In general, I’ve completely given up on the NY Times’ political coverage, but today I’m going to make an exception...
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
NEW YORK TIMES
APRIL 20th, 2016 (edition)
…Mr. Sanders has always stood more for a vision than for reality, especially with a Republican-led Congress. As he and Mrs. Clinton tore into each other in last week’s debate in Brooklyn, some Democrats worried that the nasty fracas would hurt the party. Others want Mr. Sanders to get out and let Mrs. Clinton focus on the Trump threat.
Mr. Sanders’s presence has made this an immeasurably more substantive race, in which both candidates’ policies have been better vetted, and as a result, better delineated. That’s the best preparation for the general election. Yes, Mrs. Clinton’s lead is nearly insurmountable, but it should be voters who erase the “nearly.”
Mr. Sanders has voiced the concerns and energized millions of young people, many of them voting for the first time. His candidacy has forced the party to go deeper on addressing issues like wealth inequality, college tuition costs and the toll of globalization — important points of distinction with Republicans. What’s more, Mr. Sanders’s commitment to small individual contributions has put the lie to Democrats’ excuses that they, too, must play the big money game to win. This is a message too seldom heard in the party that first championed campaign finance reform. That it’s back is long overdue, good for Democrats and good for campaigning. Mrs. Clinton “is clearly irritated by the fact that she has to deal with this guy,” the Democratic strategist David Axelrod said in an interview. “But he’s pushed her on a lot of issues in a positive way, and I think that his young supporters will be bitterly resentful if anyone tries to shove him out of the race.”…
…
… When Mr. Sanders loses in a state, he raises more money, not less. Voters consistently choose Mr. Kasich as the Republican most likely to beat Mrs. Clinton. This refusal to anoint a front-runner in either party appears in poll after poll, as dispirited voters declare that they simply don’t like Mr. Trump, Mr. Cruz or Mrs. Clinton. This should be a wake-up call to leaders of both parties. They are missing something big about their own members’ priorities, and their mood. A spirited nominating season might teach them what voters actually want from their president. So far, voters are saying they aren’t willing to settle for a party favorite, and don’t want to be cheated out of a choice.
As Cheryl Gay Stolberg noted in the NY Times a few days after President Obama’s 2011 State of the Union speech:
“…All presidents are cheerleaders in a sense; keeping Americans’ spirits high is part of the job description. As David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, said, “I don’t think the American people are looking for the president to curl up in the fetal position and curse the darkness…”
I will ALWAYS vote for the politics of “Yes, we can” over “No, we can’t.”
This Democratic primary election season is not over ‘til it’s over.
Bernie Sanders and our “New American RevolutionTM” is just getting started.
“This is your movement!”
You know what to do.
# # #