Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Why won't the stupid socialist quit?

DCblogger's picture

That essentially is what Barney Frank is saying here. It is a good sign from Sanders point of view, clearly Clinton's team is worried.

5
Average: 5 (1 vote)
Updated: 

Comments

paintedjaguar's picture
Submitted by paintedjaguar on

Barney Frank: "there is a counter-argument made by some on the Democratic left [...] that Clinton will somehow benefit from having to spend most of her time and campaign funds between now and next summer proving her ideological purity [...] rather than focusing on her differences with the conservative she will face..."

"Rather than"? Did I miss something? Wouldn't "proving her ideological purity" mean pretty much exactly the same thing as focusing on how she is different from a conservative? Well, unless she in fact isn't much different.

"I regard liberal senators’ support for the Iraq War as a response to a given fraught political situation rather than an indication of their basic policy stance."

So? Even if I believed that, who gives a fig about someone's "basic policy stance" if she won't actually stand up for that when it really counts?

"There is [...] no chance — perhaps regrettably — for Sanders to win a national election."

Well, no. Certainly not if those who claim to agree with his positions refuse to actually support him. Can't argue with that logic.

The remainder of Frank's discourse is too subtle for me. He seems to be saying that Hillary will campaign on supporting the same sort of popular policies that Sanders supports ("she in turn will stress her commitment to the reforms that respond to the public’s dissatisfaction with the economic status quo") and that the Republicans in response will both (a) claim that she doesn't mean it, and (b) claim that she means it but doesn't really believe in those policies.

No doubt Frank is correct about the Republicans. If a meteor were to fall from the sky and strike Bernie down an hour from now, Frank would still be right about the Republicans, as they will certainly fling whatever poo they can dream up without any regard for truth or consistency.

I notice that Frank has nothing to say regarding whether Hillary would actually support any such policies after the election.

Submitted by lambert on

But I'm really of two minds.

The Democrats have been catering to this faction for most of my adult life. To the destruction of the party and to the great detriment of what I regard as sound public policy. (Clinton's doing it, to -- leaving the minimum wage "up to the states," forsooth.)

So the "Mad as hell and not going to take it" party of me thinks of what Kos, back in the day, called the "Lincoln 1860" strategy; just write off the states in the former Confederacy.

On the other hand, that would also write off a lot of tough-minded lefties. That seems a little offensive.

But this practice of running Republicans as Democrats has to stop -- and will stop, when enough of them have lost. But when the Democrats "hit bottom," and can start the recovery process.... That I don't know.