Post removed

[karynnj]

448. Keyword is "a"

If you said "the" then you would have a point. He is a strong voice on SOME issues and he captured more votes than any loser of the nomination other than HRC herself in 2008.

I suspect what we are seeing with all the anger against Sanders AND a much much less anger against Clinton is that, in reality, there are people fighting for the direction of the party. Neither Sanders or Clinton are themselves likely to be the nominee in 2020, but at the moment they can be "used" to define the two parts of the party that are jostling for control. Each is making an argument that the other side is a losing path. At the moment, probably because Sanders is more public, we are mostly hearing the anger against him.

However, if HRC or BC moved to be seen as the standard bearer of the party, you would likely hear the other side - just as angry - arguing that the DLC (yeah I know it died a decade or so ago), neoliberal (also, misused), third way (more a Blair phrase than American) side of the party has not succeeded since Bill Clinton left office. (Yeah, I know BOTH sides will fight to claim the popular Obama!)

Meanwhile, both nationally and internationally there seems to be an earthquake that may lead to the redefinition of both parties. It has always been difficult to define parties - as there really are more than one or two variables. This makes every attempt of placing politicians on either a one dimensional or two dimensional space to define them. One thing that can cause alignments to change is when a new issue becomes dominant. In 2016,in both parties for many people a prime issue was isolationism/nationalism vs openness to the world, both in being engaged via diplomacy, immigration, and trade.

Watching the French election, I read an article that Britain needs a "British Macron". By that the article spoke of someone who could create a new center. I just read an article that spoke of how Macron, as the France's Finance minister fought Germany at the EU on the austerity program for Greece, that caused real pain. Note, in this, he was arguing for what Obama did - rather than what the EU eventually did. This suggests that, while he is for globalization, the EU etc, he is concerned about the impact on people.

After the election, I listened to a radio interview with Jeffrey Sachs, who was a Bernie adviser speak about trade deals. Given that he supported and advised Sanders, it was interesting that he spoke of how it was true that trade deals do expand the overall "pie". He argued that the key was that the US needed to require that the winners give up part of their gain to help the "losers". Too much money under current plans goes just to the top. We KNOW the Republicans have no problem with the money going to the top.

The question is whether anyone in the Democratic party could articulate that a good trade bill coupled with legislation here that insures that the losers get interim support and support getting new jobs in areas that lose jobs - either overseas or to other places in the US. (It is important to remember that the rust belt lost jobs to the non unionized South - and then they went overseas. I think Obama COULD have been the person to do this had TPP happened a year or two earlier than it did. He obviously believed in the need for trade deals as he worked on two huge ones - now dead. He and his administration were relatively quiet on this in the crucial last year -- likely because it was completely against the position Clinton took. As it was, I saw posts blaming Obama's TPP as why HRC lost in the three rust belt states.

My hope is that Macron and Renzi (Italy), who was greatly respected and liked by the Obama administration, win and show that it is possible to create a new liberal position that can bridge the two sides of the Democratic party here. Then I hope that among the many good younger Democratic leaders there is someone who could make a case that will appeal to the two wings of the party. Note that, if this happens, this really is consistent with President Obama and Secretary Kerry. We need someone more similar to OBAMA, than to either the HRC or Sanders wings. I suspect that the current center of the party might well be very near someone like Obama.

Caveat - I am genuinely on thin ice speaking of the European elections. I did follow the news, but I also see how weirdly wrong various journalists in Israeli or European papers get our politics and politicians - because they look through their own lens, often missing things we take for granted. I may be doing exactly that myself - possibly looking for a glimmer of hope in a Trump world.