Bernie Sanders, Integrity & the Nevada Caucus "English Only" Controversy | Gaius Plubius

[nashville_brook]

Bernie Sanders, Integrity & the Nevada Caucus "English Only" Controversy
If Clinton wins, she'll need the Sanders supporters in November. Is the the way to woo them?
http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/02/bernie-sanders-integrity-nevada-english.html


Dolores Huerta, one of the great Latina activists and a Hillary Clinton surrogate

This Is Not About Dolores Huerta; It's About the Campaign Style She's Supporting Dolores Huerta, like John Lewis, has a greatness in her past that can never be erased. She co-founded the United Farm Workers union and led them until 1999. This is not about Ms. Heurta but the style of the campaign with which she has associated herself.

I'll be blunt. Among other things, this is an election about integrity, about whether one tells the truth. It's clear, agree or disagree on policy or implementation, that Sanders has integrity in spades. His "who do you most trust?" numbers are through the roof in every primary and caucus so far. Part of his appeal is his message, but a huge other part is the belief of his supporters that he means that message and is not just out to win by any means necessary.

Clinton may mean her message as well. But she faces a challenge in the eyes of Sanders supporters. The challenge — if Hillary Clinton wins the primary, she will have to pass the integrity test also if she wants their support. There are ways to demonstrate integrity, and ways to demonstrate otherwise. Not telling the truth is no way to demonstrate integrity; it's the opposite, in fact.

Time to course-correct? If she cares about her electoral chances in November, I hope so.

See more at: http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2016/02/bernie-sanders-integrity-nevada-english.html#sthash.2Nb6o0ZI.dpuf

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. The lesson to be learned by Bernie supporters, especially ones who observe or participate on

caucus or primary day, is RECORD EVERYTHING you legally can, especially when high profile Clinton surrogates are on hand. You very well might wind up with the piece of evidence that disproves the next smear attempt.

[Warren Stupidity]

2. indeed. We are moving into a world where the body cam is an essential piece of clothing.

[DirkGently]

7. Bad 90's tactics aren't working anymore.

Everything IS recorded. Small lies travel quickly, but not more quickly than Snopes.com.

Just as concerning is the mindset that "this is how you win."

Should Clinton win the primary as she is still forecast to do, this casual, easily-disproved lying, like Capehart's little Photogate stunt, will blow up in their faces every time in the General Election.

People vote for people. And when they see someone trying to win this way, they are either repulsed and stay away, or motivated to fight against it.

You don't win things this way. It was transparent and ineffective in 2008, and it hasn't gotten any better with age.

[Wilms]

4. The presidency is not about integrity, you say?

K

[nashville_brook]

5. no -- please do argue the integrity. b/c you have nothing.

the "free stuff" concerns are the same things we hear from lobbyists who decry the "makers and takers." is that where you're going?

the point is our side must differentiate with integrity against the other side. otherwise, we've got nothing.

[DirkGently]

8. Hillary 2016. Because "Americans will vote for a person of questionable integrity."

Swell argument.

Please, proceed, Governor.

And speaking of the viability of the "laugh fest" of single-payer plans, turns out the joke's on countries that don't have one. Countries like ours.

“If the US were to shift to a system of universal coverage and a single payer, as in Canada, the savings in administrative costs [10 percent of health spending] would be more than enough to offset the expense of universal coverage” (“Canadian Health Insurance: Lessons for the United States,” 90 pgs, ref no: T-HRD-91-90. Full text available online at http://archive.gao.gov/d20t9/144039.pdf).

[DirkGently]

10. Hillary 2016: "Deal with it."

What American voter will be able to resist such trenchant and persuasive logic?

[DirkGently]

12. It's certainly better than

"Because Americans will vote for a person of questionable integrity."

Run it up the flag pole; see who salutes?

[DirkGently]

14. Yeah, that one's a concern troll's fever dream.

No one, of course, in the history of Republican attacks, could ever receive a fraction of the gleeful Republican attacks than would a Hillary Clinton candidacy.

[nashville_brook]

15. that's exactly the genius branding that lost the Ds 1000 seats since Obama took office.

and you see it SO often here.

wonders never cease.

[DirkGently]

16. I find your lack of faith ....

disturbing.




The Empire will crush your puny Revolution. We already have the Super-delegates.

[DirkGently]

6. Same campaign she lost in 2008.

At this point one has to assume cynical arguments about "inevitability," arguments from authority, and various smears and identity politics dog whistles are the candidate's choice.

I keep wanting to blame bad advice, but I think it's too late to give that benefit of the doubt anymore.

Clinton started with a dignified mode and an appeal based on her efficacy and experience. Good arguments.

Then as soon as any viable contest materialized, it was back to the same "There is no ' magic wand' / aim lower" angle we saw vs Obama -- the argument America so soundly rejected then.

And this whole frantic push that endorsements and super delegates can overcome popular opinion SO GIVE UP ALREADY mode is both sad and kind of funny.

No one has ever, or will ever, win an election by telling people to expect less, or that they simply can't win. It's cynical, depressing, and frankly a bit batty.