Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jan 15, 2016 in 2016 Elections, 2016 Presidential Election, Health, Polls, War | 6 comments

The Nation Gives Rare Endorsement To Sanders As He Surges In The Polls


Bernie Sanders Endorsement The Nation

On top of the favorable news for Sanders we have already seen this week, yet another poll shows that Clinton has lost most of her lead over Sanders. The Des Moines Register/Bloomberg poll found that Clinton’s lead is down to two points, within the margin of error. Other polls this week have showed the race close, with Sanders leading in some. There has been a similar tightening in the national polls and Sanders maintains his lead in New Hampshire. While either candidate can still win, this is feeling increasingly like 2008.

In addition, Sanders received a rare endorsement from The Nation. The last time they endorsed a candidate in a primary battle was in 2008 when they endorsed Obama over Clinton. The full editorial includes praise for Sanders and a comparison of their economic views,  but the most important considerations are the warnings they give about Clinton’s record and their differences on foreign policy:

the limits of a Clinton presidency are clear. Her talk of seeking common ground with Republicans and making deals to “get things done” in Washington will not bring the change that is so desperately needed. Clinton has not ruled out raising the Social Security retirement age, and her plan falls short of increasing benefits for all. She rejects single-payer healthcare and refuses to consider breaking up the big banks. We also fear that she might accept a budgetary “grand bargain” with the Republicans that would lock in austerity for decades to come.

On foreign policy, Clinton is certainly seasoned, but her experience hasn’t prevented her from getting things wrong. Clinton now says that her 2002 vote to authorize George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a mistake, but she apparently learned little from it. Clinton was a leading advocate for overthrowing Moammar El-Gadhafi in Libya, leaving behind a failed state that provides ISIS with an alternative base. She supported calls for the United States to help oust Bashar al-Assad in Syria, an approach that has added fuel to a horrific civil war. She now advocates a confrontation with Russia in Syria by calling for a no-fly zone. Her support for President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran was marred by an explicit rejection of better relations with that country and bellicose pledges to provide Israel with more arms. If elected, Clinton will be another “war president” at a time when America desperately needs peace.

Sanders’s approach is different and better. The senator hasn’t talked as much as we would like about global challenges and opportunities, and we urge him to focus more on foreign policy. But what he has said (and done) inspires confidence. An opponent of the Iraq War from the start, he criticizes the notion of “regime change” and the presumption that America alone must police the world. He rejects a new Cold War with Russia. He supports the nuclear-weapons agreement with Iran, and he would devote new energy to dismantling nuclear arsenals and pursuing nonproliferation. He has long been an advocate for normalizing relations with Cuba and for reviving a good-neighbor policy in the hemisphere. Sanders’s foreign policy would also create conditions for rebuilding a broadly shared prosperity at home. He would lead an international effort to end the crippling austerity that threatens to create another global recession, and he would champion a green New Deal to combat climate change. And as a leader of the opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, he would undo the corporate-defined trade regime that has devastated America’s middle class.

Critics of Bernie Sanders dismiss him as an idealist (he is!) on a quixotic crusade. Meanwhile, the corporate media has paid shamefully little attention to his campaign’s achievements, instead lavishing attention on the latest outrageous pronouncements by Donald Trump and the Republican candidates struggling to compete with him. Nonetheless, polls show that Sanders—even as he still introduces himself to many voters—is well poised to take on the eventual GOP nominee, frequently doing better than Clinton in these matchups. Moreover, in contrast to the modest audiences at Clinton’s campaign stops, the huge crowds at Sanders’s grassroots rallies indicate that he’ll be able to boost turnout in November.

Whether his candidacy, and the inspired campaign it fuels, will spark a “political revolution” sufficient to win the Democratic nomination and the White House this year remains to be seen. We do know that his run has already created the space for a more powerful progressive movement and demonstrated that a different kind of politics is possible. This is a revolution that should live on, no matter who wins the nomination.

Bernie Sanders and his supporters are bending the arc of history toward justice. Theirs is an insurgency, a possibility, and a dream that we proudly endorse.

Originally posted at Liberal Values

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 The Moderate Voice
  • KP

    As The Nation said

    “With integrity and principal” …

    I wonder id there is a situational-irony for Clinton supporters …

    • In that line alone they give a major difference between Sanders and Clinton.

      While Sanders wins on principle, Clinton wins on ability to change positions based upon the last focus group.

      • KP

        < < the last focus group. >>

        Shock’n y’all …

      • Slamfu

        While Sanders wins on principle, Clinton wins on ability to change positions based upon the last focus group.

        So true. Clinton is part of the Spineless Political Windsock Caucus of the Democratic Party. So is DWS. Instead of a core set of beliefs informing their platforms, it’s the latest poll and convention, and wrong, wisdom about what they should be doing. Which as far as I can tell is run away from being a Liberal, buying into the GOP narrative about Democrats, curling up in a ball and saying “not in the face, not in the face” unless they have determined the fight is so in their favor they can’t lose. But if there is a fight involved, if it’s running a democrat in a red area, then it’s abandon all principles and try to make them think you’re GOP lite. It is a pathetic, reactive, losing strategy and the last two midterms proved that in great detail.

        Clinton is wrong on foreign policy. Her “experience” is not good. She has a history of making bad calls and advocating for policy that would make things worse. Sanders was right on this stuff BEFORE it went down. That is the person I want calling the shots. Why people keep touting her FP creds over Sanders is just beyond me.

  • JSpencer

    Should efforts to bend the arc of history toward justice be considered idealism? We are in serious trouble if we are willing to believe that. I am not without respect for Hillary Clinton, but I view her as a political creature first and foremost, and not someone who is capable or willing to provide the leadership we need at this crucial point in history. I will only vote for her if given no other choice. The endorsement Sanders has received from The Nation is a significant one imo. The Nation has been around for a very long time; they endorsed FDR, repeatedly called for the USA to enter WWII, and denounced Joe McCarthy (among other things). Left leaning, yes, but reality oriented and on the right side of history.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By :