hillary clinton – RI Future

October 10, 2016October 10, 2016

The failure, and abiding danger, of Trump

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Michael D. Kennedy is a Professor of Sociology and International and Public Affairs at Brown University:

The candidacy of Donald J. Trump for President of the United States finds daily a new road to Hell, and threatens to drag the nation, and the world, down with it.

I wrote what follows before I watched the debate on October 9. Nothing in that disgusting spectacle changes my sense. I will, however, offer some concluding remarks about how the debate shapes my interpretation of the cultural political landscape in which this spectacle took place.

Trump is in a tailspin.

An Open Letter from Some Angry Women spelled out the list of affronts from Trump’s lips that have defined his campaign. His disgusting 2005 quotation led a number of Republicans to withdraw their endorsement, at last. Republicans are right to worry about the effects of a Presidential Election day debacle for their down ballot contests, and now they scramble to save their own, personal, electoral futures. But more is going down in flames than a few Senate chances.

The defining GOP alliance of evangelicals and free market advocates was already on shaky ground given that Trump is neither devout nor a believer in regulation by market. He believes in strong men being able to rewrite the rules of bankruptcy in order to make a buck and stiff the schmuck. Of course we all know, too, that the famous have the right to assault women according to the Trump holy scriptures.

While limiting reproductive health and rights for women has been a hallmark of many evangelical dispositions, celebrating the assault of their mothers, wives, and daughters has finally trumped the pragmatism motivated by their Supreme Court anxieties. If coherence of principles remains a conservative Christian priority, Evangelist Russell Moore’s op-ed last month will get many more readers as Trump’s lewd barbarism becomes ever more difficult to overlook.

Of course Trump’s destruction of the defining GOP alliance was preceded by the wreckage of its fantasized one.

Trump ruined the hopes of a new broader GOP alliance with his celebration of a wall that Mexico would pay for, but that was only the first of many “strong man” celebrations he would offer. His association with former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani, one of his surviving spokespersons, has moved Trump to continue celebrating the disastrous policies of “stop and frisk”. A smarter proto-fascist would have tried to build his authoritarianism on a broader base, but Trump’s ideology is just too deeply steeped in racism to be electorally triumphant. As one exceptionally well connected progressive friend predicted, Hillary Rodham Clinton should beat Trump in a landslide. The skeptic at that dinner table predicted HRC victory too, but worried about its certainty.

We ought worry, for our nation knows the risk of the October Surprise.

Trump’s tailspin risks us all

Those who leaked Clinton’s speeches to Wall Street only revealed what Bernie Sanders and everyone who embraced his commitment to ending Wall Street influence know: those speeches must have been “damned good” for Madame Secretary to have been paid so well for them. This is of course not really news, for we all know that you don’t earn your keep by offending your hosts. However, it does give those opposed to a Clinton victory the chance to redirect her possible supporters to the Green Party or to the Libertarians. Trump’s campaign is very happy about this release, of course, for those who vote for Stein, or stay home, implicitly keep Trump’s hopes alive. Putin is among his greatest supporters.

I am no cold warrior, but neither am I naïve about Putin’s Russia. I have spent my academic career analyzing Soviet-type societies and then the transformations of post-communist countries. While we ought be focused on how Putin’s regime has redrawn European state boundaries by invading Ukraine (contrary to Trump’s understanding, reflecting something more than his careless language ) and by committing war crimes in Syria, we need be much more cautious about how Putin’s skillful manipulation of democratic public opinion within his adversaries’ nations leads to state breakdown.

Putin, and Trump, have celebrated Brexit – not because they care for globalization’s dispossessed, but because railing against global elites creates room for their brands of militarism and fascism to gain ground. Putin does not stop there, of course – his aim is, ultimately, to weaken both the European Union and NATO, the latter of which Trump has found “obsolete” We ought, therefore, be wary of how Putin will try to maneuver Trump into the White House with his regime’s considerable capacities in information warfare.

In the end, however, I agree with my optimistic friend. Should Clinton manage to mobilize those who justifiably fear a Trump regime’s ruin of US international standing and its promised assault on our existing standards of rights for women, people of color, and others (including the dispossessed white folks who celebrate his promise of a return to greatness), we should see a rout of Trump and those who continue to support him. But that won’t be the end of Trump.

I don’t mean a new season of The Apprentice. Trump has given license to those who, in the name of opposing political correctness, feel free to demean and harm, in speech and in practice, those they consider inferior. He has encouraged his supporters to think that, should he lose, he was robbed of the victory by illegal means. As a former Pennsylvanian myself, I can readily read his racist surmise when he tells his supporters to observe the polls in certain places.

When Trump loses, do you think his supporters will retreat to their private resentments for the erosion of white privilege in America?

The Morning After

I wrote the preceding on the morning before the debate, and now the morning after.

I found Michelle Goldberg’s account of the debate most HRC sympathetic – while the Secretary could not quite hold onto Michelle Obama’s high road all the time, she did pull us back toward rational democratic deliberation despite the menacing hulk looming behind her, despite Trump’s threat to imprison her should he be elected.

Those who declare Trump’s victory in debate can do so only because he has so effectively diminished not only our expectations of what a GOP candidate ought bring. He has helped mobilize the flames of ressentiment so effectively that it overwhelms any politics of respect, whether toward his opponent or toward his Muslim American interlocutor, or towards “the African Americans and the Hispanics”. He advocates a new sense of justice with the rule of law and constitutional integrity as potential casualties. Trump consolidated his base in the debate and in the preceding press conference with such bravado and bullying that he won’t be eclipsed. Those who seek to save the Republican Party will have to go to battle, and not wait for his never-to-come resignation.

Barring some extraordinary October surprise, Trump has not only failed in his campaign, but has destroyed the Republican Party in the process. But he remains dangerous. In fact, without the moderating force of the GOP mainstream, he becomes even more threatening. Trump has fertilized with his lies, grandstanding, and celebrity surmises, with his BS, a measure of white supremacy, bald patriarchy and proto-fascism on American soil I would have never anticipated. Those who embrace that vision will not be quieted with an electoral victory by Hillary Rodham Clinton. I fear, by contrast, they will be incensed.

This last month of campaigning is not just about who wins the White House. It’s about whether the culture of this contest paves the road to Hell or gives us a chance to reroute toward the Promised Land. I pray for the latter, but the sociologist in me fears the former.

Michael D. Kennedy, Professor of Sociology and International and Public Affairs, Brown University

homepages:

http://www.brown.edu/academics/sociology/michael-kennedy

http://watson.brown.edu/people/faculty/kennedy

https://brown.academia.edu/MichaelKennedy

@Prof_Kennedy on twitter

Now Available! Globalizing Knowledge: Intellectuals, Universities and Publics in Transformation. Stanford University Press http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24607

Address: Box 1916 Maxcy Hall Brown University 108 George Street Providence, RI 02912 Fax: (401) 863-3213

October 6, 2016October 6, 2016

Sixty percent of Catholic voters say that abortion can be a moral choice

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Catholics for Choice has released a new poll that “the story of what Catholic opinions might mean at the voting booth come November 8.” According to the polling data, 46 percent of Catholic voters support Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, and 40 percent support Republican candidate Donald Trump.

Key findings include:

Latinos, Catholic women and Catholic millennials show the largest support for Clinton over Trump.
Sixty percent of Catholic voters say that the views of the Catholic hierarchy are not important to them when they are deciding who to vote for in the presidential election.
Six in ten Catholic voters do not feel an obligation to vote the way the bishops recommend.
Sixty percent of Catholic voters say that abortion can be a moral choice.
Seventy-two percent believe that abortion should be available to pregnant women who have contracted the Zika virus.
Seventy percent of Catholics do not think that companies should be allowed to use the owner’s religious beliefs as a reason to deny services to a customer or employee.

Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice said, “The Catholic vote is like a jump ball in basketball—every election it comes into play and both parties try to claim it as their own. As it represents 25 percent of the electorate, considerable effort goes into trying to determine which team will grab it. However, as this new poll shows what we’ve always known: Catholics are concerned with social justice and compassion and do not vote with the bishops, no matter how much the bishops try to project their own beliefs onto this section of the electorate.”

The poll was conducted before the vice presidential debate between Democrat Tim Kaine and Republican Mike Pence, where the two squared off on religious liberty and abortion, but in a statement released after the debate Catholics for Choice said, “Catholics act according to their own conscience and they do not stand with the Catholic hierarchy on abortion, access to healthcare or the rise of religious refusals backed by the bishops, and similarly do not think they nor Catholic politicians have an obligation to vote according to the Bishops. In fact, Senator Tim Kaine said it was not the role of a public servant to mandate their faith through government, and on fundamental issues of morality, like abortion, we should let women make those decisions.”

Rhode Island is routinely said to be the most Catholic of the United States.

September 18, 2016September 18, 2016

RI Dems turn out to launch local Hillary headquarters

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

A full roster of elected officials and almost 200 people packed the Rhode Island Democratic headquarters in Warwick Saturday morning to kick off a statewide effort to support presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. The storefront office was standing room only as the governor and our congressional delegation energized attendees with their perspectives on the race and the importance of a Clinton win.

The rally, which began at 10:30, lasted about half an hour, after which many of the attendees pulled out cell phones and laptops and began to make calls for Clinton. Governor Gina Raimondo started off the event by talking about the critical nature of November’s choice.

“There’s more at stake in this election than any I can remember in my lifetime, because the consequences of Trump presidency are so terrible that it’s hard to even fathom,” said Raimondo.

She went on to talk about what she says when asked by voters why she supports Hillary, stressing Clinton’s values and experience. “Hillary’s values are what I believe are the right ones: making college affordable, investing in K-12 education and universal preschool, raising the minimum wage, investing in infrastructure and building an economy from the middle out, not from the top down. And she’s the most experienced person ever to run for the US Presidency.”

Sen Jack Reed picked up on the theme of experience. “She is the best prepared individual to lead this country that I have seen in my lifetime. On the other side, we have an individual that lacks the emotional, experiential abilities to be President. That is obvious for all to see.”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse drew on American and Rhode Island history to make his case for Clinton. “People say that we have a divided country. Well, we do. But in our history, we had a country so divided that we were fighting a civil war. And in that civil war, we could not have been more divided. What did the President then do? He called us to the ‘better angels of our nature.’ Donald Trump stirs the darkest demons of our nature.”

Whitehouse continued, “Bigotry is deplorable. Period. And that’s a Rhode Island lesson that goes back to when George Washington, when he was campaigning for President, wrote to a Rhode Island synagogue guaranteeing that it would always be the policy of the United States to give ‘to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.’” Said Whitehouse, “Tell that to Donald Trump.”

Rep. Jim Langevin (D-2) echoed Whitehouse, saying that Trump draws on some of his followers’ worst impulses. “I hope that when we go to the polls in November that we speak loud and clear as a nation that we reject that kind of politics.”

“This election,” said Rep. David Cicciline (D-1), “is a referendum on the founding principles of this country. We’re a country that was founded on the ideas that everyone should be treated with dignity, free from discrimination, that everyone should have an opportunity to get ahead, have access to quality education, make decisions about their own healthcare, and in so many ways, this is a referendum on those ideas.” He added a pointed personal observation: “Jim and I know first-hand serving in the House what the country would look like if Donald Trump and the Republican Party have their way.”

Democratic Party Chair Joe McNamara (RI D-19) closed the rally by asking the room to finish a few sentences by reading off cards that were handed out to attendees at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia. McNamara led the group in a series of powerful and emotional call-and-response prompts. “We know that we are stronger together,” said McNamara. “Under a Clinton administration, all families will…” The whole room shouted, “Rise Together.”

“And we know that bigotry will never prevail,” said McNamara, “because…” “Love trumps hate.”

“And with a President Clinton, we know that we will have…” “A future to believe in.”

As the attendees broke to make calls, a reporter for RI Future asked Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse specifically about the importance a Clinton win for efforts to combat climate change and protect Rhode Island’s shoreline.

Whitehouse cited two reasons that make a Democratic win essential. “First of all,” said Whitehouse, “Trump has gone down the sort of lunatic path of pretending that climate change is a hoax, and that all the scientists and every American scientific society, all the scientists at NASA and NOAA, the scientists at every American national lab, are all wrong or are in on some evil conspiracy. Which is almost creepy as a point of view, it’s so wrong.”

“And then, second, he’ll be representing a party that basically has become the political wing of the fossil fuel industry. So, for both of those reasons, it makes it far less likely that anything will get done if he’s the President. Now, Nature does not forgive, and sooner or later, it will become clear to everybody that we’ve made a terrible, terrible mistake. We just don’t want that realization to come too late.”

An RI Future reporter caught up with Rep. Cicilline to ask about the reticence of some to throw their support behind Clinton, and what he would say to local progressives who are still on the fence.

16sep17_kickoff_cicilline — Rep. David Cicilline

“Anyone who examines these two candidates carefully, who shares progressive values, frankly, the values of our Party, will see it’s very clear that there is only one candidate who both has a record of getting things done in this area, and also a set of policies that will really advance our country and move forward on many important progressive priorities. Ultimately, elections are about choices, and while I know there was a lot of enthusiasm for Sen. Sanders — and I’m a huge fan of his, he raised some incredibly important issues in the campaign — I think he would be the first to say that the campaign was not about him as a person, it was about a set of issues and a commitment to move forward on those issues.”

Cicilline continued that a Trump win, “Would set back our movement and our country significantly, and this is going to be a close election. We can’t take anything for granted. We need to work hard to vindicate the progressive values we care about by electing Sec. Clinton.”

August 15, 2016

Clinton is not a ‘lesser evil’

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

A recent RIF post got us into a “lesser evil” discussion about Hillary Clinton. While I disagree with her about a few issues, that doesn’t make her “evil.” Its bad enough the right-wing attack machine has smeared Clinton for so long, calling her “crooked” even though determined, relentless investigations going back to Whitewater, Vince Foster, Travelgate and more have never found anything crooked. For liberal/progressive sites to pile on is crazy.

I think there is no doubt Clinton will defend medicare/medicaid/social security, defend the medical insurance expansion of the ACA, stand up for reproductive freedom, the Iran nuclear deal, rights for immigrants, labor, the LGBT community, appoint reasonable Supreme Court justices, and maybe expand gun background checks, child care and family leave programs if Congress allows. Trump and the GOP will do the opposite on all of the above.

Of course Clinton is not perfect. I don’t trust her on trade, she may approve high levels of immigration that depress wages, she has been too quick to intervene in foreign countries such as Libya and Honduras. But she and Obama did try to wind down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, resisted pressure to do more military stuff in Syria and Iran, and are being criticized for that and for not doing even more killing in opposing ISIS. So I can’t see how putting these GOP critics in charge who got us into Iraq in the first place will do us any good.

On taxes, Trump is a mainstream GOP trickle-downer, proposing the end of estate taxes, big corporate and personal income tax reductions. We’ve been down that road, it would further transfer wealth to the 1%, further starve government programs. Clinton wouldn’t do that.

On the environment, Clinton would likely continue the mixed record of Obama while Trump and the GOP would be all in for coal and oil and fossil fuels, they even say they are. Clinton would resist the GOP assault on pubic land and on wildlife. And Transport Providence of all people should appreciate the Democratic support for bikes, transit, and trains (by the way, VP choice Tim Kaine promoted downtown Richmond passenger rail revival when he was Mayor), the national GOP wants to eliminate all Federal support for that.

Clinton is not a pacifist, socialist, or radical, so those that are have legit reasons for not backing her, but it still doesn’t make her “evil.” Not being in those categories, I see it as an easy choice to back Clinton, and not just because of Trump. Still, in Rhode Island we are so used to civil and reasonable Republicans who often back needed good government programs and watchdog excessive spending, we can forget the extremism of Trump and the national GOP these days.

I also frankly value the idea of finally electing a woman as President. Eight years ago plenty of progressives said that about a first black President, but its not cool to say that now about a real chance to elect the first woman.

As for the interminable e-mail stuff, nobody cared that previous GOP Secretaries of State used a private e-mail server at times, and rightfully so. While Clinton was ill-advised to do this, it doesn’t make her “evil” it is just a political attack point which Sanders himself thought was a distraction.

To sum up, though far from perfect, she is a reasonable and decent choice to support for President.

August 12, 2016August 12, 2016

The #MaybeHillary movement

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

#NeverHillary is a bit too flippant to me. The point of an election is to pressure a candidate, and get results. We have gotten some movement in the right direction, thanks to Bernie Sanders. Still, for many voters, there are still significant reasons not to want to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton. Instead of yelling “Never Hillary!” let’s take a more nuanced stance. It’s time for #MaybeHillary.

The #MaybeHillary movement is open to the idea that voting for a lesser evil is sometimes the right thing to do, but also seeks to push that lesser evil candidate to the maximum that is possible within the political situation. People who say that that’s already been done are ignoring Hillary Clinton’s very right-leaning (and sometimes rightwing) foreign policy stance, and her tepid stances on climate change.

The #MaybeHillary movement is also open to considering the relative strength or weakness of a Republican challenger. It should be agreed that we can’t allow a rightwing Republican like Donald Trump into office, but part of that equation should be constantly fine-tuning our assessment of just how likely his election is. With Republicans fleeing Trump for Clinton or sometimes even Gary Johnson, there is increasingly an opening to push Clinton to make sure she keeps and extends her progressive message.

The #MaybeHillary movement is also one that supports the idea of flexible strategies to reflect the differences of various states. Yes, it’s true that voting is a collective action, as Samuel G. Howard states, but in 2012, Barack Obama held Rhode Island by 27 points. Jill Stein would have to take that support, without Donald Trump losing any votes at all to the Libertarians, in order to act as a spoiler. And in a world where the Green Party did well enough to take 27 points of an election– even in a blue state– the political conversation on the Wednesday after election day would be one to look forward to.

Saying #MaybeHillary means not being aggressive and nasty to people who are voting for Clinton, because in an election like this one, who can blame voters for not wanting Donald Trump? Saying #MaybeHillary means being open to switching to Clinton if she satisfies enough major progressive pledges (for me, the two I think are most sorely missing are her foreign policy and climate change positions, but you can fill in your own in the comments section). Saying #MaybeHillary means having the kind of conversation with voters that can energize them to press the candidate for more in a viable way. The #NeverHillary movement shuts down conversations, and so does shaming people for voting their consciences. Let’s get people activated around issues, hold Clinton accountable, and get what we need.

August 9, 2016

The tension of the American third party

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Because I grew up in Rhode Island, am below the age of 30, and am a liberal, a lot of my friends this election season have abandoned following Bernie Sanders into the Democratic Party (however briefly) and instead pledged their support to Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for President.

This strikes me as poorly thought-out. While I can understand that in Rhode Island, the majority of voters are likely to vote Democratic, and thus many feel that it’s not a risk to vote Green (and are likely right) this is a problem of a collective action like voting: we only know the outcome when we know the outcome. Polling can tell us a probability of how our votes will be divided, but often that information is erroneously reported. Everyone works blindly, in a sort of prisoner’s dilemma; if enough people vote a certain way, they could throw the election to a person who would would be even worse.

This has been a factor in U.S. Presidential elections for a long time. Starting in 1828, Henry Clay and John Crawford made the results of that election inconclusive, Martin Van Buren could’ve prevented Lewis Cass from becoming President in 1848, Millard Fillmore likely spoiled the election for John Fremont in 1856, in 1912 William H. Taft spoiled it for Teddy Roosevelt (or possibly vice versa), in 1968 George Wallace arguably did in Hubert Humphrey, just as Ross Perot might’ve done to George H. W. Bush in 1992, and in 2000 Ralph Nader helped make George W. Bush president.

All of these took place in specific circumstances. 1828 was a breakdown of the dominance of the Democratic-Republican Party, and the emergence of true political parties in the United States. 1848 saw the rise of an explicitly anti-slavery party with a former president at its head, whereas in 1856 the former president was leading a nativist party that sought to ignore the issue of slavery. Taft and Roosevelt were both the sitting and the previous president, striving against one another as the Progressive movement sought to move out from merely being a cross-party group. 1968 was the breakdown of the New Deal coalition and the “party switch” that transferred segregationist white southerners into the Republican Party. And 1992 and 2000 were eras of relative prosperity where the presidency simply wasn’t too important.

Majorly, the thing to notice is that except for recently, almost all of these featured establishment politicians making plays for power. Only Perot and Nader are exceptional in lacking political office on that list, and the impact of their parties have been negligible. Clay helped establish the Whigs soon after 1828, Van Buren’s Free Soilers joined the Whigs to become the Republican Party within a decade, Fillmore’s American Party was already on the decline in 1856 after having achieved control of the U.S. House, but was absorbed into the Republicans. The Progressive movement basically had all three major candidates in support of its goals in 1912. Wallace’s pro-segregation supporters have been dog-whistled to for the last fifty years until Donald Trump put down the whistle and starting yelling things at the top of his lungs.

Meanwhile, Perot and Nader’s efforts have come to naught. The Reform Party is spent, and 16 years later, the Green Party is as much of a joke as it’s ever been. Their efforts for the presidency are not turning points in American political history, but rather quixotic ends to otherwise fine careers.

Now, I’ve been highly focused on presidential elections, and I think this highlights the issue of third parties. In the way things are structured in most states, third parties simultaneously must contest the highest possible office. This constantly forces them into the position of spoiler for other candidates more likely to win, making voters resistant to casting their ballot for the third party. This Duverger’s law in action – a system like the United States’, with plurality voting and single-member districts, forces there to be mainly two parties.

What’s the current most successful third party in the United States? It’s not the Greens or the Libertarian Party. It’s the Vermont Progressive Party. The Progressives there have two things going for them: fusion balloting, which allows candidates to run as both a Progressive and a Democrat, and multi-member districts, which means there’s a level of proportionality in how many seats a party gets based on its vote in the districts. Also, there are fairly relaxed rules to establish a political party. It’s a highly local party that was mainly established to support Bernie Sanders as mayor of Burlington, VT; the party’s main power base continues to be located there.

The other major thing the Vermont Progressives have is that they don’t need to contest major offices. As a result, they can persist beyond being a personality-driven organization. And let’s face it, third parties are mostly vehicles for specific individuals’ megalomania.

Take Rhode Island. I have long said that the Moderate Party lacks an identity beyond being the party of Ken Block or Bob Healey. With the former abandoning it, and the latter deceased, it’s now got to find someone new to be its standard-bearer for governor. It’s forced into this position because RI’s ballot access laws require a political party to win more than 5% of the vote for governor or president every four years, depending on when you collected ballots.

This is intentional, and it prevents third parties from spending resources in more easily-winnable races, such as at the school committee level or town council. It means a third party has to exhaust a lot of manpower or cash on a big race it can’t win to achieve ballot access every four years, or else face being dissolved. So they lose, they might cost someone else the election, and drive potential supporters away. Meanwhile, they are unable to conduct meaningful candidate recruitment, unable to attract potential candidates because they appear frivolous, and unable to establish any sort of meaningful governing record.

This drives an incentive to simply be some individual’s ego trip. And that’s exactly what’s happening in the Green Party and its nominee Jill Stein.

You might think this is hypocritical to focus on Stein’s ego when this is an election of egos. But let’s be frank: Stein’s ego far outstrips her actual accomplishments. Her highest office to date is Lexington Town Meeting Representative. And yet, she says her aim is to win “at least a plurality” of votes in November (anything more than a plurality would be a majority). Her current Real Clear Politics polling average is 3.8%.

No other presidential candidate with ballot access to a potential majority of electoral votes is this delusional. Donald Trump actually won a major party’s nomination, despite his ego making him think lying about his success is the same as “sacrifice.” Gary Johnson actually has run a state as a governor – and won reelection. And there’s a strong case that Hilary Clinton is as egotistical as anyone, but then again, she’s earned it. We can definitely criticize her arrogance, but she actually has been U.S. senator and secretary of state. She actually has had to craft and shepherd policy that effected millions of people’s lives. And more importantly, she actually has a political organization that can support and help pass her agenda should she reach the White House. Trump has the latter, and Johnson has done the former, but Stein can’t claim either.

No third party will take the presidency this way. The only way so-called third parties have ever managed to do so is by stepping over the bodies of their predecessors. The next major party of the United States won’t be from the edges of the political system; it will follow Clay and Van Buren, and Lincoln – it will arise from the heart of the establishment, lead by a figures who were once partisans in some deceased major party.

There are, at least, political movements that understand that change happens through political power, not at its fringes. Say what you like about the Progressive Democrats and the Working Families Party – at least they are attempting to shift the dynamics locally of one of the parties, and with a greater potential for impact than all the Greens put together.

July 29, 2016

Clinton’s nomination speech: Stick it to the king

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

It was an odd phrase to hear in a nomination acceptance speech, so odd that it immediately made me wonder why it was there — and with a speech as fine-tuned and brushed down as Hillary Clinton’s last night, one can be assured there are no accidents.

It was near the beginning of the speech, in a section nominally connecting the present to the Philadelphia of the American Revolution, which in most such addresses would be a pleasant historical callback, but here becomes freighted, almost overdetermined:

“When representatives from 13 unruly colonies met just down the road from here, some wanted to stick with the king. And some wanted to stick it to the king. The revolution hung in the balance. Then somehow, they began listening to each other, compromising, finding common purpose.”

The “stick with/stick to” phrase jumped out at me. It’s so pungent, so colloquial. And, I began to sense as her speech progressed, so central to her dual rhetorical mission: to disarm the attacks focusing on the “cartoon” Clinton as dynastic one-per-center and at the same time redirecting that populist ire at the true shill for the oligarchy (whether American or Russian remains to be seen) Donald Trump.

There were a number in the Wells Fargo Center last night who still wanted to stick it to Hillary. About 200 die-hard Bernie fans (coming from science fiction fandom, it’s easy for me to understand the depth of their loss; I still mourn the cancellation of Firefly) wearing their high-visibility yellow “Enough is Enough” t-shirts and occasionally trying to interrupt speeches. Nor were they alone. I spoke this week with less visible but equally disappointed folks who deeply disagree with Clinton as a matter of principle on a range of issues: foreign policy, trade, education, militarism.

For this audience, Clinton’s challenge was to position incrementalism as progressive, as she did when she explicitly reached out to Sanders, his delegates, and his fans:

“To all of your supporters here and around the country: I want you to know, I’ve heard you. Your cause is our cause. Our country needs your ideas, energy, and passion. That is the only way we can turn our progressive platform into real change for America.”

That’s the first half of the speech’s mission: to inoculate against the meme of a Clinton “coronation” by leveraging the most powerful positional advantage against Trump: I versus we. Kings, by definition, rule alone, by unassailable right. By divine right in some cases, or in our version of divinity, by virtue of their visible status as one of the Elect in surreptitiously Calvinist America. When Clinton (mildly mis-)quoted Hamilton en passant late in the third act of her speech, “We may not live to see the glory/let us gladly join the fight” she knew that HamFans would automatically supply the next line: “And when our children tell our story/they’ll tell the story of tonight.”

And that story is about a scrappy group working together to turn the world upside down. In Lin Manuel-Miranda’s incisive retelling, we see Alexander Hamilton — who in the rear-view mirror of history is an engraved profile on a bank note, the picture of a Founding Father one-per-center — as an outsider determined to rise above his station, deeply committed to serving the cause of his young country. It is no accident that the video history of Clinton’s life lingered so long on her family’s early challenges. Kings do not come from families where a parent is all but abandoned; witness the prominence of the story of her mother having to walk alone to the cafe on the corner for food. That’s not the parent of a king. That’s a “founding father without a father” riff, an origin story for a hero.

So who, then, is King George? Ah, yes, of course. Clinton supplies the answer with a “stick it to” clause, explicitly connecting the actions of the colonists at Independende Hall to the actions of the delegates at the 2016 Democratic National Convention:

“Then somehow, they began listening to each other, compromising, finding common purpose. And by the time they left Philadelphia, they had begun to see themselves as one nation. That’s what made it possible to stand up to a king.”

Listening (a major theme in all the “why I support” speeches and videos: Clinton listened and took action), compromising (as the Clinton camp did on platform and superdelegates and Sanders himself did on the nomination), and common purpose. Articulating that common purpose (turning our platform into change) will occupy the rest of speech, but first, Clinton drives the point home, cinching the present moment tightly to the Continental Congress and the true meaning of the Gadsden Flag, that coiled snake of unity ready to strike at all enemies foreign and domestic:

“Our Founders embraced the enduring truth that we are stronger together. Now, America is once again at a moment of reckoning. Powerful forces are threatening to pull us apart. Bonds of trust and respect are fraying. And just as with our founders, there are no guarantees. It truly is up to us. We have to decide whether we all will work together so we can all rise together. Our country’s motto is “e pluribus unum:” out of many, we are one.”

And then she focuses all the weight of all the history she has brought to bear on the core question the country faces:

“Will we stay true to that motto?”

If we have taken on board the framing Clinton proposed, we of course can have only one answer to that question. Like the colonists sweating out an awful Philadelphia summer (an unplanned historical parallel) we know we must hang together to fight the king, the real king in this drama: Donald Trump.

After laying out a broad policy agenda in the first half of the speech, she turns to an exploration of King Donald and his failings (echoing the Declaration of Independence’s list of indictments — “He has refused, he has forbidden, he has constrained,” etc.): “He offered zero solutions,” “He doesn’t like talking about his plans,” “He just stiffed them,” “He also talks a big game about putting America First,” “He loses his cool at the slightest provocation.” And then the one that ties it all together: “He’s offering empty promises.”

Clinton returns to her central metaphor, pointedly, as she begins her close:

“Let our legacy be about ‘planting seeds in a garden you never get to see.’ That’s why we’re here…not just in this hall, but on this Earth. The Founders showed us that. And so have many others since. They were drawn together by love of country, and the selfless passion to build something better for all who follow. That is the story of America. And we begin a new chapter tonight.”

Yep. Rhetoric for the win. For those in the hall last night, the experience was electric, and the applause and whooping and banner waving was entirely spontaneous. It was a meticulously constructed speech, delivered with wit, grit, and passion, and my sense in the room was that many will have found it persuasive. When our children tell the story of how that garden came to be, my guess is that they’ll be telling the story of tonight.

July 29, 2016

Protest the system, but support Clinton

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

One of the most frustrating events that I saw at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night was when Jill Stein joined Sanders delegates during their walkout protest of Clinton’s nomination with a Fox News crew in tow. I understand her motivation–to woo disillusioned Sanders supporters–but even more frustrating was Stein’s willingness to promote the walk-out on social media using the #DemExit hashtag. That, unfortunately, sounds a whole lot like Brexit to the uninformed observer, and creates an uncomfortable association between two very different political movements.

However, I don’t blame those Sanders delegates who chose to walk out. We all know that the DNC, at the very least, “slanted” the primaries in Clinton’s favor and sought to undermine the Sanders campaign. We all know that Clinton, by way of the FBI’s statement on her email scandal, is inherently dishonest, even to her own supporters, and that collusion between her campaign and the DNC possibly occurred during the primaries. I don’t blame those Sanders delegates for protesting, or booing, or for feeling jilted.

But I do blame them for not following Bernie’s lead. Sanders, in his speech on Monday night, called for unity in the Democratic Party. And at the end of the roll call vote on Tuesday night, he graciously moved to nominate Clinton after he did not win the vote. He made a selfless gesture toward unity, and not just Democratic unity.

He made a gesture toward unifying against Donald Trump.

I don’t want to buy into the fear-mongering, but beating Trump at the polls in November is of the utmost importance. His narcissistic nihilism, tinged with fascism, framed by xenophobia, and fueled by racism is, in the words of the Washington Post editorial board, a “unique and present danger” that the GOP has officially presented to the general electorate. Now Trump is everyone’s problem. And, unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is now the only major party nominee that stands between Donald Trump and the presidency.

For those who aren’t willing to risk a third party vote, this choice boils down to a difficult moral dilemma. One one hand, we have a deceitful neoliberal who lacks favorability and is quite possibly corrupt, yet unarguably has a qualified history in American national politics and has the backing of prominent progressive politicians, including senators Warren and Sanders. On the other hand, we have a loud-mouthed bully with no political experience, who doesn’t know Constitutional law, who would trample on free speech rights and freedom of the press, who openly discriminates against Muslims and Mexicans, who tacitly supports racial violence, and who asked Russia to help reveal Clinton’s lost emails.

Democratic unity, today, is not about rallying behind Clinton as a nominee, nor even about rallying around what she represents. It isn’t unity within the Democratic Party per se. It isn’t even about Clinton, or Warren, or Sanders, as Bernie has pointed out numerous times in his speeches, particularly on Monday night. It’s about Donald Trump, which is exactly what Trump wants because everything in his world must be about him. In his own words during his acceptance speech, he said of America’s problems, “I alone can fix [them].”

What Trump doesn’t know is that no president alone can “fix it” (and Trump “doesn’t know what he doesn’t know and he’s uninterested in finding out“). The same rule applies to Clinton, yet she knows that. But the slight benefit of a Clinton presidency is that she has the support of progressives like Sanders and Warren and will be held accountable by them. They will influence her decisions, help frame progressive legislation, and approve Supreme Court picks that will overturn Citizens United. That’s what checks and balances are for. And Clinton, despite her massive shortcomings, is expected to defend our Constitutional rights by her progressive peers, and she would do well to repair her lack of public trust by delivering a strong progressive agenda.

Trump, however, is expected to trample on our rights by his jeering supporters and the foolish GOP politicians who endorsed him. His VP pick, Mike Pence, has signed legislation that legalized open discrimination against LGBTQ people. And the most frightening part is that the most ignorant of Trump supporters don’t even realize the danger he poses to their own liberties and freedoms as Americans. Trump would have control of the FBI, NSA, CIA, TSA, and every other executive branch agency (not to mention the military) that he could easily, under executive order, command to act out his hostilities.

And this is where I say what I’ve never wanted to say: a vote for the Democratic nominee is more important than voting my conscience, at least this time around. Of course, in terms of my personal values, I want to vote for Jill Stein, but I do not place voting for my own values above protecting what liberties and freedoms that we already have. To do so would be selfish and disrespectful to people who would face the worst treatment by a Trump presidency. While I admire Stein for tackling the two-party system, now is not the time to do so, and openly dividing Democrats under the #DemExit banner is counterproductive to the goal of keeping Trump from the presidency.

Yes, Rhode Island is deep blue and a vote for Stein may be safe here, but against the broad and insidious influence of Trump, we shouldn’t take any state for granted, especially with Clinton’s high negatives and recent drop in the polls. So, instead of voting Green or staying home on election day, we should consider following Bernie’s lead to vote Democrat in November. Bernie knows that this movement has now become about the long game. He has vowed to continue the Political Revolution, and the first step toward gaining ground is beating Donald Trump, because under a President Trump, there’s no chance to pass any progressive legislation. I have no doubt that he’d veto anything he wants without a second thought.

There’s nothing I’d love more than to see a Bernie Sanders presidency, or even Green Party viability. But second to that, I’ll take Trump getting blown out of the water on election day. To vote Democrat is not to just reject Trump as a nominee, but to reject the hateful and powerful zeitgeist he’s stirred up among a surprising number of voters in our country. That’s where our choice as voters goes beyond voting against a candidate. It’s about voting against what Trump has come to represent. Preventing the rightward march toward peril that Trump has inspired is absolutely imperative to continuing the experiment of American democracy, however flawed that experiment may be.

July 28, 2016

The politics of progressive identification and the DNC

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Tonight’s speech by Hillary Rodham Clinton is historic. As we all know by now, she will be the first woman ever nominated by a major US political party to be a candidate for President of the United States. That video of the shattered glass ceiling simulates that achievement. Every progressive must applaud this moment.[1] Every human ought applaud it too if gender equality matters.

In combination with the truly dangerous fantasy Trump presents,[2] most of my friends on the left declare that supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton is both historical necessity and a matter of political responsibility.[3] I agree, but, as progressives, we need to appreciate how we get there and what her election means for the future.

Being progressive is not only about outcome. It’s also about process. It’s about living in our daily life the politics we want to see writ large. But before I point out the challenges of progressive identification with HRC, I wish to acknowledge just fears.

If Trump is elected president, one of my gay friends told me, the marital unity he treasures most will be put at risk. We will have as vice -president one of the most fundamentalist religious politicians in the nation whose embrace of extremist anti-LGBTQ politics and anti-choice politics is enough, by itself, to move progressives to mobilize against Trump.[4] The Supreme Court’s composition is too important to allow Republican Party extremists to control those nominations.

If Trump is elected president, the global security system will be put at risk. Already my friends on NATO’s eastern flank express profound worry about how Trump’s professed admiration for Putin and skepticism toward NATO put them at risk. Of course NATO’s embrace is hardly an obvious progressive position, but if you live in a place where Russian imperialism threatens, you must choose which superpower to welcome.

NATO may not be an obvious place where progressives unify, but we must unify in opposition to the ways in which Trump uses religious and racial differences to divide, and puts all the means of violence, including nuclear weapons, on the table. I agree with those progressives who marked their opposition to President Obama’s drone wars and other ethically compromised means of war.

But Trump is worse.

We can go on, but to do so only reinforces a legitimate progressive objection. Our vote is sacred and it is our choice. We want to live in a system more authentic, and less compromised. Katelyn Johnson, delegate for Bernie Sanders, said during an interview on MSNBC on July 27 that she wanted her vote to echo “the system I want to live under.” She doesn’t want to drink “the kool-aid of a system I want to dismantle.” Progressives who fear Trump need to hear her, and so many others like her. We can’t allow our concern for outcomes to drown out the everyday practice that makes progressives different.

And what is that distinction?

We can’t base that distinction on particular substantive issues, even though it is the progressive’s inclination to debate which issue is fundamental. Is it a policy around the Trans Pacific Pipeline or closing GITMO? Perhaps it’s about investing in public goods rather than privatizing them. Like other progressives, I have positions on these and more policy issues. But progressives can, and should, debate these matters based on informed readings of policy consequences and their motivations.

I think we come closer to recognizing that distinction when we look for authenticity. One reason Bernie Sanders mobilized so many people was because he has been consistent over decades in his opposition to the concentration of wealth and its deleterious effects on politics and everyday lives. One reason Joe Biden drew the applause for his speech that he did was because he emits, in everyday life and on stage, a sincerity that is not staged in the ways that so many other politicians look manufactured. While both Bernie and Biden are professional politicians, they are different from most.

Barack and Michelle Obama are in a class by themselves. Their speeches at this convention moved the house not only for their fine deliveries, but also because they could embody the progressive, and human, alternative that we wish our America could be. If their daughters could play outside a White House built by slaves, we feel the progress that has been, that might be.

But here’s the problem.

Privileged progressives in our system like to feel good, and to believe that the place of the Obamas indicates that we live in a post-racial society. We do not. We can debate whether particular statistics mark progress or not, but we cannot diminish the profoundly racist underpinnings of the system in which we live, where violence against people of color, whether by police or through the proliferation of guns, whether through a prison industrial complex or in everyday aggressions and exclusions, define the enduring significance of the color line. When progressives celebrate Tim Kaine’s choice by referring to how well he speaks Spanish, and how he was a missionary in Honduras, many POC ask why not just recruit a Latinx person?

The answer for too many progressives is obvious. We must win, and to win, we must cut into the demographic that supports Trump, that white male working class electorate, perhaps religious, that might find Kaine’s working class roots and enduring Catholic commitments compelling. But that’s the problem for many progressives who recognize racism’s power. Outcome trumps process, and leads too many progressives to adopt that condescending position of knowing better than POC who declare these candidates to be more of the same old racist system, with glass ceiling broken or not. And it gets worse.

I especially appreciate what my friend Justice Gaines shared on Facebook, with wisdom zir friend, Nikkie Ubinas, offered:

If Donald Trump wins, it’s not because not enough people of color chose not to vote for Hillary.

It’s because enough people voted for Donald Trump to make him a candidate. It’s because people elected Donald Trump. It’s because institutions, systems, and people created him. It’s because we have corrupt systems that don’t give a shit about people of color and poor people. It’s because Donald Trump is right in line with our American racist xenophobic and sexist history. It’s because Donald Trump is America’s enduring legacy.

Here’s the issue that so many of my progressive white friends miss, what I miss were I not to listen and learn from Justice and others.

In the panic about defeating Trump, progressives can practice reprehensible politics in everyday life, abandoning their commitment to authenticity, equality, and process on the altar of expediency and outcomes defined by those with privilege.

We ought celebrate breaking a glass ceiling, and I will do what I can to defeat Trump and elect Hillary Rodham Clinton. But that is not because I am with her. I remain committed to political revolution, and its chances are so much greater with Clinton/Kaine in office than Trump/Pence. I am continuing that political revolution when I work for Clinton/Kaine, but a vote does not fulfill my political responsibility as a progressive. That political responsibility means holding Clinton and Kaine accountable to the Democratic Party Platform those leading the political revolution at DNC moved.

When Bernie endorsed Hillary it was not the end of the political revolution. It was just a signal that it is time to refocus down ballot and on civil society, to mobilize and apply pressure to politicians too easily influenced by Wall Street and other lobbies with money. When Katelyn Johnson, Justice Gaines, Nikkie Ubinas, and others signal their distance from politics as usual, I will listen and respect their position for that is the foundation of the political revolution, not the election of a particular presidential candidate.

I also respect Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison much, and he said it right today on Morning Joe:

“Active citizens need to help politicians govern the country, and one way to do that is to let them know how you really feel…”

And it’s not just holding up placards and maybe even disrupting a speech. It’s about holding authorities accountable. This DNC platform is different from all others preceding because it was made with the political revolution in mind. Again, Ellison said as much when he anticipated an election in which Clinton and Kaine win, but face active citizens who will demand that a new administration adhere to the platform’s principles.

Were I to identify the progressive distinction, it’s one in which we respect and recognize one another, being particularly attentive to the ways in which power and violence diminish some and privilege others. Progressives are not defined by the candidates they support, but by the work, in everyday life and in political campaigns and in enduring political struggles, to include everyone in the set of rights and responsibilities that democracy organizes.

Recognition, respect, and maybe even love moves the political revolution, and my identification as progressive.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-glass-ceiling_us_579827fee4b0d3568f85272e

[2] http://www.rifuture.org/ideology-in-the-time-of-trump.html

[3] http://www.publicseminar.org/2016/07/why-i-support-hillary-clinton-for-president-a-letter-to-my-friends-on-the-left/

[4] Note here religious identification is not the issue. The Democratic VP nominee Tim Kaine is a devoted and practicing Catholic, but also supports women’s right to choose and the sanctity of love over homophobia. Rhode Island Bishop Tobin’s take on Kaine https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/local/roman-catholic-bishop-in-rhode-island-criticizes-kaine/2016/07/25/378ad256-529e-11e6-b652-315ae5d4d4dd_story.html has prompted healthy debate within the RI Catholic community http://www.providencejournal.com/opinion/20160726/thomas-m-hines-bishop-tobins-arrogant-view-of-tim-kaine

July 28, 2016July 28, 2016

Raimondo: Clinton nomination ‘a historic moment’

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

It’s too easy to make a mountain over Mika Brzezinski‘s mistake in referring to Governor Gina Raimondo as a Republican. (I engaged in this myself on Twitter when I first heard the news, learning the hard way that @MorningMika is a woman.) But far more should be made of Raimondo’s statement regarding her rushing home so that she can watch Hillary Clinton‘s acceptance speech with her daughter.

“I’m racing home tonight to watch [Clinton’s] speech with my 12-year old daughter because I want to be there with my daughter. This is real. This is an historic moment,” said Raimondo.

Love Hillary Clinton or hate her, Governor Raimondo is right, this is a historic moment. The first woman presidential nominee from a major party in the history of the United States is accepting the nomination this evening. As the father who attempted to instill a confidence about their full equality in his two daughters, I can’t help but feel this historic moment intensely.

The election will play out as it must, and the politics will be dark and dirty and full of terrible reveals. I don’t expect a Clinton campaign to solve the problems of misogyny any more than Obama’s presidency solved the problem of racism. Should Hillary Clinton become president, I don’t expect her to be a great progressive leader any more than Governor Gina Raimondo, the first woman governor of Rhode Island, is. I’m not naive about the politics, or the stakes in this election.

But let’s pause a moment on this historical day and reflect.

Here’s Gina Raimondo’s full appearance on Morning Joe.

July 28, 2016

Obama makes powerful case for Hillary

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

On a night that began with vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine being nominated by acclamation, Democrats – and one high-profile Independent – squared off against Trump and built a solid affirmative case for a Hillary Clinton presidency.

Aiming squarely at the image that Trump projected in his convention last week, Obama offered a scathing dissection.

“The reason he’ll lose it is because he’s selling the American people short,” he said. “We are not a fragile people, we’re not a frightful people. Our power doesn’t come from some self-declared savior promising that he alone can restore order as long as we do things his way. We don’t look to be ruled.”

Obama spent a major part of his speech sharing his first-hand experience of Clinton’s strengths.

“For four years,” Obama said, “I had a front-row seat to her intelligence, her judgment and her discipline. I came to realize that her unbelievable work ethic wasn’t for praise, it wasn’t for attention, that she was in this for everyone who needs a champion.”

In a moment that was both self-effacing and a play to his popularity with the Democratic base, Obama offered himself as a point of comparison. “I can say with confidence there has never been a man or a woman, not me, not Bill, nobody more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as president of the United States of America.”

When his speech wrapped up, Hillary came out to join him on stage for a brief hug and wave. The Wells Fargo Arena, which was packed to the rafters, exploded in prolonged applause and cheers.

Members of the Rhode Island delegation were still smiling about it this morning. “It was a terrific night,” said Rhode Island Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed. “The speech that President Obama gave was phenomenal, and I can’t wait for this evening when we see the first woman officially accept the nomination to the Presidency of the United States.”

“It was exciting to meet vice-president (candidate) Kaine for the first time,” said RI Rep. Deb Ruggiero. “I love his social justice agenda. I think what President Obama did was galvanize everyone, whether you’re a Democrat or you’re an unaffiliated to realize that we need to elect Hillary Clinton as the next President. We cannot have someone like Donald Trump. As Mike Bloomberg said, ‘Hillary Clinton understands this is not reality television, this is reality.”

Kaine gave a solid, largely introductory speech that saw him slipping into a Donald Trump impersonation, asking the audience if they accepted all the promises the Republican made when he said, “Believe me.” “I’m going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it. Believe me.” “There’s nothing suspicious in my tax returns. Believe me.” “Does anybody here believe him?” The attendees in the Wells Fargo Center thundered, “No!”

A high point of the evening, for many, was Vice President Joe Biden’s speech. In a fiery address that played to his middle-class sensibilities, Biden offered a blunt critique of Trump’s so-called populism.

Said Biden, “His cynicism and undoubtedly his lack of empathy and compassion can be summed up in that phrase he is most proud of making famous: “You’re fired.” I’m not joking. Think about that. Think about that. Think about everything you learned as a child. No matter where you were raised, how can there be pleasure in saying, “You’re fired.” He is trying to tell us he cares about the middle class. Give me a break. That is a bunch of malarkey.”

There were more pointed critiques. Former candidate Martin O’Malley chided the Republicans: “Anger never fed a hungry child.” Retired Rear Admiral John Hutson got in the first dig over Trump’s call for Russian hackers to try to uncover additional Clinton e-mails. “That’s not law and order, that’s criminal intent.”

Independent Mike Bloomberg, who made it clear that he was not there to endorse the Democratic platform, nonetheless endorsed Hillary and, in no uncertain terms, drew a sharp distinction between his own status and that of the Republican nominee. “I’ve built a business and I didn’t start it with a million-dollar check from my father.”

July 28, 2016July 28, 2016

Our choice for POTUS: backwards or forwards

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

For those of us who believe in the need for a fundamental transformation of our society, voting in our broken system is frustrating. And yet we can’t avoid the fact that our elections have real consequences for many people, and the results shape the terrain for movement-building in the coming period. Frankly, I’d rather we be fighting to hold Hillary accountable to some of her campaign promises than fighting to stop Trump from implementing his.

The Democratic Party is a coalition, and its leaders feel accountable to different elements of the coalition based on the power they have within the coalition itself and within the country. When Clinton (or Obama) does not feel beholden to the left, it’s not just about who they are as individual candidates or President(s, hopefully) — it’s also because our movements aren’t yet powerful enough to ensure that they listen and act. My point here is not to make excuses for elected officials who let us down, but instead to take ownership of these disappointments, as these are assessments of the relative strength of our movements and evidence that we haven’t yet done enough.

Throughout the primary, Bernie’s campaign helped to change this dynamic a little — demonstrating that not only is there broader support for a much more progressive agenda in 2016 than there was in 1992 (“the end of history”) but for the first time in my life there was a mainstream discussion of socialism in the USA. Clinton then chose to campaign mostly as a progressive (with some speed bumps) and she became a stronger candidate because of it. It doesn’t mean she is perfect or the people around her are – what is means is that it is possible to move her on the issues that our movements care about.

During the primaries, the Fight for $15, Black Lives Matter, immigrants’ rights groups, and others found smart and confrontational ways to push these issues into the center of the campaign by doing accountability sessions, protests, pickets, and other creative actions. Those movements must continue (and they will, regardless of who is elected), but each movement has to figure out what to do over the next 15 weeks to ensure the greatest chance of success after the election is over.

Should Clinton be challenged now on the issues where she is wrong? Sure — especially if there is a chance of persuading her in ways that actually build power for and accountability to the group(s) making the demands, rather than marginalizing them. Movements will have to determine whether it makes sense for them to be outside of the Democratic tent pissing in, inside the tent pissing out, inside the tent pissing both in and out, or outside the tent pissing both in and out, or some combination thereof. That’s a whole lot of urine everywhere, but hey, politics ain’t a catheter-bag.

Another major factor to consider from a strategic standpoint is what issues could Hillary get stronger on that would expand her electoral coalition and improve her chances of winning? In one recent example, she adopted some of Bernie’s ideas on college tuition. Yet ultimately it’s not just about what platform Hillary campaigns on (or even what she truly believes in her heart of hearts), but rather it’s what she will be able/willing do for us after the election. And the only definitive answer to that is: we know she can do nothing for us if she loses. Therefore, despite any misgivings we may have, we need to help her win. Getting her to agree with us and then she loses? If we want that candidate her name is Jill Stein.

Do leading Democrats need to learn that if their economic agenda ignores (or is hostile to) workers in order to serve the elite, it creates the opening for the rise of Trumpism? Yes. Despite the primary results, we’re clearly not there yet (and hence the choice of Kaine over Brown, Warren, or Perez, though I suspect other factors including my home state of Virginia were part of the calculus too). But can we teach them that lesson by allowing (or even helping!) Trump to win? That was what Jill Stein seemed to argue in her RI Future interview, and I think that is wrong so I will say it again.

First of all, if Trump wins I don’t think the centrist-conservative elements of the Democratic Party would even draw the correct conclusion. But secondly and more importantly, I don’t think that popular movements can win by losing. Victories and the confidence that people get from them expand the possibilities of future victories, and they are what help to build movements. Defeats have the opposite effect.

The ascendancy of Trump to the Presidency would be a devastating setback for millions and millions of real people, in all of our intersectional beauty — people of color, women, immigrants, LGBTIQ folks, workers. Hell, it would be a setback for lots of white folks, too, even if some of us are too poisoned by racism to see it. And it would set our movements up for renewed attacks and repression, and very likely lead to many defeats on our issues. As a candidate Trump has talked openly about limiting press freedom, and condoned violence and vigilantism by his supporters against protesters and people of color in general.

Do we think he would be less brazen once he had the power and the machinery of the federal government at his fingertips? I am not exaggerating when I say that I think that our organizations and tactics could literally be outlawed in the name of “Make America Safe Again: The Emergency Presidential Powers Act of 2017” (or whatever they call the law they pass to give Trump dictatorial authority in reaction to the first terrorist attack after he becomes President, if they even wait that long).

The election is a compression point for a whole bunch of complicated issues that people in our country have been grappling with, and yet really there are only two choices: backwards or forwards.

I’m not arguing for silence of criticism and certainly not for an abandonment of all other organizing. But I am saying that we need to roll up our sleeves and fight to elect Clinton, rather than wash our hands of it using the fact that she’s not perfect to justify it. The choice in this election is a stark one, and I am most definitely with her.

And in conclusion: Fuck Trump.

July 27, 2016

Martin O’Malley visits RI delegation as they reflect on Clinton’s nomination

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Two former Presidential candidates visited the RI delegation at breakfast this morning as the group was still reflecting on the historic nomination of Hillary Clinton. Before Sen. Bernie Sanders stopped by, Gov. Martin O’Malley paid a visit and offered his thoughts on the convention and the need for unity going forward.

“Watching every night of our convention unfold, people have seen a real party, a diverse party, with competing interests, competing ideas, but at the end of the day, people that are very united in our belief that our diversity is our greatest strength,” O’Malley said.

Speaking about the general election, O’Malley said, “Of course we’re concerned. The specter on the other side is a real menace to the country. But the answer to defeating Donald Trump is not to vibrate at his frequency but to vibrate at a higher frequency. I think Dr. King said it well when he said that you can’t drive out hate with hate or violence with violence, only light and love can do that. So let’s make sure we come together in this next 48 hours so that we leave this city of brotherly — and sisterly — love resonating at that level and offering a better vision forward for our country.”

And O’Malley had some words for the Sanders supporters. “To any of you that were involved with Sen. Sanders campaign, congratulations on being able to bring to our party for the fall the most progressive Democratic platform we’ve ever had. It would not have happened were it not for that primary contest, and y’all should be proud too.”

The delegation was still abuzz over the historic nomination of Hillary Clinton as the first woman to lead a major party ticket.

House Speaker Nick Mattielo Mattiello said it was “an honor” to have been part of the nominating process. “I think it will be great for the country to have our first female President. I think she’s very qualified, I think she has a unique perspective, and I think she’s just going to be a great president at the right time. I’m very excited about the process, and I was very appreciative of being able to play a small role in it.”

RI Senate President Teresa Paiva-Weed shared that sentiment. “It was great to be a part of last night — and the night before. Michelle Obama’s speech was absolutely what the party needed in terms of unifying the party, bringing the party together. As a woman elected official, I certainly share the excitement that was in that room last night and the possibility of the first woman President.”

Rep. Grace Diaz said that it was a “privilege” to have been part of the process. “History comes to your mind, and you say, ‘I can’t believe it, I’m experiencing this! I’m living this!’ It put tears in my eyes. I’m the first Dominican-American in the history of the United States elected to the state level, and I know the feeling inside — a big responsibility, because you cannot fail. You cannot have the luxury of not accomplishing what you’re supposed to. I think that’s what must be in Hillary’s mind now.”

Said Jamestown Rep. Deborah Ruggiero “It was electrifying. It’s every little girl’s dream. And when they showed every single President, beginning with George Washington and stopping with Obama, and the glass ceiling shattered and there was her face — it was, ‘wow!’ It’s real. And all the little girls sitting around her saying, I may be just the first one, but one of you will be the next one. It was just a great message for women, for boys, for men, for everyone. It’s just where our country needs to go. America is great. We’ve got to keep it great. We’ve got to keep it moving and Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine are going to do that for working people.”

Being part of the delegation, Ruggiero said, was “pretty cool.” She added, “It’s really neat to stand up there and to know that you’re framing part of history. To know that your values are such that you want to see a person who believes in what’s right for working people, making sure that we raise the minimum wage, that we have healthcare for everyone, that we support education, all of those values are Democratic values. And to be able to be there to nominate not only the right candidate, but the smartest candidate, the hardest-working candidate, with the most heart, who just happens to be a woman.”

Former representative and gubernatorial candidate Myrth York agreed with the sense of history the delegation had just witnessed. “It was incredibly exciting. And I know the historic significance of it, and the work is still to be done, it’s one step forward, but even just on a personal level, for her, and having just a tiny sense of what she’s done and committed to to make this happen is extraordinary. The glass cracking? It was hokey, but it was fabulous. I didn’t see it coming, I just thought there would be her photo next. That was a brilliant piece of stagecraft.”

July 26, 2016

RI delegation praises Michelle Obama, Bernie Sanders

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Members of the Rhode Island delegation were still buzzing about the first-night speakers at the Democratic National Convention as they met for breakfast in Philadelphia.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse said he was particularly moved by the reaction of Bernie Sanders supporters during his speech.

“Seeing the Bernie people, the young people, in the close-ups on TV weeping as he spoke, was a reminder to all of us how deeply some people put their hearts into that movement,” he said. “For those of us who have lost primaries, either as a candidate or because our candidate didn’t win, it was a reminder that there is a real sorrow and a real adjustment that’s required.”

Whitehouse was impressed by the way Sanders worked to bridge the gap between his supporters and Hillary Clinton. “I honestly don’t know that he could have done that job any better. Clearly he really wanted to try to make sure that took place. He really put his heart into it, and I think he will continue to. Nobody – Bernie voter, Hillary voter – wants to live in a Trump presidency America. Nobody.”

For Congressman David Cicilline, Michelle Obama was a highlight.

“The speech of the First Lady was the most powerful speech of the night,” he said. “She reminded us all of the progress we’ve made — ‘I wake up every morning in a house built by slaves, and I watch my children play on the front lawn’ — it reminded you that this is a great country and we’ve come a very long way, but she also recognized that we have many challenges, that many people are struggling in this country, and that we need a president who understands that struggle, who has real solutions, and that can bring us together. We have only solved problems in this country when we have come together, worked together to overcome them. The tenor of last night’s speeches was such a contrast to the Republicans. They were speeches filled with pragmatism but with tremendous hope and optimism about what is great about this country and our ability to build upon the progress we’ve made.”

Clinton delegate and former candidate for governor Clay Pell agreed that Michelle Obama stole the show.

“The highlight for me was Michelle Obama,” he said. “She was incredible. The whole place lit up. She was an inspiration. The First Lady’s message was about what her own family had been through, and the power of believing in this country. She had a very powerful story about how she lives in a house that was built by slaves, and is now watching two young, smart black girls play on the White House lawn and grow up and believe that because of Hillary Clinton that they too could become president of the United States.”

Pell had kind words for Sanders and his supporters.

“Sanders gave a great, impassioned plea,” he said. “Not only to his own supporters, but to the country, and shared a lot of the values we all way to keep moving forward. I hope he continues to be a leader in the Democratic Party, because he is a person not only of integrity but of vision, and he’s independent in so many ways, and we need that. He’s brought young people, and people of all kinds into politics, and it’s important that we embrace that and recognize that what he’s talking about is the future.”

Sanders delegate Linda Ujifusa wanted to keep the focus on the senator from Vermont.

“I think people should focus on the fact that we were all cheering Bernie,” she said. “I was really impressed with his speech. Of course, as he pointed out, we are disappointed. But his message, of trying to keep the political revolution that he began going is really, really important. I personally decided to run for office based on Bernie’s call to action, because for people to sit on the sidelines is to admit that we’re not willing to be involved.”

Still, some Sanders supporters were unhappy with the message. “I felt betrayed,” said Sanders delegate Laura Perez. “At the beginning of his speech, he even suggested, still vote for me. And then at the end of the speech, okay, you’re all in. This is what we’re going to do.”

Sanders delegate and organizer Lauren Niedel shared in the disappointment.

“Bernie’s speech was inspirational and showed why he should be our next nominee,” she said. “I’m not at all surprised by the message of Bernie’s speech. He stated from the beginning that was his intention. What I’m disappointed in is that if all was fair, if his message could have been seen and heard by more people, and if independents and unaffiliated had their say in each of the primaries, Bernie would be our nominee.”

RI Democratic Party Chairman Joe McNamara praised New Jersey Senator Cory Booker.

“Michelle Obama was great, and I believe we saw a rising star in Cory Booker,” he said. “Booker really took it to the mountaintop with ‘we will rise together.’ That will be a speech that will definitely go down in the history of the Democratic Party, and we’ll be hearing a lot more from Cory Booker.”

“Bernie did an excellent job,” added McNamara. “The speech was wonderful, and everyone — everyone — cheered him.”

McNamara added, “Sen. Sanders stating that this campaign is not about Bernie Sanders, it is not about Hillary Clinton, it’s about the future of our nation, our children and grandchildren, was something, to me, that really hit home.” McNamara said that felt like Sanders’ way of telling his followers, “We’ve worked very hard, but it’s time to support the platform that represents many of the ideals of the campaign.”

July 25, 2016July 25, 2016

RI Progressive Dems urge Clinton to withdraw Raimondo appointment

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The Executive Board of the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats wishes to express extreme displeasure that Hillary Clinton would name Governor Gina Raimondo as a co-chair of the Democratic convention. While this role is purely ceremonial, it indicates that some of Clinton’s advisors may consider Raimondo an acceptable figure within the national Democratic party, a sentiment that would be deeply chilling. Raimondo’s politics represent a brand of conservatism well to the right of basically anyone of prominence in the national Democratic party. Deeply unpopular in Rhode Island, Raimondo is known for her aggressive push to restrict women’s access to abortion coverage through plans sold on Rhode Island’s exchange. She is also one of the most aggressive proponents of pension cuts, which Democrats just voted to oppose in our party platform. She has been a feisty advocate of expanding fossil fuel infrastructure, and she even opposes repealing Rhode Island’s tax cuts for the rich. A former private equity executive, Raimondo epitomizes an extreme type of Wall Street politician. After the withdrawal of banker Antonio Weiss, the national party has had an informal rule against Wall Street appointees for top posts. Raimondo appears to violate that rule.

We ask that the Hillary Clinton campaign withdraw this appointment. We believe it is crucial for the Hillary campaign to send a signal that they will not be considering Raimondo for any posts in a Hillary administration, an event that would place the even more right wing Dan McKee in power. McKee is such a far right Democrat that we took the completely unprecedented step of urging voters to support his Republican opponent Catherine Taylor, and the AFL-CIO went further and openly endorsed Taylor.

Moreover, we urge Hillary to make it clear that she, the national Democratic party, and the DSCC will oppose Raimondo in the primary should she attempt to take a US Senate seat in the future. Raimondo is so unpopular in Rhode Islanders that she could easily lose to a Republican. In fact, she only won by four points against a weak GOP opponent in a state that Obama won by 27 points. A Raimondo nomination is the GOP’s only path to a US Senate seat from Rhode Island, and it is of utmost importance that the national party prevent such a debacle. The national party has often intervened in primaries to stop weak nominees from jeopardizing a Democratic US Senate seat, most recently in Pennsylvania. We urge Hillary Clinton to make clear she will do the same in Rhode Island to prevent a Raimondo nomination and a GOP victory, should Raimondo attempt to take a US Senate seat.

July 23, 2016July 24, 2016

Wikileaks dump shows DNC had concerns about RI primary

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

[Edit: 5pm: This story has been updated with additional information and a statement from the Secretary of State.]

When Rhode Island Board of elections chose to open only 144 of the state’s 419 polling stations for the April 26 primary, some cried foul. The move was seen by some as an attempt to stifle voters who might turn out for Bernie Sanders instead of Hillary Clinton. (On the Republican side, a Donald Trump victory was never in question.) RI Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea, vice chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) Platform Committee, was cast as a political insider working for the Clinton campaign, though all polling locations were and are determined by local municipalities and the RI Board of Elections.

With the release of a giant crop of leaked DNC emails from Wikileaks, Gorbea appears to be exonerated from the charge of electioneering. However, the emails do seem to indicate that operatives within the Democratic National Committee were interfering in the election on a national level, placing more than a thumb on the scales in Clinton’s favor, even as they attempted to manage the public’s perception of their interference. Favoring one candidate over another is a violation of DNC rules.

The Wikileak emails show that ahead of Bernie Sanders’ big win in the Rhode Island primary, highly placed operatives in the Democratic National Committee were worried about the optics of the RI Board of Election’s decision to not open more than a third of the polling places, mistakenly believing that Gorbea was the one who made the decision.

On April 25 DNC Deputy Communications Director Eric Walker wrote to his boss, Luis Miranda, “Bernie leads Hillary by 4 in the latest poll. If [Clinton] outperforms this polling, the Bernie camp will go nuts and allege misconduct. They’ll probably complain regardless, actually. We might want to get out in front of this one with an inquiry to [Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo], even though she’s one of ours.”

By “one of ours” let’s assume Walker simply meant, “a Democratic governor”.

The next day was April 26, the day of the actual primary. Having been informed by DNC Northeast Regional Political Director Erin Wilson that, “We’ve got a pretty close relationship with Nellie,” Walker suggested contacting Gorbea directly.

“Was thinking a letter so that if press asks us about it, we can show we are responsive and active,” wrote Walker, “If we’re crying foul in AZ, we might need to do the same – at least nominally – in RI so we don’t look like hypocrites.”

This prompted DNC National Political Director Raul Alvillar to write, “I am fine with that. Before we do that we should talk to [Gorbea] to get all of the details.”

Walker responded, “I would like to be on this call, but first, I don’t think we even need a statement. We just need something to cover ourselves.

“I think when we start getting inquiries, if we have a letter to the [Secretary of State] that we can point to, it will show that we are engaged and that we don’t just pipe up when it’s a Republican administration closing poll locations.

“We can make the point to reporters individually off the record that it’s not apples and oranges: Arizona more serious because the state was covered under [Voting Rights Act] and has had a history of problems – Rhode Island doesn’t have those same historical issues.”

The primary in Rhode Island was in full swing just before 1pm when Erin Wilson came back with more information. “[Pratt Wiley, DNC National Director of Voter Protection] and I were reminded that in RI, the Secretary of State doesn’t manage elections, but they’re run by the Board of Elections that are appointed by the Governor. Apparently the number of polling locations they’ve opened are consistent with the numbers opened in 2008 and 2012, and they’ve also increased the number of poll workers, ballots and booths to accommodate any unexpected surges. For example they’re telling us that they printed 300K ballots for an expected turnout of 180K. Again, these decisions are made by the Board of Elections.

“The Secretary has been traveling to polling locations all morning/afternoon and they haven’t seen any issues. Apparently the longest wait they’re seeing is 25 minutes.

“So, if we do write a letter, it would need to be to the Board of Elections. I’d be a little cautious about pulling the trigger on it too soon. Can we give some of this info on background to show we’ve made inquiries to the state if we start getting calls and then punt it back to RI?”

Eric Walker, now having been in contact with Gorbea, writes, “To be clear – no inquiries yet, but RNC will be pushing it.

“Pratt just swung by my desk – [Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea is] ready to go on record with these points defending their approach, which is good.

“I think that if DNC press office gets inquiries about hypocrisy between AZ / RI then we can direct them to RI [Secretary of State] comment, and explain on background that it’s not as dire as AZ and that RI doesn’t have the same VRA baggage.”

The final email on Wikileaks regarding the issue came from DNC National Political Director Raul Alvillar, who wrote, “Perfect. This is good.”

Of course, the entire issue of whether or not the Board of Elections declined to open more polling stations to favor Clinton in the primary went away when Sanders clobbered Clinton, taking 55 percent of the vote. This upset caught local machine Democrats completely off guard and surprised national pundits.

From reading the emails, it seems clear that Gorbea answered concerns from the DNC and coordinated a response to criticisms of the Board of Election’s decision as to the number of polls to open, but no evidence of outright collusion for the purpose of electioneering can be seen in them.

According to Nicole Lagace, Senior Advisor and Communications Director to the Secretary of State, “The DNC reached out to Secretary Gorbea on April 26 to inquire about the decreased number of polling locations in Rhode Island for the Presidential primary. We explained that we do not oversee polling locations and that was the end of that correspondence.”

[Andrew Stewart contributed to this reporting.]

July 21, 2016July 21, 2016

Jill Stein doesn’t mind helping Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for president, thinks progressives should vote for her even if it means Donald Trump would defeat Hillary Clinton as a result.

“Sometimes you have to lose elections to build your power,” Stein told RI Future in a wide-ranging, 35-minute interview Wednesday. “Because we don’t get out of this hole unless we build our power. We don’t change this system unless we challenge it. In the words of Frederick Douglass ‘power concedes nothing without a demand.’ It never has, it never will. We’ve been doing this lesser evil thing for quite a while right now and this politics of fear has brought us everything we are afraid of. All those things we didn’t want we’ve gotten by the droves because the lesser evil essentially silences us.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cgZoxHfz_w

But what about all the Supreme Court justices Trump would appoint, I asked her.

“As opposed to having Hillary Clinton in power starting an air war with Russia over Syria because she wants a no-fly zone,” Stein responded. “She’s all about challenging Russia and provoking Russia and surrounding Russia with nuclear weapons and missiles and troops. Do we really want an aggressive war hawk in the White House who has a proven track record of actually doing the things that Donald Trump says?”

Clinton and Trump are “different,” she conceded, “but not different enough to save your life, your job or the planet.” She asked if America would be better served by “an advocate for billionaires in the White House instead of a billionaire himself?”

Fair enough. But Trump’s alleged wealth doesn’t even register on the list of things that would make him a terrible president. What about the hate and distrust his presidency would breed into America, I said.

“And think about where that came from,” Stein retorted. “Why does Donald Trump have support now? Because working people have been subjected to a miserable economy. And where did that miserable economy come from? Well, we had NAFTA, who gave us that? This was a policy of the Clintons, supported by Hillary. We had the Wall Street meltdown, which disappeared 9 million jobs and stole 5 million homes.”

Stein added, “I would feel horrible if Trump gets elected and I would feel horrible if Hillary gets elected but I feel most horrible about a political system that says we have two lethal choices, now pick your weapon of self destruction.”

Instant run-off voting, which allows voters to rank candidates, would allow people to vote for their preferred candidate without risk of aiding a political enemy, she said. But she was also clear to point out, there’s no reason to think she can’t win.

“In my view we don’t even have to lose this election,” she said, noting that there are 42 million people who are “trapped in predatory student loan debt. I’m the only candidate who will cancel that debt like we did for the crooks on Wall Street.”

Stein said Cornell West, Michelle Alexander and Seattle City Councilor Kshama Sawant are potential vice presidential candidates. She said Bernie Sanders could have “just about any” position in her administration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cgZoxHfz_w

July 13, 2016

Bernie Sanders stays true to his word

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

You may feel disappointed or embittered towards Bernie Sanders and his not-so-ringing endorsement of Hillary Clinton, which was more of a Bernie stump speech with the word “endorse” mentioned once and the name “Hillary” tacked on to policy statements. When he did endorse, she smiled, and he nodded somberly. And as saddening it is for this beautiful and inspiring campaign to virtually end with such an endorsement (though he has not, and will not, concede), we must remember the most important and admirable quality of Bernie Sanders as a candidate, and as a person.

He never goes back on his word.

He promised, early in the campaign, that he would support the eventual Democratic nominee should he not win. He has held true to that statement by endorsing Clinton. Yet, in spite of that endorsement, he has managed to hold true to his statement that he will take the fight all the way to the convention.

In a message to his delegates last night, Bernie said, “I am still officially a candidate. We are going to Philly. I did not and will not concede. I am not suspending my campaign. I hope we can get enough votes but she will likely be the nominee. When she is, I will come out of the convention and do everything I can to beat Donald Trump and I hope you will join me.”

Beating Donald Trump has become imperative, yes, but not until the Democratic Party puts forth a truly progressive platform and recognizes the hard work and achievements of nearly 1900 Bernie Sanders delegates, 13 million Bernie Sanders voters, and hundreds of thousands of Bernie Sanders volunteers.

Now is not the time to abandon Bernie, or question his integrity. He is not acquiescing to the Democratic establishment, nor is he bowing to their demands. No, he’s becoming a towering progressive leader for the entire nation. Unlike any other incumbent politician, he has maintained his promises both to the Democratic Party and to his supporters. He has not conceded, will not concede, and will not suspend his campaign. And I know he will hold true to those words.

Now is the time to believe in Bernie Sanders and what he, and we, can accomplish together. This movement was never about one man, or one presidential candidate. It was, and is, about inspiring millions of Americans to stand up and fight back against a corrupt and unjust political process. And, as stated at the end of one of Bernie’s most inspiring ads about his volunteers, “keep fighting. The revolution has just begun.”

June 12, 2016

RI Democrats elect delegates, give nods to Sanders supporters

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

RI Democratic Party Chair Joseph McNamara opens the RI Democratic State Convention

There were two things every speaker at yesterday’s Rhode Island State Democratic Convention mentioned in their remarks: the horrific attack in Orlando and the importance of Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Nearly 200 members of the RI State Democratic Committee, elected officials, pledged delegates, delegate candidates, and several dozen Bernie supporters gathered at the Rhode Island Shriners Hall in Cranston for a two-hour session at which the main items of business were the endorsement of congressional candidates and the election of at-large delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia.

The meeting began with a moment of silence for the victims and their families, and many of the speakers lamented the lack of progress in common-sense gun safety legislation. And while Bernie’s supporters may not have gotten everything they hoped for from the agenda (a resolution to require the 2020 superdelegate votes to mirror the popular vote was referred to the platform committee), the influence of Sanders’ message was front and center in the proceedings.

Describing the core principle of the Democratic Party, RI’s senior Senator Jack Reed told the group, “It is not sufficient that those with the most get more; it is necessary that *everyone* gets a chance. And no one has articulated this principle more than Bernie.” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse acknowledged everyone who had worked on Sanders’ campaign, “You’ve done a marvelous job at bringing Bernie’s voice — which I’ve heard in the Senate for a decade — [to Rhode Island]. I applaud and I appreciate you.”

Both Rhode Island’s congressional incumbents were endorsed unanimously by the committee, and both Rep. David Cicilline (CD1) and Rep. Jim Langevin (CD2) highlighted the Sanders campaign in their remarks. Cicilline thanked Sanders for “raising issues we have to address — if we don’t, we do that at peril to our party and peril to our country.” Langevin thanked Sanders for his “powerful, important message,” and said that through the primary contest, Clinton and Sanders “made each other and our party better and stronger.”

The main business of the convention was electing delegates (those note elected directly in April’s primary). In Party Leader and Elected Official (PL and EO) delegates, Sanders got two, Sen. Josh Miller and Sen. James Sheehan, and Clinton one, Secretary of State Nellie Gorbea. Both received three at-large delegates: For Sanders, Rep. Wilbur Jennings, Lauren Niedel-Gresh (a leader of his campaign here in RI), and Linda Ujifusa. Elected as delegates for Clinton were Teresa Paiva Weed, Mark S. Weiner and Sabina Matos. (Alternates for Sanders and Clinton were Capri C. Catanzaro and Mayor James Diossa, respectively.)

Edna O’Neill Mattson and Frank Montanaro, Sr. were elected as the National Committeewoman and Committeeman. They join the governor, the congressional delegation and party Chair Joseph McNamara and Vice Chair Grace Diaz in the role of unpledged delegates.

Rounding out the delegation are those elected in April: For Sanders, Roland C. Gauvin, Laura Perez, Walter M. Conklin, Amanda Montgomery, Jeanine Calkin, John D. Hamilton, Maggie A Kain, and Todd W. Ellison; for Clinton, Claiborne Pell, Myrth York, Joseph R. Paolino, III, Deborah Ruggiero, Eva Mancuso, Patrick T. Fogarty, and L. Susan Weiner.

Appointed to the DNC’s standing committees were two Sanders delegates — Aaron Regunberg to Rules and Hilary Stookey to Credentials — and one Clinton delegate Joseph R. Paolino Jr. to Platform.

While it is the usual practice that the RI Speaker of the House chairs the delegation (indeed, Speaker Nick Mattiello was elected to the role) in another nod to Bernie, the position of Vice-Chair will be filled by Sanders delegate John D. Hamilton.

In addition to the motion to apportion superdelegate votes, the state committee also heard a resolution, based on the party’s environmental platform, to take a position on the Burrrilville power plant. It was referred to the planning committee.

While some Bernie supporters clearly hoped for more concrete takeaways yesterday, those elected as delegates expressed eagerness to have impact at the DNC. Linda Ujifusa, who had been a leader in organizing for Sanders in the East Bay, said she was “excited and honored” to be headed to Philadelphia. “I hope to be able to help Sen. Sanders policies gain acceptance at the Convention.”

May 19, 2016May 20, 2016

Nevada Caucus: What really happened inside

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The caucus in Nevada has been an messy affair from the beginning. Being new to the caucus process, there has been any number of irregularities and confusion, and none of this has been helped by the corporate media “dog race” coverage. Instead the media has tried in earnest to make the Bernie Sanders campaign the equivalent of Donald Trump. The coverage of the alleged violence inside of the convention is no exception. Cell phone video of the supposed chair throwing by a Sanders supporter shows that not only was there no chair ever thrown, rather fellow supporters peacefully took the the chair away and then hugged the enraged person who had lost his cool. I got it off of Twitter and anyone media outlet looking for the real story could have reported it correctly too.

RT this! NO chair throwing at #nvdemconvention – guy picks chair up, puts it down, they HUG it out. #TeamBernieNV pic.twitter.com/mBZmEeg1T5

— Jenn Dize 👩🏻‍💻Bit.ly/RickSnyderFlint (@JennElizabethJ) May 17, 2016

Here former Ohio Senator Nina Turner is interviewed by Ed Shultz https://youtu.be/OYaR4X2KDmk who was there and has said repeatedly that there was no violence on the part of the Sanders supporters. They go into the spin the media and the Clinton surrogates in California are trying to distort the record. It is definitely worth watching.

Instead the corporate media blew this out of proportion and tied this incident into reports of death threats to the chair and vandalism at the party HQ. None of this was instigated or sanctioned by the Sanders campus, and Bernie himself this issue the statement on this.

However, in keeping with their drumbeat of the inevitable coronation of Clinton, this served the media narrative as a useful distraction from the fact that Sanders won his first closed primary in Oregon and Hillary squeaked by at the last minute in Kentucky state that she had one by a wide margin against Obama.

Democracy Now reported it this way.

“Bernie Sanders’ victory in Oregon comes amid tensions with the Democratic Party after Sanders supporters erupted into protest Saturday at the Nevada convention. They say rules were abruptly changed and 64 Sanders supporters were wrongly denied delegate status. Clinton ultimately won 20 pledged delegates to Sanders’ 15. The state party chair, Roberta Lange, said she received death threats, while state party headquarters were vandalized. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid urged Sanders to condemn the behavior of some of his supporters, saying he faced a “test of leadership.” In a statement, Sanders rejected violence, and noted that during the Nevada campaign, shots were fired into his campaign office in the state, and his staff’s housing complex was broken into and ransacked. He also accused Nevada Democratic leadership of “[using] its power to prevent a fair and transparent process” at the conventions on Saturday.”

It is worth noting that inside the caucus they had a policeline guarding the stage which gave the appearance that it was not a transparent process and was intimidating. The tone of favoritism toward Clinton has been set by by the DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She has always been close to Hillary Clinton and has tried to limited debates as well as a number of other things to give Hillary the full advantage. Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver has complained vociferously about this.

There is a lesson to be learned here. When you are inside any party convention, everything you do will be held as an example of the campaign and it will be used by the media to tell the story that they want to tell. It is a good lesson for the the State Convention in RI convention which is coming up in June.

Also, for any delegates going to the Democratic National which will be contested as the neither candidate will have the number of pledge delegates needed so it will be up to the superdelegates to tip the scale’s. Not everyone inside of the Democratic Party has been pleased about the way Debbie Wasserman Schultz has manipulated the election and many of them made it clear that they didn’t want to be the one deciding the election.

Footnote: For anyone interested in the wonky details of what went on in Nevada here is a good explanation,

https://johnlaurits.com/2016/05/15/what-happened-at-the-nevada-democratic-state-convention/

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387