I agree with Josh Marshall's larger point but not his conclusion regarding Ms. Wasserman-Schultz.
"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."
"Anything that gets in the way of that goal is a disaster for the Democrats. If there's some background negotiation to replace Wasserman Schultz as part of reuniting the party, making Sanders supporters feel their grievances were heard, putting a new person in charge that both sides have confidence in, nothing should stand in the way of that."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/very-interesting--9
I agree with Josh 1000 percent that the only relevant issue now is putting Hillary in the WH rather than Trump. Too many liberals still haven't gotten that message. They are still arguing about Bernie and the primary. Or whining that she's too weak or that the fake email scandal will hurt her.
Anyone quibbling like this I can only assume objectively-rather than subjectively-desires a President Trump: who is Hitler 2.0.
I am using the old Marxist distinction between what you say and believe you're trying to do and what the real effect of your actions and words actually is.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/jeet-heer-apparently-wants-hitler-20-to.html
However, I don't agree that this means we dump Wasserman-Schultz.
On the level pure optics, it's ugly. Basically, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has done nothing wrong and plenty that's right for the Democratic party. She has raised lots of money for the Dems while Bernie has refused to raise money for them.
Now he's raising money for her opponent. The fact that Obama has endorsed her says a lot.
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11782650/bernie-sanders-democratic-establishment
What I find deplorable is that an allegedly informed wonk like Klein is peddling such a fiction. To call this 'deplorable' is major hyperbole.
"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."
"Anything that gets in the way of that goal is a disaster for the Democrats. If there's some background negotiation to replace Wasserman Schultz as part of reuniting the party, making Sanders supporters feel their grievances were heard, putting a new person in charge that both sides have confidence in, nothing should stand in the way of that."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/very-interesting--9
I agree with Josh 1000 percent that the only relevant issue now is putting Hillary in the WH rather than Trump. Too many liberals still haven't gotten that message. They are still arguing about Bernie and the primary. Or whining that she's too weak or that the fake email scandal will hurt her.
Anyone quibbling like this I can only assume objectively-rather than subjectively-desires a President Trump: who is Hitler 2.0.
I am using the old Marxist distinction between what you say and believe you're trying to do and what the real effect of your actions and words actually is.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/05/jeet-heer-apparently-wants-hitler-20-to.html
However, I don't agree that this means we dump Wasserman-Schultz.
On the level pure optics, it's ugly. Basically, Ms. Wasserman-Schultz has done nothing wrong and plenty that's right for the Democratic party. She has raised lots of money for the Dems while Bernie has refused to raise money for them.
Now he's raising money for her opponent. The fact that Obama has endorsed her says a lot.
http://lastmenandovermen.blogspot.com/2016/03/president-obama-endorses-debbie.html
Yet she's the one who needs to be punished?
But what about Josh's point about the only relevant issue being making sure Hillary defeats Trump?
I just worry that kneecapping Ms. Wasserman-Schultz sends the wrong message. It sort of is an admission of guilt: yes, Hillary only won because Wasserman-Schultz had her finger on the scale when this is categorically false.
I see Ezra Klein is peddling this fiction for instance:
"When Sanders complains that the Democratic establishment is in Clinton's corner, this is the establishment he means. As my colleagues Matt Yglesias and Jeff Stein wrote, "Party elites — including leaders of interest groups whose agenda Sanders has always consistently supported — really have worked against Sanders. Not by cheating, but by exercising the normal channels of influence that influential political actors have at their disposal."
"(The one exception to the "normal channels of influence" here was the Democratic National Committee's scheduling of debates to help Clinton, which really was deplorable.)"
Yet she's the one who needs to be punished?
But what about Josh's point about the only relevant issue being making sure Hillary defeats Trump?
I just worry that kneecapping Ms. Wasserman-Schultz sends the wrong message. It sort of is an admission of guilt: yes, Hillary only won because Wasserman-Schultz had her finger on the scale when this is categorically false.
I see Ezra Klein is peddling this fiction for instance:
"When Sanders complains that the Democratic establishment is in Clinton's corner, this is the establishment he means. As my colleagues Matt Yglesias and Jeff Stein wrote, "Party elites — including leaders of interest groups whose agenda Sanders has always consistently supported — really have worked against Sanders. Not by cheating, but by exercising the normal channels of influence that influential political actors have at their disposal."
"(The one exception to the "normal channels of influence" here was the Democratic National Committee's scheduling of debates to help Clinton, which really was deplorable.)"
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/26/11782650/bernie-sanders-democratic-establishment
What I find deplorable is that an allegedly informed wonk like Klein is peddling such a fiction. To call this 'deplorable' is major hyperbole.
A lot of people like Klein have assumed without the slightest evidence that the reason the Dems had some weekend debates was to keep it out of prime time to save Hillary from fearsome Bernie.
The truth is far less 'deplorable.' Simply put, the network stations put their debates on the weekends. Cable news does it during the week. Later no one said a word against Reince Priebus when the GOP has some weekend debates.
Ironically, you now have Bernie's manager, Jeff Weaver praising Reince Priebus and wondering why Wasserman-Schultz can't be more like him! This must be the first time anyone has praised Reince Priebus.
The irony is that with the GOP system Hillary would already have about 2700 delegates. With the GOP system it would be an even bigger Hillary rout.
All of this is really about suggesting that Hillary's win is illegitimate. Josh Marshall is concerned about any attempt to falsely convey that somehow Hillary cheated. But canning Wasserman-Schultz would be read as an admission of guilt.
By the way, Klein is further trying to give fuel to the fire that this is not legitimate by saying this:
"Hillary Clinton is overwhelmingly likely to win the Democratic nomination, but it's been close. So far she's taken 1,768 delegates in primaries and caucuses, while Bernie Sanders has secured 1,497."
This is very silly. In a proportional system a 271 delegate lead is not close. This is double Obama's lead in 2008 and that wasn't close either.
I have to assume that Klein is ok with Hitler 2.0-sort of ironic for someone with the name Klein. This is not hyperbole either. Many of Trump's supporters are sending some of the nastiest anti semitic rantings you can imagine to guys like Ben Shapiro and even their families.
Klein ought to stop trying to make the Berners feel ripped off or that they 'almost had this', and tell the truth. He lost fair and square and it was not close. Full stop.
That's if you agree with Josh Marshall that the only relevant issue now is to take a Hitler 2.0 off the table.
Ironically, you now have Bernie's manager, Jeff Weaver praising Reince Priebus and wondering why Wasserman-Schultz can't be more like him! This must be the first time anyone has praised Reince Priebus.
The irony is that with the GOP system Hillary would already have about 2700 delegates. With the GOP system it would be an even bigger Hillary rout.
All of this is really about suggesting that Hillary's win is illegitimate. Josh Marshall is concerned about any attempt to falsely convey that somehow Hillary cheated. But canning Wasserman-Schultz would be read as an admission of guilt.
By the way, Klein is further trying to give fuel to the fire that this is not legitimate by saying this:
"Hillary Clinton is overwhelmingly likely to win the Democratic nomination, but it's been close. So far she's taken 1,768 delegates in primaries and caucuses, while Bernie Sanders has secured 1,497."
This is very silly. In a proportional system a 271 delegate lead is not close. This is double Obama's lead in 2008 and that wasn't close either.
I have to assume that Klein is ok with Hitler 2.0-sort of ironic for someone with the name Klein. This is not hyperbole either. Many of Trump's supporters are sending some of the nastiest anti semitic rantings you can imagine to guys like Ben Shapiro and even their families.
Klein ought to stop trying to make the Berners feel ripped off or that they 'almost had this', and tell the truth. He lost fair and square and it was not close. Full stop.
That's if you agree with Josh Marshall that the only relevant issue now is to take a Hitler 2.0 off the table.
No comments:
Post a Comment