“Lessons from a campaign that outperformed expectations but still came up short”—Christopher Hass

“…It’s true that few serious challengers have ever had so many powerful elements within their own party aligned against them. When WikiLeaks unleashed a trove of nearly 20,000 internal emails between Democratic National Committee staffers mocking Sanders and, at times, outright conspiring against him, it seemed to confirm the worst of his supporters’ suspicions that the game was rigged from the start.

“But Sanders’ campaign against Hillary Clinton was less a civil war within the party than an attempted hostile takeover. To argue that an anti-establishment candidate lost because the establishment was against him is to close off the possibility of ever successfully challenging that establishment—and that would be a deep disservice to Sanders, his supporters and all they accomplished. Instead, it seems worth asking why exactly he came up short, and what it might take, next time, for someone to challenge the establishment and win…

“Sanders came up short by more than 3 million votes—though not enough to prevent many supporters from claiming that it was a combination of election irregularities and voter suppression that cost him the election. But closed primaries are not the same as voter suppression. It’s true that our systems for voting—especially in primaries, which are built on the assumption that not many people participate—are habitually underfunded, understaffed and badly flawed, but there’s no compelling evidence that they’re rigged.

“Whether or not the mainstream media is rigged, on the other hand, is an altogether different question. In December, Media Matters reported that ABC’s World News Tonight had devoted less than one minute to Sanders’ campaign in all of 2015, and they weren’t alone in snubbing him. This despite the fact that Sanders regularly drew more support than the object of the media’s early obsession, Donald Trump. 

“Major news outlets also spotted Clinton a 359-delegate lead before the first vote was even cast, by including super delegates in their official results. That helped create a false impression that endorsements from these party insiders are part of the delegate count that determines who ‘wins’ each state (they aren’t), and a false narrative that the race was never close.

“But it’s precisely because of Sanders’ success, against all odds, that the next challenger will face a much different set of assumptions going in. What Sanders did was pull back the curtain on a complacent Democratic establishment, revealing just how hungry people are—especially young people—for a more progressive and populist economic policy. 

“Sanders’ supporters and volunteer networks are now part of every state, and their influence will be felt within state parties and progressive organizations for a long time to come. If they’re successful, in the future an establishment (including unions and issue-advocacy groups) that is less complacent, less compromising and more receptive to the wants of its members—a more small ‘d’ democratic establishment—may not be so quick to close ranks around a presumptive nominee.

“In that environment, a campaign that starts early, with a clear commitment to winning and focus on building a broad and inclusive coalition, could play out a lot differently. Sanders was right about the economic moment that we live in, but he somehow missed the larger social movements and forces—including the struggle for racial justice that is being waged in the streets every day…

“Bernie Sanders had a clear message, and he mounted an inspiring campaign that he used to communicate it. The political debate has forever been altered as a result. But winning campaigns are about more than just making a point. Naomi Klein, writing in The Nation, put it this way: ‘We didn’t win, but we could have. We came that close. That’s thrilling. It’s also terrifying. Because if we can win, it means that we must win. That’s a heavy responsibility.’”

For the complete article, click here. 

"Demand that the Clinton Campaign address the concept of endless war and the grotesque, trillion-dollar military budget"--Robert Koehler

“…The paradox faced this year by reluctant Hillary supporters is that, in voting for her out of intense (and understandable) aversion to Trump, they’re giving, once again, a free pass to the military-industrial status quo. Voting idealistically — for the Green Party’s Jill Stein, say — is seen overwhelmingly as a mistake: the equivalent of a vote for Trump.

“Yeah, OK, I get it, but I don’t believe it. It feels like being locked in a jail cell. To concede that voting is sheerly a cynical, hold-your-nose activity, divorced from real values — to concede that the best choice we ever get is the lesser evil — is the slow death knell of democracy.

“As I see it, the only solution is to reach beyond the candidates. Vote for whomever, but realize that the job of building the future — a future founded on compassion, not violence and domination — is everyone’s job. If the right leader hasn’t yet stood up, or has been knocked down, stand up yourself.

“If nothing else, demand that the Clinton campaign, and your local reps, address the concept of endless war and the grotesque, trillion-dollar military budget. A movement is building; a force is rising. Look for it. Join it”—Robert Koehler, Reaching Beyond the Candidates.

“…Republicans must rebuke Trump himself and cease supporting him… Republicans’ refusal to un-endorse Trump puts their own character and judgment in doubt…”—Jennifer Rubin

“House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and vice-presidential nominee Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana (R) knew what they were getting into when they climbed aboard the Donald Trump bandwagon. 

“They had watched him insult minorities, POWs, the disabled and women. They had seen for themselves how utterly ignorant he was about basic policy concepts. They knew he lied about big and small things (e.g., falsely saying he opposed the Iraq War, reneging on charity pledges until shamed by The Post). They knew he’d stiffed and swindled Trump U students. They never should have backed him; they were abetting a vile individual attaining the country’s most powerful office, for which he was patently unfit. Pence went a step further in agreeing to be his running mate, and now travels around the country cheerleading for Trump.

“Now Trump demeans two Gold Star parents. When slammed, he does not apologize or retract the remarks. He insists he has read the Constitution but then claims Gold Star father Khizr Khan has ‘no right’ to criticize him. In a pathetic statement trying to paper over his egregious remarks, he does not apologize to the Khans nor retract his insults. The world-class narcissist claims to be worthy of the same sympathy (I sacrificed too!) as the parents who lost their son...

“What does Pence, father of Marine 2nd Lt. Michael J. Pence, do? He directs the press wanting comment to Trump. Really, that’s it? One wonders how 2nd Lt. Pence — and all the other Americans risking their lives — feel about that. Pence’s silence and continued presence on the ticket suggest he considers Trump within the bounds of normal political discourse. If Pence had a modicum of dignity or decency, he would tell the American people: ‘I made a terrible mistake. Mr. Trump is so morally bankrupt and of such shabby character that I could not possibly serve with him.’ Failing to do so, the same should be said of Pence.

“In his interview on ABC’s ‘This Week,’ Trump also revealed he did not know Russia had invaded Ukraine. (Putin’s ‘not gonna go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down’). When George Stephanopoulos told him it already had, he repeated the Kremlin’s talking point that the people of Crimea wanted Russia to invade.

“The offices of Ryan and McConnell wouldn’t comment on Trump’s slur against Ghazala Khan or ludicrous claim he’s ‘sacrificed’ just as the Khans have. Their spokesmen would only repeat the bosses’ prior remarks on Trump’s Muslim stances. That’s not the point. They know this but they are abdicating moral leadership because they cannot possibly justify their support of Trump. In their silence, they condone Trump and stand with him. They should be standing with the Khans. Do these congressional ‘leaders’ actually have nothing to say about the cruel attack on two parents who now go to other military funerals to honor their son? Republicans’ refusal to un-endorse Trump puts their own character and judgment in doubt. 

“It is fair to say that the Republicans who cheer him on — not Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.), who refused to — are signing their own political death warrants… Republicans who fell in line behind Trump cannot escape the moral stench he emits. He disrespects parents of a fallen warrior; they do as well with their silence. He attacks other Americans, lies habitually and embodies none of the qualities we expect of elected leaders; they demonstrate moral and political cowardice in refusing to condemn him. 

“It’s no longer sufficient for Republicans to rebuke Trump’s loony positions or foul statements. There are too many of both. The problem is not one of policy but of the nominee himself. Republicans must rebuke Trump himself and cease supporting him. Silence is consent…” 

For the entire article, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Majority Leader, Governor Pence: It's not enough by Jennifer Rubin, click here.