is ultimately different from questions of stability and questions of enforcement, on which Clinton had well-thought positions early in the campaign.

I just added Bacevich's book to my hold list at the local library. I saw it before and passed it by, but I'll give it a shot.

Look, man (or woman), your heart is in the right place, I'm sure. I appreciate you're passionate about this idea of Hillary being able to evolve and all that, but it's just not flying. You want to vote for her, that's cool, you do you. But trying to talk her up to others as this reformed saint while she continues to lie about shit is only hurting your reputation, not helping hers. Can people change and grow? Sure, why not? But when someone does so only when it appears to be to get them something they want and then has no problem changing back when it's convenient again? No, no thank you. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, well, you can't get fooled again.

We can leave it at this, take care. :)

+1 sad but true.

And to make a different point, the real problem isn't that the Republican candidate is a supervillain. It's that he's an idiot, a racist, and someone who has no business being at the helm of government.

The last Republican president was an idiot who lied us into a war, committed war crimes, gave tax breaks to the rich, screwed the poor, and helped tank the global economy.

Hell, if the Republicans nominated a supervillain, I'd be thrilled. At least nominate someone who is intelligent enough to evil their way out of a paper bag. I can see the slogan now: Victor Von Doom 2020 - I'm competently evil.

Plus, thanks to Bernie Sanders, the Democratic platform is the most progressive in decades ('in history' according to Sanders himself) and Hillary Clinton, on paper anyway, is the most progressive nominee since George McGovern. Of course the hard-core Bernie Sanders Jill Stein devotees will dismiss this assessment, but at this point it's clear that there's as big a disconnect between the idealistic left and the pragmatic left as there is between left and the right.

The platform is the most progressive it has ever been. The platform calls for:
1. A $15 minimum wage, indexed to inflation, along with ends to subminimum wages for tipped workers and those with disabilities
2. 12 weeks of paid family and medical leave
3. A public option for the Affordable Care Act
4. Lowering the age to buy into Medicare to 55
5. Doubling support for community health centers
6. An end to mass incarceration
7. Reform of mandatory minimum sentences
8. Closing private prisons and detention centers
9. An end to the death penalty
10. Card check for union organization

And much more besides. Sanders and his proxies didn't win every battle they fought for in the platform, but it is by and large a significant movement left for the Democratic Party.

Haha! Good luck with that.

I don't envy the man. Hopefully the people that answered his call to get involved understand the situation he's in and continue to follow through. But, yes, there's a lot of hurt people out there. I've seen similar sentiments on Robert Reich's feed. Though I think he's trying to hold onto his new followers as much as possible by still questioning what the Democratic Party will do at the convention. On one side it's the Bernie fans hurt and lashing out over the endorsement and on other side it's the Hillary fans claiming he's undermining her candidacy by talking about how badly she's polling.

And if anybody still cares...this is how you advance a progressive agenda.

His presidential aspirations behind him, Bernie Sanders is looking ahead to a busy future in which he continues to focus on nothing less than transforming the Democratic Party and the country.

Bernie Sanders will launch organizations to spread progressive message

I saw. And good for him. He'll have my support.

Sanders said he wants to make sure candidates receiving such help are, in fact, progressive. But they don’t have to be Democrats.

“If you have some strong independents who would like to run, it would be my inclination to support them,” he said.