It's very simple: either you want to take the possibility of Hitler 2.0 off the table or you don't. When I read Josh Marshall, it's clear that he doesn't want this:
"What I am quite sure about is that primary process has not been 'rigged' as the Sanders forces claim. As I've argued, to the extent they're rigged, they're rigged in Sanders favor!. Last night's Washington state primary tells the story. Back in March Sanders got a huge morale boost and a minor delegate boost when he absolutely crushed Clinton in the state's caucus. Last night, when the state held a primary Clinton scored a solid win. The difference is that a bit over 200,000 people participated in the caucus and well over 600,000 voted in the primary. Unfortunately for Clinton, the delegates were all awarded on the basis of the low turnout caucus. Caucuses should be abolished in every state. They're just the best voter suppression method in politics today.
"Sanders has been the top beneficiary of the anti-democratic parts of the nomination process. But that's irrelevant. Both candidates played under the same rules."
"The relevant point it's not about being right. It's not about anyone's feelings. Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee. She won fair and square. The only relevant issue is putting her in the oval office rather than Donald Trump."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/very-interesting--9
I'm actually not sure that I agree with Marshall's specific point here-that the Dems should consider sacrificing Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to please the Bernie supporters. After all, what was her crime? I get nervous about emboldening them in the future.
But certainly Marshall''s larger point is spot on. The only relevant issue is putting Hilary Clinton in the oval office rather than Donald Trump.
But when I read a hand wringer like Jeet Heer, I'm not at all confident that he wants to take Hitler 2.0 off the table. If this were the only relevant issue for Heer, he wouldn't lament Bernie not talking about Hillary's' emails.
"Bernie Should’ve Attacked Hillary’s “Damn Emails”
"What I am quite sure about is that primary process has not been 'rigged' as the Sanders forces claim. As I've argued, to the extent they're rigged, they're rigged in Sanders favor!. Last night's Washington state primary tells the story. Back in March Sanders got a huge morale boost and a minor delegate boost when he absolutely crushed Clinton in the state's caucus. Last night, when the state held a primary Clinton scored a solid win. The difference is that a bit over 200,000 people participated in the caucus and well over 600,000 voted in the primary. Unfortunately for Clinton, the delegates were all awarded on the basis of the low turnout caucus. Caucuses should be abolished in every state. They're just the best voter suppression method in politics today.
"Sanders has been the top beneficiary of the anti-democratic parts of the nomination process. But that's irrelevant. Both candidates played under the same rules."
"The relevant point it's not about being right. It's not about anyone's feelings. Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee. She won fair and square. The only relevant issue is putting her in the oval office rather than Donald Trump."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/very-interesting--9
I'm actually not sure that I agree with Marshall's specific point here-that the Dems should consider sacrificing Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to please the Bernie supporters. After all, what was her crime? I get nervous about emboldening them in the future.
But certainly Marshall''s larger point is spot on. The only relevant issue is putting Hilary Clinton in the oval office rather than Donald Trump.
But when I read a hand wringer like Jeet Heer, I'm not at all confident that he wants to take Hitler 2.0 off the table. If this were the only relevant issue for Heer, he wouldn't lament Bernie not talking about Hillary's' emails.
"Bernie Should’ve Attacked Hillary’s “Damn Emails”
"He played nice. Now she's in weak shape against Donald Trump."
https://newrepublic.com/article/133741/bernie-shouldve-attacked-hillarys-damn-emails
I have to say that if Heer really wants to avoid Hitler 2.0-which is what Trump is-then he's going about it all wrong. After all, to defeat Hitler 2.0 we need to attack him, not Hillary.
Sort of elementary you would think.
Bernie has not played nice. He didn't use the email attack-which was good-but he did attack her character relentlessly: over the super PAC issue, over her speeches, over her donations. His supporters actually protested her rallies.
That's what Heer calls playing nice?
But I don't believe Heer anyway. I don't think he wishes Bernie had gone after her on emails to make her a stronger candidate, I think he wishes Bernie had used them as Heer still wishes Bernie had won.
So for Heer unlike for Josh Marshall, the only relevant issue is not to defeat Hitler 2.0. Even now he's more disappointed that Bernie lost than interested in stopping Trump.
By the way. If you wanted to help Hillary win you wouldn't say she is in weak shape even if it were true.
Because for every pundit to keep talking about how 'weak' she is actually weakens her.
If Heer really wanted to take a Hitler 2.0 Administration off the table he wouldn't say that Hilary is in trouble over the emails. He'd tell the truth: the emails are a phony issue and Hilary has been the victim of an egregious media double standard.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/the-lies-of-chris-cillizza-and-double.html
Heer would point out that yesterday's IG report actually has shown that the Beltway has been telling a falsehood that Hillary is the only Secretary of State who used her own private email for most of her official business.
That Heer is not doing this tells me he's ok with Hitler 2.0. If he really weren't he'd stop taking shots across the bow at Hillary at this late date.
No comments:
Post a Comment