2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLA Times endorsement: For all her faults, Hillary Clinton is vastly better prepared
A year ago, Hillary Clinton seemed to be on her way to a serene, obstacle-free coronation as the 2016 Democratic nominee for president. In an April 14, 2015, editorial, The Times bemoaned the fact that the Democratic race consisted of exactly one candidate with a truly national profile the former secretary of state and U.S. senator from New York. The editorial did mention Sen. Bernie Sanders, but only as one of a group of second-tier figures that also included former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee and former U.S. Sen Jim Webb of Virginia (remember them?).
Today, as California prepares for its primary on June 7, Clinton is again on the verge of victory. But what a difference a year has made. In the intervening months, so many Democrats and independents have felt the Bern that the self-described democratic socialist from Vermont acquired the national stature that seemed improbable a year ago. His passionate excoriation of a rigged economy and his call for a sweeping political revolution energized millions of Americans, especially young voters, and he put Clinton on the defensive about her ties to Wall Street, her support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the trade policies of her husbands Bill Clintons administration.
Yet even though he has proved a far more formidable challenger than we or Clinton expected, Sanders lacks the experience and broad understanding of domestic and (especially) foreign policy that the former secretary of state would bring to the presidency. Although Sanders has tapped into very real and widespread anxieties about economic inequality, deindustrialization and stagnant economic growth, his prescriptions are too often simplistic, more costly than he would have us believe and unlikely to come to pass.
The Vermont senator has made the race more substantive and has forced his opponent to address issues that might otherwise have gone undiscussed, but in the end he has offered little reason to believe that he would be able to enlist recalcitrant Republicans in Congress in accomplishing his priorities. Rather, he told the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, he would say to Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell: Hey, Mitch, look out the window. Theres a million young people out there now. And theyre following politics in a way they didnt before. If you want to vote against this legislation, go for it. But you and some of your friends will not have your seats next election. If only it were that simple
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/la-ed-democratic-presidential-endorsement-20160426-story.html
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Must be a lot higher than the average population.
brooklynite
(94,376 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You mean like Sanders salary?
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)The L.A. Times editorial board on the other hand make 4 times the median income and are most likely out of touch with average Americans. They most likely have a house in the rich hills around the Santa Monica mountains or near the beach.
procon
(15,805 posts)Simplistic.
That's been the heart and soul of Bernie's campaign. Hard to get around that.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)at least according to careerbliss.com
Like they really give a fuck about the average American (or Angeleno for that matter)...
Hav
(5,969 posts)Just saying...
TwilightZone
(25,429 posts)If you thought you were making a point, you did. Just not the one you thought you were making.
AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)The LA Times editorial board? I think not.
TwilightZone
(25,429 posts)Equating income to some kind of level of morality - but only when you feel like it - is pretty disingenuous.
amborin
(16,631 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)" but I did create some business opportunities in Iraq"
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)She is supremely qualified.