a clown car full of millionaires: the 2016 presidential primary thread

thought he was just humblebraggin about knowing Claire

loooool

Fredrik: Sanders didn't organize the event this afternoon, it was to promote Social Security/Medicare, which have made a pretty undeniable positive impact on an awful lot of black lives, and are jeopardized by the prospect of someone like Jeb Bush (or worse) getting into the White House. I work in low-income housing, and we were encouraging our clients to go check it out because it's so vital to their lives. I don't have a problem with people disrupting campaign events to get their issues more awareness but I think it would have made more sense to allow this rally to continue uninterrupted. Not because it made sensitive white liberals mad but because the rally was for a worthy cause and it's kind of a shame that now no one's going to pay attention to what it was about in the first place.

I feel like I don't want to comment on whether or not the interruption was good or right or whatever, but you don't think presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders can demand a moment of silence for Michael Brown as requirement to participate in this kind of thing? That sounds weak. And exactly because Social Security/Medicare has been so important to black lives, and especially because the fight to dismantle it is so often based on racist feelings, it would make perfect sense. So whether or not what BlackLivesMatter did was smart or not, Sanders walked right into it.

Idk who the protest group was made up of but I don't think it was the core BLM organizers. Seeing some buzz that suggests they want to distinguish the people who led that action from their own work.

That is kinda what happens with grassroots often, right? They have weak leadership by design, more horizontal, so they splinter and the fringe is hard to control. It's just, that if Bernie Sanders want to seem as if he's the candidate for the grassroots - and again, I'm only basing this on fb-posts from my friend Clare Danes - then this is bad and stupid. There aren't a monolithic 'grassroots' dem party to fight against the establishment and Hilary. There's a bunch of different ones, and some of the most vocal feel completely overlooked by Sanders, and his followers.

Then again, this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/08/bernie-sanders-leaves-seattle-stage-after-event-disrupted-by-black-lives-matter-protesters/?tid=sm_tw 15.000 people turned up at second stop on saturday. But boy, that crowd looks white on that picture...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CL7uwJkUAAAzS6l.jpg:large

He should do a BLM Town Hall and try to thread the class/identity politics needle, I guess. Doesn't seem like this issue is going away. I just don't understand why BLM doesn't focus on Hillary.

Hillary has secret service on her detail

yes, what i think we have here are either 'principled' chickenshits or secret Clintonians

Hilary's very first campaign speech was focused on criminal justice, iirc. And she's learning the talking points, and nobody expects her to do more than that. Sanders is presenting himself as the defender of the grassroots, but these specific grassroots hate him. This article points out what Marissa Johnson said on the stage: “I was going to tell Bernie how racist this city is — with all of its progressives — but you’ve already done that for me. Thank you.” “Bernie says that he’s all about the people and about grassroots. The biggest grassroots movement in this country right now is Black Lives Matter,” "Bernie, you were confronted at NetRoots at by black women, you have yet to put out a criminal justice reform package like O’Malley did."

"these specific grassroots hate him"

really? I don't think anyone hates him. This seemed like opportunism to make a point; you can argue whether or not that was a good idea (I think it was misplaced) but to say that a large number of people in the BLM 'movement' (to the degree that there is an organized movement) "hate" Sanders is not true.

Here is the full statement from the two women, as posted on Facebook:

*****

Today BLM Seattle, with the support of other Black organizers and non-Black allies and accomplices, held Bernie Sanders publicly accountable for his lack of support for the Black Lives Matter movement and his blatantly silencing response to the ‪#‎SayHerName‬ ‪#‎IfIDieInPoliceCustody‬ action that took place at Netroots this year.

Bernie’s arrival in Seattle is largely significant in the context of the state of emergency Black lives are in locally as well as across America. The Seattle Police Department has been under federal consent decree for the last three years and has been continually plagued by use-of-force violations and racist scandals amongst their rank and file. Seattle Mayor Ed Murray has refused to push any reform measures for police accountability, not even the numerous recommendations of his self-appointed Community Police Commission. The Seattle School District suspends Black students at a rate six times higher than their white counterparts, feeding Black children into the school-to-prison pipeline. King County has fought hard to push through a plan to build a $210 million new youth jail to imprison these children, amid intense community criticism and dissent. The Central District, a historically Black neighborhood in Seattle, has undergone rapid gentrification over the past few decades, with Black people being displaced from the only neighborhood that we could legally live in until just years ago. While white men profit off of the legalization of marijuana, our prisons are still filled with Black people who are over-incarcerated for drug offenses.

This city is filled with white progressives, which is why Bernie Sanders’ camp was obviously expecting a friendly and consenting audience for today’s campaign visit. The problem with Sanders’, and with white Seattle progressives in general, is that they are utterly and totally useless (when not outright harmful) in terms of the fight for Black lives. While we are drowning in their liberal rhetoric, we have yet to see them support Black grassroots movements or take on any measure of risk and responsibility for ending the tyranny of white supremacy in our country and in our city. This willful passivity while claiming solidarity with the ‪#‎BlackLivesMatter‬ movement in an effort to be relevant is over. White progressive Seattle and Bernie Sanders cannot call themselves liberals while they participate in the racist system that claims Black lives. Bernie Sanders will not continue to call himself a man of the people, while ignoring the plight of Black people. Presidential candidates will not win Black votes without putting out an explicit criminal justice reform package. As was said at the Netroots action, presidential candidates should expect to be shut down and confronted every step along the way of this presidential campaign. Black people are in a state of emergency. Lines have been drawn in the sand. You are either fighting continuously and measurably to protect Black life in America, or you are a part of the white supremacist system that we will tear down in the liberation of our people.

On this, nearly the one year anniversary of the ruthless murder of Mike Brown, we honor Black lives lost by doing the unthinkable, the unapologetic, and the unrespectable. Out of radical love for our Black brothers and sisters, we put our lives and our bodies on the line to testify to their persecution and resilience. We join together in Black love to #SayHerName and declare that #BlackLivesMatter, understanding that our love will disrupt the complicity and corruption of our anti-Black society; GOP, Democrat, and otherwise.

There is no business as usual while Black lives are lost. We will ensure this by any means necessary.

With the strength of our ancestors and for the future of our children,

Black Lives Matter Seattle Co-Founders

Marissa Johnson and Mara Willaford

#BowDownBernie
#SayHerName
#IfIDieInPoliceCustody
‪#‎NotOneMoreDeportation‬
‪#‎FreePalestine‬
‪#‎MikeBrown‬
#BlackLivesMatter

#BowDownBernie?

#FreePalestine?

But that is a very very well written statement, imo.

not to be super cynical but it would surprise me if sanders'/whoever else's aloofness & lack of responsiveness to BLM is total blind oversight. i think there's probably a calculated resistance to seeming to explicitly affiliate w/issues that are considered divisive or which turn off an electorate apathetic regarding social justice issues & historically not super introspective. there is clumsiness - sanders insisting that economic inequality is the lens to the entirity of race relations in whichever interview it was felt really tone deaf, to me - but i feel like it is probably worse than that, & reflects the degree to which having conversations about race with everyone in america is considered a liability.

Not sure where the source is (maybe not published yet?):

https://mobile.twitter.com/ianbremmer/status/630407245017313280

ian bremmer
ian bremmer – Verified account ‏@ianbremmer

Post-Debate Poll (NBC)
Trump 23%
Cruz 13%
Carson 11%
Fiorina 8%
Rubio 8%
Bush 7%
Walker 7%

Trump, Cruz & Carson = 47%
#Wow

Sanders just hired a black woman as his PR person, so we'll if that changes things. she said as much, that it was unfair to look at things only thorugh the lens of economic inequality.

A perspective I agree with:

If the group engaging in civil disobedience is willingly granted the microphone at a managed event by the supposed oppressor, it’s nearly impossible for the disrupters to maintain the audience sympathy required to forgive the chaos and upset caused by the disruption itself. This is, of course, doubly true when the supposed oppressor is not an enemy but an ally within the tent. In order for an action of civil disobedience by an oppressed group to work, the oppressed group must actually remain oppressed in the context of the event. If they’re treated as equals with underdog outsider presidential candidates on stage, it simply looks like a circular firing squad of fractious activists rather than a civil rights movement speaking for the dispossessed without a voice. Once you have the stage and a microphone with a presidential candidate standing behind you (and you’re registered to vote!), it’s hard to gain sympathy for the claim that you don’t have a voice in the process.

From here.

people toss #FreePalestine in just about anywhere and i honestly dgi

/Hillary has secret service on her detail
/

yes, what i think we have here are either 'principled' chickenshits or secret Clintonians

my god morbs I'm just saying u can't hop onstage at a Clinton rally (have there even been any of these?) and usurp the mic bc the secret service will accost you. if you actually watch the footage of the BLM interruption of sanders he basically had the same security detail as a popular college athlete.

Bernie rally at the local arena later today in Portland. They already moved it from the smaller 12K+ Coliseum to the larger 18-20K+ place where the Trailblazers play after the mass outpouring of rsvps

xxx-post: There's really a hilarious catch-22 in that rubbish argument: If you don't have a voice, complain all you like, nobody can hear you. Then if you get a voice, then you can't use it to complain, because nobody will think you're sympathetic, because you've already got a voice. I think the problem is seeing 'a voice' as the end goal. As if Bernie Sanders allowing them to speak, once they themselves make their way onstage, overrules the fact that he does his best to ignore their plight, and move a conversation that has just started over the last year onto other subjects.

'Hey, you've got your voice, now stop using it!'

What did you think of his SCLC speech?

overrules the fact that he does his best to ignore their plight

It's no "fact" at all.

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/07/28/bernie-sanders-strong-words-structural-racism-and-inequality

I guess this went live today?

https://berniesanders.com/issues/racial-justice/

Then if you get a voice, then you can't use it to complain, because nobody will think you're sympathetic

Your summation omits one small but important detail that was present in the argument you're disparaging:

Then if you get a voice, you can't use it to complain that you have no voice, because nobody will think you're sympathetic.

OK, but that was not what BLM was complaining about, so what on earth does it has to do with anything?

What did you think of his SCLC speech?

― I wear my Redditor loathing with pride (ShariVari), 9. august 2015 21:51 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

It's a fine speech, though there are things I find a bit mysterious. Going on about how MLK was focusing on economic inequality at the end of his life, before doing what was asked and mention the names and say that black lives matter. (the webpage turns the order around, with 'economical violence at the bottom and 'Physical Violence at the top) Claiming that the new voting restrictions in the south is about billionaires trying to make it harder for non-billionaires to vote. Things like that. There are simply a lot of areas where the Sanders-progressive disagree with the BLM-progressive. Which is fine, people are allowed to disagree. But with Sanders, and his allies, trying to portray him as 'THE grassroots alternative' (again, according to Claire Danes) I can see why BLM goes on the attack, more than they do against Hilary.

Couple other points: 1) BLM matters. Sanders just put up that website. I don't know if what is on that webpage constitutes an 'explicit criminal justice reform package', but it looks like an ok framework to me. Right? And also, O'Malley won't be saying 'all lives matter' any time soon. b) I think a lot of anger at Sanders has to do with his followers. I mean, BLM Seattle explicitly attacks 'white liberals', and shouts about discrimination in Seattle: What the people at the rally does, rather than what Sanders does. A lot of it is using the platform that Sanders has (which Hillary neither has nor particularly wants) to attack said platform.

Knowing nothing about Seattle,I was wondering how much this was really about tension between white hipsters and the black community specific to that city

I guess you could say that attacking Sanders has forced him to clarify/modify his positions on the BLM movement, but seeing as he's probably the most sympathetic/already onboard person in the race, it just seems strange to attack him, over everyone else.

I don't think that it's "mysterious" that economic justice is at the top of Sanders' (and most of his supporters') agenda.

x-post: Well, among the things Marissa Johnson said was: “I was going to tell Bernie how racist this city is — with all of its progressives — but you’ve already done that for me. Thank you."

Sanders West Coast tour went from Seattle to Portland. I'm guessing San Francisco as the third and last stop.

Knowing nothing about Seattle,I was wondering how much this was really about tension between white hipsters and the black community specific to that city

― Iago Galdston,

Dunno about Seattle, but reports from my white lib hip friends in San Francisco suggests that this population is clueless about black lives, culture, and so on.

Seattle's one of the whiter cities around, and it's hard to dispute most of that Facebook post upthread. Though anecdotally a lot of the young white hipsters I know are strongly supportive of BLM. Hard to say but I got the impression that a lot of the nastiness in the crowd was coming from older white lefties pissed that their candidate got interrupted. Treating Sanders like an adversary after he responded to the Netroots protest in earlier speeches does confuse me.

Good post from one of the organizers of the event: https://m.facebook.com/pramila.jayapal/posts/10153194606313621

Another one from Seattle: https://www.facebook.com/spekulation/posts/10100934222577356?fref=nf&pnref=story

It's a fine speech, though there are things I find a bit mysterious. Going on about how MLK was focusing on economic inequality at the end of his life, before doing what was asked and mention the names and say that black lives matter.

― Frederik B, Sunday, August 9, 2015 9:22 PM (50 minutes ago)

imo that is not really a weird thing to "go on about."

Yeah. This the part of MLK's legacy that is often wiped out by conservatives looking to show that they supported civil rights and MLK from the beginning.

It's not a weird thing to go on about. I think it's weird doing that BEFORE saying Black Lives Matter and sayingtheirnames. And as I tried to put into that post as well, it's the other way around on his webpage.

I guess you could say that attacking Sanders has forced him to clarify/modify his positions on the BLM movement, but seeing as he's probably the most sympathetic/already onboard person in the race - this isn't really remotely true though right? i mean for someone who's the moral progressive high horse candidate clinton and o'malley nevermind jim webb (who was focused on criminal justice reform well before criminal justice reform was cool) have managed to develop more thorough policy positions and treat the issue more seriously than sanders, who even now is basically going 'look i added a page on the website and hired a black girl, what else do you want?'. for the guy who's supposed to be clearly obv better than the rest of the field to be lagging the rest of field or only on par w/ them at best on this issue could reasonably raise the question what the principles are of the ppl who think bernie sanders is clearly the right choice in terms of principles.

no. no no no no. Hillary C and O'Malley are not more credible on these issues. Not remotely.

"is basically going 'look i added a page on the website and hired a black girl, what else do you want?'." No, bullshit bullshit.

it's a weird thing in the sense that it's part of that old white leftist chesnut that race doesn't really matter, that it just distracts from class which is what really matters. obv class matters but ted ralls of the world telling black activists 'nothing happens to you because you're black, it happens to you because you're poor, trust me i know better' is an old con and even a hint of that from this year's messiah could understandably provoke skepticism from anyone who's heard this too many times before, esp in a market where that kind of white leftist voice might be louder than others.

Well go on with the non-referential comments balls, you're not talking about Sanders.

I don't want to fall too deeply into Sanders-worship, but jeez, this kind of shit is fucking lame, balls:

"for the guy who's supposed to be clearly obv better than the rest of the field to be lagging the rest of field or only on par w/ them at best on this issue could reasonably raise the question what the principles are of the ppl who think bernie sanders is clearly the right choice in terms of principles."

That's some Fox-level "question-raising."

people toss #FreePalestine in just about anywhere and i honestly dgi

― go hang a salami I'm a canal, adam (silby), Sunday, August 9, 2015 1:37 PM (4 hours ago)

#freemumia

Vic, I don't see how you or other Sanders supporters (like I am ) can mind this! It's fucking August 2015, he hasn't been challenged. He's a big boy, he can handle it if he's any good.

True true.

And for all of the hurt feelings, the tactics fucking worked.

they're not more credible in terms of their record but they were out in front of this issue while sanders still shrugging it off. that's probably just because they're more experienced politicians who understand the national base and get that appealing to only or even primarily white centrists or white leftists isn't a viable strategy for a democratic presidential candidate anymore but if i'm supposed to take bernie sanders seriously and supposedly i am even though the polling doesn't really necessitate it then i can note that his campaign is seriously amateurisha and he seems seriously unable of learning from missteps or preaching to anybody not already in the choir and that his supporters and campaign workers understanding of outreach is worse than ted cruz's. if the conservative equivalent to sanders was out there we'd be laughing at what a weak candidate he was and the mistakes he was making.

From the speech to SCLC: "But what King saw in 1968 — and what we all should recognize today — is that it is useless to try to address race without also taking on the larger issue of inequality." I'd say that carries a whiff of putting class above race.

for better or worse the Clintons have been idols for many black Americans, and this is often overlooked (whether the Clintons have ever been good on race OR class is another question). That's whom Sanders needs to win.

that's probably just because they're more experienced politicians who understand the national base and get that appealing to only or even primarily white centrists or white leftists isn't a viable strategy for a democratic presidential candidate anymore

if schmucks like us know that then why doesn't he, he must get the newspaper in vermont

Plus he explicitly claims that voting rights are under attack to suppress vote of non-billionaires, instead of supressing black votes. He does argue along those lines from time to time.