As I have been saying in a couple of threads, Cenk nails it.
The Clintonites were unnecessarily assholes about the whole matter, over a matter they were likely to win anyways, which they tell us they had the votes to pass by headcount, and for a nomination they keep telling us they’ve already got in the bag. They could have treated the Sanders people decently on every point of contention and it wouldn’t have made a scant difference in the final delegate count. What’s gobsmacking about the whole thing is that this is all from a campaign that reassures us that it’s won—so why not be gracious?
The Sanders people for their part got understandably angry about being shafted. But speaking personally, and recalling back in the 1960s and 1970s, when activists were willing to actually do more than toss a few chairs around (James Forman of SNCC telling pols that they had better have a seat at the table or “we’ll knock the fucking legs off” comes to mind) I’m not terribly unpleased that they vented their anger. Back when progressives did just that, and were more upfront and outright nasty to pols, we saw more results. Anger can be a force for change.
Hell, even today, the advance of gay rights has more than a little to do with gay activists (unlike those for many other progressive causes who meekly accept anything ) being “rude” and upfront with Dems (including Obama), getting in their faces, and threatening to pull support and donations.
Anyway, here’s Cenk:
Remember, when Republicans used the same bogus voice vote tactic to avoid a headcount (which they probably would not have won) to pass Michigan’s emergency manager law, as described by Rachel Maddow, which led directly to the debacle at Flint—while, all good progressives were aghast. But now since it was to benefit Clinton, they’re now all for it.
Read More
