Video Of What Bernie Said In Mississippi

[karynnj]

23. Thanks for posting this, but everyone will likely continue to see it through a lens of 2016

The paragraph that was extracted is exactly what one would expect from anyone who is on the very progressive/ anti trade deals would say. Consider it as the mirror image of the 1990s/2000s DLC comment that the Democratic Party needed to change its message from the union/liberal driven message of the then "old" party that lost many races in the 1980s. The comment that OBama won due to his charisma, not the establishment policy he ran on -- could be balanced by saying (in retrospect) that Bill Clinton won because of his charisma - not the shift in what the Democratic platform was.

I think in both cases, that should have been the start of a discussion - not a war and certainly not a call that saying it insulted anyone or calling anyone as not in the Democratic tent.

In both cases, splitting the party primarillarly on trade policy, where they do differ, ignores that on most issues - including most that are most personal and most important to most people, the policies pushed by both parts of the Democratic party are the same. Both are for providing affordable access to healthcare, education (including college), and housing. Both are for a livable wage. Both are for a woman's right to choose and sensible gun control.

2016 was even more complicated, because Clinton, a long term establishment politician shifted on trade - even though TPP would have been her biggest accomplishment as Secretary of State. This was a gamble and was likely because she saw that policy as something that most Democrats supported and that it could heal that rift. She might have seen that as needed because on another issue where the party had factions, she opted to take a more hawkish position either Obama or Kerry.

What is really happening now is that the Sanders/Progressive wing of the party wants the conventional wisdom to be that the establishment message failed -- and further, it has failed in past elections other than when a charismatic leader. Implicitly, their message is that the winning platform would be theirs - something for which they have no proof. There are also people, who align with Obama, who think the platform is fine .. but that Clinton was a mediocre candidate. The solution for them is the Obama message with a better candidate. People aligned with Clinton argue that it was extraneous forces, not the candidate or the 2016 platform that led to Trump becoming President.

This is a fight for what the party should be going forward. My own opinion is that it has to be an open enough tent to include everyone who agrees on most issues. I would also note that OBAMA himself accomplished this - even on issues where people - on either side - hoped he would move in their direction.