I’m a Hillary Clinton supporter, but as I’ve said for months, I like Bernie Sanders as well. Though I will admit, I have been openly critical of Sanders’ campaign tactics over the last few weeks. Especially some of the hypocrisy; if Hillary Clinton had said or done some of these things, she would have been crushed.
For example, Sanders bashing superdelegates for months – only to now publicly state that they’re part of his strategy to win. Then there’s his campaign trying to claim that they lost in the South so badly because they didn’t “try” to win there (when they obviously did), clearly wanting to diminish Clinton’s big victories, while ignoring the fact he outspent her in Florida and South Carolina – yet still got hammered in both states. This was a lie that even Rachel Maddow called out.
But this is all just normal political jargon. The main thing that’s bothered me about it is that to listen to many Sanders supporters, he can do no wrong. Whereas every single thing Clinton does or even doesn’t do (aka things her husband signed into law) they hold against her. It’s now common for quite a few pro-Sanders “liberals” to use talking points taken straight from the Karl Rove playbook to bash and attack Clinton.
I’m realistic about politics and politicians. While I support Hillary Clinton, and I would support Bernie Sanders if he wins the nomination, I don’t worship either one. When I see rabid Clinton or Sanders supporters, while I admire their zeal, I always find it a bit absurd to be overly infatuated with a politician – any politician.
But it’s amazing how so many Sanders supporters have tried to “shame” me for being a Clinton supporter. I’ve been called a Republican, a fake progressive, a hack, a sellout and all sorts of other insults simply for supporting one of the most admired women in the world. Someone who’s not nearly as bad as many of the more radical Sanders people think she is. Though when you wrap yourself up inside of the “Bernie bubble,” where you’re following propagandists like H.A. Goodman or other anti-Clinton liberals (many of these people aren’t pro-Sanders as much as they’re simply anti-Clinton), you’re often inundated with a never-ending stream of “Clinton is the devil, Sanders is the next coming of Jesus Christ” themed stories that, over months, almost amount to indoctrination.
That’s pretty much what this primary has turned into. It’s Hillary Clinton supporters, who are a-typical, every-single-election type of voters and Democrats vs. a wave of idealism, idealists and people who’ve become infatuated with a movement and a presidential candidate. A movement that, quite honestly, is more fiction than reality. I’m sorry Sanders folks, but how can you rationally continue to talk about “political revolutions” when your candidate is down more than 200 delegates; is behind over 2 million votes; and voter turnout in nearly every state is down from 2008?
I don’t get it.
Not only that, but are you aware that Sanders hasn’t raised a cent for down-ticket Democrats while Clinton has raised millions? That’s vital money the party uses to try to defeat Republicans at all levels of government – including Congress. Is it really a “sign” of a leader to claim he wants a “revolution” in politics… who’s not remotely helping elect the people that he would desperately need to pass his bold political promises? When Rachel Maddow asked him about this Wednesday night, he basically blew her off and said his focus is on winning the nomination.
That’s great, I get it. He’s an underdog going up against a massive and overwhelming favorite for the nomination. But being a leader is about focusing and doing more than one thing at a time. Especially when, as president, he would need many of these “down-ticket” Democrats to support his policies.
For the record, many of these superdelegates are those same “down-ticket” Democrats he hasn’t raised any money for. It’s a little hard for him to sell that they should support his candidacy when he doesn’t seem overly eager to help them.
I’m sure many of his supporters will dismiss this as “why should he help the DNC when they’re rigging the election for Clinton?” Well, that’s a conspiracy based on nonsense. So, the party is “rigging” the election for Clinton – except in the 15 contests where she’s lost? I guess the DNC forgot to “rig” Michigan, one of Sanders’ biggest wins this year. And where were they in Washington? That’s a state with a fairly large delegate haul. Did they forget to “rig” that one, too? I guess it’s the DNC’s fault that, in almost every single state, minority voters are overwhelmingly voting for Clinton?
Which is really where this race has been won or lost: The minority vote.
I’m sorry, but when people start trying to spin conspiracy theories, that’s typically a sign when they’ve tapped out on caring about reality.
While I know it doesn’t seem like it sometimes, I do like Bernie Sanders. If he becomes the nominee, as I’ve said for months, I’ll fight for him just as I would Hillary Clinton. I think he has a lot of great ideas, I simply prefer Clinton. Again, it is possible to like both candidates but simply support one more than the other for various reasons.
My issue here really isn’t with him (while some of his hypocrisies bother me, I’m realistic when it comes to politics and understand that for every politician hypocrisy is often a part of the process), but many of these more “Bernie or bust” types have made this primary flat-out toxic. I know most pro-Sanders people are reasonable and rational. Like them, I understand the main goal this November is to keep one of these batshit crazy Republican candidates out of the White House. Even if that means voting for the candidate we didn’t support in the primary.
But I’ve described these “Bernie or bust” people who think writing him in will “teach the DNC a lesson” as folks who think it would be worth it to set off a nuclear weapon in a heavily populated area just to prove how horrific a nuclear war would be. Would that teach the world a lesson? Probably. But is it worth mass destruction and ruining millions of lives to “prove a point”?
Was it worth not voting for “not quite liberal enough Al Gore,” allowing George W. Bush to win in 2000? Can anyone really tell me that eight years of Gore would have been as bad, if not worse, than what we experienced under Bush? Because in 2000, that was the attitude by many on the “purist left” (and young voters) who ultimately ended up voting for Ralph Nader (or not at all) just to “make a statement.”
Tell me, how’d that work out? As the statement goes, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
So while I’m sure this article will get trashed by many pro-Sanders people, those who do are only proving the point. Which is fine.
I challenge those folks to tell me anything that I’ve said here that isn’t true. I’ve made a few key points:
- It’s fairly hypocritical for Sanders to now seek out the very same superdelegates he said shouldn’t matter a few months ago.
- He continues to talk about a “massive political revolution,” yet he’s down over 200 delegates, over 2 million votes and voter turnout has been lower than 2008 in nearly every state.
- Outside of Michigan, nearly every state he’s won has been predominately white with small minority populations.
- He hasn’t raised any money to help down-ticket Democrats.
- Some claim the primary is “rigged” for Clinton – yet he’s won 15 contests. Which is nearly half.
- His campaign claimed it didn’t try to win the South, which is why they lost so badly in many of those states – when it most certainly did. In fact it outspent her in a couple of the states.
Before I wrap this up, I can already tell some are going to say: You wrote that whole article and didn’t say one thing about why I should support Hillary Clinton!
That’s true, I didn’t. Because I’ve given up trying to use facts about Clinton’s record with many of the very radical Bernie Sanders crowd – they don’t care. I’ve lost count of how many myths I’ve debunked about Clinton to no avail. When facts, quotes and reality don’t seem to matter… why bother?
If you’re looking for an example of what I mean, click here.
But if you’d like me to tell you why Hillary Clinton isn’t as bad as you might think she is, again, hit me up on my Twitter or Facebook and I’ll be glad to discuss that if you’re someone who legitimately has an open mind.
As for everyone else who realizes this election is about voting blue, no matter who – thank you. This election might be one of the most important in many of our lifetimes. If we don’t keep Republicans out of the White House this November, not only will most of the progress we’ve made over the last few decades be undone, but this country may never recover from the unimaginable damage that they’ll do.
Whether you’re on “Team Clinton” or “Team Bernie” we must all come together once the nominee is chosen and become “Team Blue.”
Latest posts by Allen Clifton (see all)
- Rick Wilson Excoriates Trump Supporter: ‘Don’t You Dare Talk About Respect’ (Video) - March 17, 2018
- Everything Facebook’s Doing to Combat Fake News is Only Making the Problem Worse - March 16, 2018
- Fox News’ The Five Advocates Committing War Crimes, Denies Waterboarding is Torture (Video) - March 15, 2018