Video & Multimedia
In reply to the discussion: CNN: Sanders Supporter Discusses How She Will “Never” Vote For Clinton [View all]RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)If one person in the White House can do so much damage to American women and minorities, and we can't ameliorate that damage both by active and aggressive opposition and by spending time, energy, and money, for those of us who can spare some, then the Republic may already be lost.
I decided a long time ago, well before Bernie declared his candidacy, that I could not cast a vote to help Hillary Clinton become President of the United States. There are a good many lifelong Democrats who find themselves in this position, and we haven't been evasive or unclear about it. Does it make sense that, should Clinton become the nominee, we now are the ones who must get in line and vote in a way that we believe to be fundamentally wrong? We haven't been the slightest bit vague, and now we are being lectured on how sticking to our positions means voting for someone like Donald Trump?
Nope - the opposite is true. It's long past time for the Hillary Clinton's campaign to grow up and face the reality that a great many citizens of the United States see it for what it is - a long-term collaboration between wealthy investors and skilled sculptors of public imagery. It's unaccountable to anyone but its own participants, and they are fully prepared to make the most of the opportunities afforded them should we simply hand them what they've been after for so long.
Ask yourself one question. Does it make any sense at all to accept a permanent condition where it simply does not matter what agendas Democratic candidates bring to office because the Republican alternatives appear so much horribly worse? What that would mean (and has meant), is, that regardless of a Democratic candidate's overall likely agenda, if that candidate can simply say that she/he is against racism, sexism, and homophobia, the criteria for voting for the candidate is satisfied. We just have to get OK with the rapid erosion of other (former, it seems) key principles of our party.
Where does that end? Does it ever? Do we simply stop pretending and officially grant the power to nominate all political candidates to the top 500 business interests in the United States, foreign and domestic? Proportional representation that shifts based on the past 4 years' stock values? Sound ridiculous? It isn't. We're getting closer all of the time, and the likely Democratic nominee for the office of the Presidency and her husband are major players.
That is what's really at stake here. And if you think women and minorities will benefit in any way from a future tipping toward corporate hegemony, you need to look further than the next 4 or 8 years. Well... maybe not much further, given what's in motion.