(Raw Story/Newsweek) Bernie Sanders endorsement labeled colossal mistake

[Jim Lane]

155. Let me clarify "problem"

I meant it in the sense in which you used it in #53 -- that is, identifying the reason that some Democrats would endorse a candidate who in the past had been weaker on reproductive rights. The reason some Democrats would do that is not that they consider the issue secondary, but rather that they recognize they won't always have perfect candidates to endorse.

For example, no fair-minded person could say that Bernie Sanders considers Medicare for All or the $15 minimum wage to be "secondary" issues. The smear on Bernie was that he overemphasized economics, and whether you agree with him on those issues or not, they're obviously economic ones. Nevertheless, after last year's Democratic convention, he endorsed and even campaigned for a candidate who did not see eye-to-eye with him on those issues.

Why did he do that? Because there were only two people who had a chance to win the election, and he backed the one who was better.

You assert, "The fact that Mello has an anti-choice record did enter into the equation." And you know that how, exactly? I'll suggest a more plausible explanation: Mello's past votes and current positions on reproductive rights did enter into the equation, just as, last year, did Hillary Clinton's past votes and current positions on several issues. In both cases, Bernie probably concluded, "This candidate is flawed but is significantly better than the opposition, therefore I will endorse." If Bernie had won the nomination for President, I'm sure Hillary would have endorsed him, on exactly the same reasoning.