Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Charles M. Blow: "Bernie or Bust" is Bonkers [View all]
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/31/1508408/-Charles-M-Blow-Bernie-or-Bust-is-BonkersBy teacherken
Todays New York Times has a pointed column by Charles M. Blow written in response to the now well known recent remarks by Susan Sarandon, a highly visible surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nominee.
It is column that should be read by ALL partisans during this Democratic primary season, even as its occasion is in response to a Sanders supporter.
Blow certainly takes Sarandon directly to task with these words:
The comments smacked of petulance and privilege
No member of an American minority group whether ethnic, racial, queer-identified, immigrant, refugee or poor would (or should) assume the luxury of uttering such an imbecile phrase, filled with lust for doom.
But his point is far broader than that, and is expressed succinctly in this part of his column:
Be absolutely clear: While there are meaningful differences between Clinton and Sanders, either would be a far better choice for president than any of the remaining Republican contenders, especially the demagogic real estate developer. Assisting or allowing his ascendance by electoral abstinence in order to force a revolution is heretical.
This position is dangerous, short-sided and self-immolating.
If Sanders wins the nomination, liberals should rally around him. If Clinton does, they should rally around her.
This is not a game. The presidency, particularly the next one, matters, and elections can be won by relatively small margins. No president has won the popular vote by more than 10 percentage points since Ronald Reagan in 1984.
(Rest in link)
41 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

I think it's ridiculous to expect one side to fall in line with the other when the race isn't over.
NWCorona
Mar 2016
#1
Yeah the purity pledges got old last May when Bernie first got in the way of the coronation.
beam me up scottie
Mar 2016
#37
Why is it ridiculous to discuss voting blue in the GE? He covered both nominee scenarios.
LonePirate
Mar 2016
#7
The point he was making was about the general election, not the primary election.
LonePirate
Mar 2016
#18
We both know what the issue is but I'm the only one of us two willing to discuss it on DU.
LonePirate
Mar 2016
#38
There is? Plenty? Please direct me to them so I can scream at them the way
Jackie Wilson Said
Mar 2016
#27
Um, cuz he's pro-Hillary and therefore not a right-wing source, which means he's credible...
revbones
Mar 2016
#30
It's a Primary Chuck! And I'm still waiting for your candidate to explain her Reagan Love, which
Bluenorthwest
Mar 2016
#19
It's called narcissism. Sarandon is just one of many examples that we have observed.
Trust Buster
Mar 2016
#28