Are you kidding me?
Editor of the Reformer:
The Washington Post reported (April 22) that, in an MSNBC interview, Bernie Sanders said he would wait to see what Hillary Clinton includes in her platform before deciding how actively to campaign for her in the fall if she is the party's nominee.
When asked "whether he could try to persuade his young supporters to back Clinton in the same fashion that she supported President Obama after losing the nomination to him," Sanders said. "Well, first of all, I've got to find out what her platform is, what the views are that she is going to be bringing forth, to what degree she will adopt many of the ideas that I think are extremely popular and I think very sensible."
I want to see the Democratic Party have the courage to stand up to big-money interests in a way that they have not in the past, take on the drug companies, take on Wall Street, take on the fossil fuel industry, and I want to see them come up with ideas that really do excite working families and young people in this country.
Sanders has got to be kidding.
It's hard to believe that he has not yet learned that establishment cronies, regardless of sex, who suck at the teat of Wall Street, will promise anything. Does he really think that Clinton and the Democratic Party are going to "stand up to big-money interests," "take on the drug companies," "take on Wall Street," "take on the fossil fuel industry," all based upon some glorious, inspiring, and creative language crafted for their platform by an underling young Democrat English major?
Add drums and bugles if you like, but Clinton still is part of the problem, not the solution. "Read my lips — no new taxes!" "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." "I am not a crook." "We found the weapons of mass destruction." "We are not about to send American boys nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing ..."
Does Sanders really believe that Clinton-Female is different from Clinton-Male and from every other person who ever sat in the Oval Office, that she will not misrepresent, that she will not lie, that she will not dissemble, that she actually will follow through on some grandiose Democratic Party platform?
Bismarck reminded us never to believe anything until it is officially denied. But the corollary is never to believe anything while it is officially confirmed. Believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see. Human experience informs these epigrammatic little aphorisms, and they have legitimacy. So ... does Sanders really believe that, if the Democratic Party adopts some pretentious platform with concepts that he can embrace, Clinton or the Democratic Party actually will follow through on any of it? Indeed, wasn't it his disbelief in the first place that launched him on his quest?
Sanders abandons his supporters by saying that he is waiting to see the Democratic platform in order to determine if he will support Clinton. Don't we know already that Clinton is not going "to stand up to big-money interests," quite regardless of any rhetoric in her platform. Is this the way Sanders' quest ends, Not with a bang but a whimper?
It would be refreshing to see Sanders tell the country to not support Clinton, to reject her and her symbiotic relationship with Wall Street, to reject her entrenched position within the Washington Eestablishment, to reject her hypocrisy.
Better we have some ultraconservative, bombastic loudmouth standing far to the right of Attila (the usual benchmark) who makes clear his reactionary views, untarnished (if you will) by rhetorical façade, rather than an entrenched, establishment "liberal," who will promise us anything, but won't even give us Arpege. Both may be anatomically attached to the likes of Goldman Sachs, et al., but at least with the former, we will always know exactly what we have to deal with.
Stephen L. Fine, Athens, April 25