Answering Armstead: The "Long March" of the Progressive Democrats

[arendt]

The "Long March" of the Progressive Democrats
by arendt

...."As Mao explained it in his interview with Snow, the
....defeat of Japan took precedence over social revolution
....because it was necessary first to defeat foreign imperialism
....and win independence; only then could the struggle for
....socialism succeed. For that reason he was willing to join
....forces with the Kuomintang (Nationalists) against the
....imperialist enemy. Mao was very convincing. 'For a people
....being deprived of its freedom, the revolutionary task is not
....immediate Socialism but the struggle for independence.
....We cannot even discuss Communism if we are robbed
....of a country in which to practice it.'"

- "Stillwell and the American Experience in China"
....Barbara Tuchman


In the DU thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=215217&mesg_id=215217

Armstead asks "how are the progressives going to fight on two
fronts: against the GOP and against the entrenched,
corrupt leadership of their own party?

One immediate historical precedent comes to mind -
China in WW2. At that time, the Japanese military-
industrial machine (GOP) was occupying China.
The Nationalist Chinese Government under Chaing
Kai-shek (DLC Dems) was sort of fighting the Japanese,
mostly by fleeing so far away the Japanese wouldn't bother
to follow. And, the Chinese Communists under Mao
(Progressive Dems) were assailed by both the Japanese
and the Nationalists. We all know the history - Mao won.
So, the theoretical answer to Armstead's question is that it
can be done.

Mao understood that by fighting the Japanese he would
attract patriotic Chinese, and he would shame the Nationists.
Also, Mao's army was a disciplined, peoples' army, not the
brutal, corrupt army of the Nationalist warlords. The leadership
was resolute and uncorrupt. It played on the ancient Chinese
concept of the "mandate of heaven" to say that legitimacy
had been withdrawn from the Nationalists for their corruption.

...."Observing them...when he (Col. George A. Lynch, West
....Point Grad) was traveling in China on leave, he found they did
....not press gang soldiers, did pay them, and did not let them prey
....on the civilian population...As a result, desertions from the
....Kuomintang forces to the Communists were numerous."

-Ibid

This analogy leads me to the following strategy. The Progressives
should assail BUSH and the GOP at every turn. They should
attack him very hard to earn the respect of the rank and file
of the Democratic Party. They should not directly attack the DLC,
but only indirectly attack by the good example they set in all
their positive dealings with rank-and-file Dems and their
ferocity against Republicans.

Mao's council is wise. Fight the imperialists first.

----

Now before anyone calls me out as a Commie, here is what
the American commander in China, General "Vinegar Joe"
Stilwell thought about that:

...."Familiar with the plight of the Chinese peasant and
....unfamiliar with Marxism, Stilwell regarded Communists as
....a social phenomenon and a natural outcome of oppression...
....he wrote of the farmers: 'naturally they agitated for a readjustment
....of land ownership and this made them communists - at least
....that is the label put on them...but what they were really after
....was land ownership under reasonable conditions. It is not in
....the nature of Chinese to be communists.'"

-Ibid

So, I put it to you that American workers are naturally agitating
for a readjustment of their financial and governmental rights
vis a vis the overbearing and corrupt corporations. It is not
in the nature of Americans to be Communists; but it is the
nature of Americans not to roll over and play dead.

[mitchtv]

but ,but what about...

"If so and so gets the nomination I won't vote"? It's all over this site. Thank you.

[arendt]

2. My counsel is "hold your nose and vote Dem"

If somebody says that the true left has been betrayed,
quote Chairman Mao at them.

In case anyone missed it, the Chinese Government is
STILL Communist. Its the most successful "Communist"
government on the planet. It is eating the US alive.

We just need the US equivalent of:

"Who care if a cat is black or white as long as it catches mice?"

I mean, "Who care if a Dem is DLC or Progressive as long
as it beats Bush?" is not a memorable turn of phrase.


arendt

[mitchtv]

1. but ,but what about...

"If so and so gets the nomination I won't vote"? It's all over this site. Thank you.

[lcordero]

3. I believe otherwise

They should not directly attack the DLC,
but only indirectly attack by the good example they set in all
their positive dealings with rank-and-file Dems and their
ferocity against Republicans.

First of all, people are judged by the company that they keep. If a person associates with a corporate thief then they are a corporate thief.

Second of all, I believe in cleaning my own house first before I set out to do anything.

[arendt]

5. Its hard to clean your house when its full of corporate thugs

Have you never heard the expression "war makes strange bedfellows"?

Or the Chinese expression "two generals on a raft"? (It seemed that
two generals on opposite sides of a war came to a ferry boat at the
same time. They agreed to share the ferry across the river; then they
split up and went to fight each other.)

There is purity, and there is stupidity. Fighting the other Dems WHILE
they are ACTIVELY fighting the GOP is suicide. We need to kick all
Dems when they slack off fighting the GOP, when they just acquiese
to the GOP spin and frames and talking points.

arendt

[lcordero]

7. I pick and choose extremely carefully who I call a friend

I don't compromise, especially not with people that have repeatedly stabbed me in the back.
I have less respect for a betrayer than a confirmed enemy.

[arendt]

8. When did I ever say they were friends?

You just got to deal with the fact that politics is dirty. People
are shifty.

arendt

[lcordero]

9. exactly

You just got to deal with the fact that politics is dirty. People
are shifty.

And that is why I will walk away. I will not have a betrayer undermind me under any circumstances.

DLC = getting fucked with a smidgen of KY
GOP = getting fucked without the KY

The difference in between the Democratic Party and the GOP right now is one will appoint corporatist judges that have no regard for civil rights and the other will appoint corporatist juges that have no regard for civil rights and do a lot of bible-thumping. There is no difference.

I want no part of the DLC.

[arendt]

10. There is a big difference

A vote for nobody is a vote for Bush. And when Bush gets re-elected,
the world will not be big enough for any non-fundie nutcase to hide in.
A Bush re-election is the end of democracy in the US, and the substantial
likelihood of nuclear war, plus runaway environmental degradation
at the last moment to stop it.

The DLC may be shits, but they are not out-and-out fascist police
state, misogynistic women-hating, race-baiting monsters. Bush and
his crowd are insane. You cannot say the same of the DLC.

It makes a huge difference, or didn't you notice the last four years?

arendt

[lcordero]

11. then the world and the US can have Bush

Like I said before, I will not compromise.

Compromising has gotten us overtime pay taken away, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Every child left behind, no healthcare, no rights, and hated all over the world.

I rather have my impending doom sooner than later. The difference between the DLC and the Republicans is that the spiral down the toilet is this much slower ----><----.

I'll gladly get flushed faster thank you very much.

[sangh0]

29. Do you undertsand what compromise means?

Compromising has gotten us overtime pay taken away, the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, Every child left behind, no healthcare, no rights, and hated all over the world.

There was no compromise on overtime pay, the PATRIOT Act, or the Iraq War. Do you really think that Bush* would not have invaded if the Dems objected to it?

[Armstead]

4. Arednt

Thanks for the reply. I took the liberty of reposting it on the original thread.

My basic response is you are correct. The first order of business is Bush/GOP....But I admit that it seems very frustrating that campaign cannot be fused with the kind of energy and forward-looking goals of the Dean and Kucinich campaigns.

[arendt]

6. I think we can have it both ways

For example. No one takes Kucinich as a threat to the DLC.

So, progressives should NOT tell Dennis to cool it. They should
support his statements. The DLC will sooner (rather than later)
tell Dennis to shut up. That's when it will get interesting.

Of course, they are already putting out this bogus guidance that
"any Dem that hasn't won a state after next week should quit".

Let's see. We have a PROPORTIONAL representation primary,
but the leadership says that WINNER-TAKE-ALL is how we
are supposed to play it.

The Dean people should tell McAuliffe to shove it. That is a
direct and partisan attack; and it should be met with a drop dead
response. Any further attacks should be met with "If only the DLC
were as rough on the GOP as it is on Howard Dean."

arendt

[fabius]

12. I agree.

Kucinich should stay in to remind people what a real progressive is.

Dean should stay in regardless of wins/losses, as he will collect delegates.

Both should continue to attack the Bushites as standing against American values - democracy, freedom, equal rights. And continue attacking.

I really like Dean's references to the Founding Fathers (or he used to do that anyway). "All men are created equal" including aWol who, if he were a regular guy, would be serving time for AWOL, insider trading, election rigging, and other crimes.

But they DON'T have to keep attacking the Democratic structure any more to make the point, Point already made. Note particularly to Dr. Dean.

"Take your Party Back" isn't necessary, and is now losing you votes. "Take your Country back" is right on target.

If the imperialists win, we may not have a democracy within which to have this dialogue. Mao was right about that.

[LiviaOlivia]

13. Mao was a Totalitarian Warlord

He did not relinquish power. He did not believe in democracy.
He did not share power, repeat NOT SHARE POWER. Fuck Mao and Maoists.
His fight ended up not being righteous. I abhor your comparison
and I HATE BUSH,WALMART,HALLIBURTON,etc. Mao was just the
other end of the spectrum. Mao ended owning everything and everyone.

One can rationalize any which way and schlepp lines from Moses to
Stalin to Milton Friedman to Chomesky. Shame on you.

[fabius]

14. This thread is not about ideology...

...And it's not about praising Mao.

It's about STRATEGY.

Strategy is a tool and it can serve either good or evil. Or to be more to the point it can serve either totalitarians or democrats.

The military strategy used by the British to gain their empire was the same as used by Washington and DeGrasse to gain our independence. i.e., SEA POWER TO PROJECT LAND POWER.

The military strategy (and tactics)used by the Nazis to defeat France and Eastern Europe was substantially the same as that used by the Allies to defeat them (after we learned it), the air/armor "blitzkrieg". Which is substantially the same as used to defeat Saddam, actually. Remarkably similar strategies used by Monty and Patton, also used by Zhukov and Rokossovsky.

So this doesn't have to do with us admiring Mao, it has to do with us uniting all who have common cause against the extreme right wing. In order to have a dialogue about true progressivism, we need a functioning democracy in which to have it.

Unless you're of the opinion that we need to let the system collapse and then have a total revolution. But that option does not have a very positive history.

To defeat Hitler we needed Stalin. To defeat Stalin, we needed NATO and the French ;). Now we can go after the French. (just kidding).

Ideological, single-issue purity is what got the left in this fix in the first place. We need to learn coalition-building.

[LiviaOlivia]

16. I disagree.

Words matter. And whom the words are from matter in political debate. One can call it "Strategy" to quote Mao in an American Primary debate if you want, but the reality of the source is not "Government of the People". Compromise has different definitions:

Main Entry: <2>compromise
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -mised; -mis·ing
Date: 1598
transitive senses
1 : obsolete : to bind by mutual agreement
2 : to adjust or settle by mutual concessions
3 a : to expose to suspicion, discredit, or mischief b : to reveal or expose to an unauthorized person and especially to an enemy confidential information was compromised> c : to cause the impairment of <a compromised immune system> <a seriously compromised patient>
intransitive senses
1 a : to come to agreement by mutual concession b : to find or follow a way between extremes
2 : to make a shameful or disreputable concession <wouldn't compromise with their principles>
- com·pro·mis·er noun


I choose definition number 1 when it comes to coalition-building.

[arendt]

19. Thanks, fabius, I couldn't have said it better. You get it.

Strategy does count.

As has often been said: if Ghandi had lived under Nazi rule, he
would simply have been killed. His strategy would not have worked
in that situation.

My point is that we are up against slime. Ideological purity is
soooooo easy for them to manipulate.

To LiviaOlivia - give me a break. This kind of verbal hairsplitting
is exactly the BS that the GOP run against the Dems.

It would have been stupid of me not to mention the source of
my strategy, as otherwise someone would have brought it up
and ACCUSED me of being a Maoist.

By putting it up front, I was trying to INNOCULATE myself against
the charge. But you proceeded to beat me up for TELLING THE
TRUTH. Sad.

arendt

[LiviaOlivia]

36. I disagree

F... you for comparing me to the GOP. If anything your "Strategy" is no different from theirs (the GOP) a.k.a., "Winning At Any Price".


The truth is the truth. Democracy is democracy. You want to stifle voices and opinions. Et tu, Robespierre? Which revolution are we talking about? The LaRouche revolution?

[fabius]

15. What this means is, ABB

Anybody but Bush.

Especially now that we're down to Kerry, Dean, Clark or Edwards. Any of these guys we can live with, just fine.

Dean needs to start making peace with the "Democratic Establishment" if such exists, and Progressives need to keep speaking out.

But it's not necessary to bash other Democrats. I think most of them have gotten the message about the war. Even if they won't admit it, they'll never vote for another Chimpy excellent adventure.

[The Magistrate]

17. Excellent Advice, Mr. Arendt!

It is good to see someone attempting to learn from the Chairman, and apply the lessons to the current situation. He was an unparalleled political strategist, and succeeded in a place and time where the penalty for failure was not a tour of the lecture circuit, but slow death. The campaigns of the Chinese Communists in the period between 1929 and 1945 particularly reward close study.

Your suggestions are most apt. All fire should be concentrated on the current administration: this must be defeated before any other thing can be accomplished. Intramural quarrels with other factions within the party ought to be shelved, till they can be pursued with hope of success, and without damage to the main effort. Persons who insist they will not join in Popular Front against the current administration need admonishment and reminder that by pursuing that course, they are giving practical assistance to the enemy, against which all effort must be focused.

"If there are such things as angels, I hope they are organized along the lines of the Mafia."

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[IrateCitizen]

18. Hmmm.... very interesting, arendt.

I really don't know what to say to this, or where to begin -- except to completely agree with you.

Didn't Leon Trotsky make a similar pronouncement about being confronted with two enemies, one of which has a gun pointed at him -- that his first move would be to knock the gun out of that enemy's hand before turning to the other enemy? If MSchreader is lurking around here, I'm certain that he can clear this up for me, before I butcher it further.

I especially like your references to what could best be described as political jujutsu, regarding Kucinich and Dean. I have often wondered why Al From and his lackeys have used so much more energy attacking Howard Dean than the GOP. Perhaps they should be called on it?

I would add one caveat, however -- it is important for progressive democrats (and I mean that in the true "little d" sense) to maintain sight of the overall plan in the process. While beating Bush MUST be our number one concern, we must remember our long-term goals as well. In this sense, I am reminded of those same Maoist fighters who went into battle against the Japanese with communist slogans written on their rucksacks. While they were joining the Nationalists against the invaders, they still kept in mind their true goals AFTER the invaders had been repelled.

Should the likes of Kerry, Clark or even Edwards achieve the nomination and be elected, the fight does NOT end there. In fact, that is when the real push begins, and we must adopt the discipline of revolutionaries -- which is exactly what we must become.

[arendt]

20. America has no experience of INTERNAL authoritarians

We have been so fortunate to have, until now, retained our
democratic institutions. Because of that, the STRATEGIES of
people like Mao and Trotsky have never really been examined
or appreciated by Americans.

But, when the media is hijacked, the courts are packed, the
legislature is a one-party dictatorship with an instant-gavel,
and the President is a cold-blooded fanatic, democracy is
suspended and other means of politics must be considered.

As Clausewitz said, "war is the continuation of politics
by other means". The GOP has declared war on American
democracy and the American middle class. The DLC wants
to play Vichy to their Nazi. I am not buying it. As long as the
DLC pretends the current situation is politics as usual, they
are enabling the radical GOP destruction of democracy.

Since America has no tradition of politics in the absence of
democracy, I offered the practical experience of the most
successful (albeit frightful) politician of the 20th Century,
Mao.

I would have used the French resistance as an analogy,
but you may remember that they didn't manage to do much
more than survive until the Allies invaded. We have no
Allies, so we have to win on our own.

arendt

[IrateCitizen]

21. I think it's more of the perpetual "appearance" of freedom...

Americans like to believe that they are, and always have been, free. In many ways, this is true. But in countless others, we have lived in a system of "soft authoritarianism". By that, I mean that there are just enough democratic processes -- along with an unrelenting propaganda campaign that tells the people that they are completely *free* -- to stave off full revolution.

In fact, it seems (based on human history) that these are the two directions in which human society as simultaneously pulled throughout the ages: authoritarianism and revolution. Perhaps a large part of this has to do with the fact that most humans are still hard-wired to only respond to immediate danger (a result of our 100,000 years or so of existence before the last 500) rather than to actually look ahead. Thus, people remain satisfied with a drift toward authoritarianism until it reaches a critical point -- and then they swing to revolution.

But, I digress....

In the current climate, we must all become revolutionaries. By that, I mean that we must be willing to place our personal comfort on the line in order to further the progressive cause. I am not talking about engaging in violence here -- in fact, I am proposing the complete opposite. What I am proposing is the ultimate revolutionary force: nonviolent non-cooperation.

It is clear that the current system, based on exploitation, requires out participation in order to function. If people refuse to participate, it falls apart. Arundhati Roy (whom I consider to be one of the world's most brilliant and beautiful minds) recognized this in her recent speech to the World Social Forum (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040209&s=roy). Martin Luther King recognized it as well. Gandhi championed it. People talk down such rhetoric as pie-in-the-sky discussions of self-sufficiency. That is not what this is. What it REALLY means, however, is learning how to become dependent on other PEOPLE again -- rather than maintaining our dependence on far-away institutions that would sooner exploit us than help us reach or maximum human potential.

Does this necessarily fit in with your ABB context? I really don't know. What I DO know, however, is that it is truly the only viable long-term solution we can pursue -- at least the only one that has been proposed thus far.

[arendt]

23. I agree, but would phrase it differently

Revolution has bad connotations, which will be exploited by
the RW.

Have you ever heard of "The Chalice and the Blade", by
?Riane Eisler?

She talks about two social structures: domination vs partnership.
Doing her archeology, she points out that partnership/feminine
values created civilization (e.g., farming, clothing, writing, etc.)
but that dominator/masculine values (e.g., conquest, rigid
hierarchical class structures with women on the bottom) disrupted
and destroyed that peaceful and productive civilization about
the year 1000 BCE. We have been suffering through the
unending bar-room brawl of masculine "civilization" ever since,
with most resources devoted to bigger and better weapons.

The scientific worldview and the notion of progress opened
a window of feminine revival lasting from the mid-1800s until
about now. We are in a full-scale backlash by the dominators;
and all women and sissy men are the targets.

I think that this dichotomy needs to be played up. No woman or
creative guy in his right mind should vote for GOP.

arendt

[IrateCitizen]

24. Sounds eerily similar to Joseph Campbell...

Campbell pointed out how the faiths based in the Abrahamic tradition basically enforced male dominance by connecting all of life to a male perspective. Previous religions (and some others still in existence) paid homage to concepts like fertility through a female connotation.

I agree with the baggage attached to the world revolution -- I figured it could be seen for what it REALLY meant on this board. Perhaps "reclaiming independence" would be a better term to use?

[sangh0]

22. Thank you arendt

Your advice is wise and sorely needed here on DU.

[blindpig]

25. true wisdom

we of the left need to show some internal dicipline now, consider it phase one. Phase two will be to hold the feet to the fire of whoever we compromise our principles for. Then perhaps the barricades. If only the so called moderates would let off their redbaiting.......
People may be able to survive 4 more years, the damage to the environment will be irrepairable.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. A bad analogy.

The Communists joined with the Kuomintang to fight the common enemy. The Communists didn't fight the Japanese in order to install the Kuomintang.

The DLC says that we must unite and fight the common enemy - bush. But, they want to install their moderate republican(D) version of bush as a result.

We would be fools to go along with their program that seeks our destruction.

[arendt]

27. Go a little deeper. Its not a bad analogy.

What you say is true, but the Communists did "talk, talk, fight,
fight" with the KMT in order to make themselves look good to
the world.

If all that happens is that some DLC Dem wins, but the Congress
stays Puke, that is a failure. A DLC President will go nowhere without
progressive votes in Congress.

The only way to get rid of Bush is to win across the board. That
is where the Progressives have a chance. We can work hard
for a lot of Congressional Dems. For example, my rep is for
Kerry, but he listened a lot to Dean folks early on.

The Congress can be a progressive place. The Congress is
the "countryside", and the Executive is the "city". Guerilla tactics
say to confine the enemy to the city while you control the countryside.

So, let the DLC focus their pathetic efforts on the Presidency,
which is an inside-the-beltway deal anyway. We will take a
page from the Fundies and set up shop at the local level, taking
over the Congress.

arendt

[economic justice]

28. Maoist silliness

"Mao's council is wise. Fight the imperialists first."

WHY, oh WHY, do we have to read communist apologetics? Mao was a thug and a despot. This is the UNITED STATES. Using communist China as a "blueprint" for American electoral victory is unbelievable.

[IrateCitizen]

30. It's about STRATEGY, for chrissakes!

If you're too blind to note the difference between endorsing Mao and taking an unbiased look at the strategy he used, then there's no reaching you.

By your definition, a tank commander should never study Rommel because, after all, he was a Nazi! :eyes:

[arendt]

32. Cool - synchronicity n/t

n/t

[arendt]

31. While your at it, throw Rommel's tactics away. He was a German.

You are the second person here who cannot seem to
separate TACTICS from PERSONALITY.

This is a failing that is widespread in the younger generation.
TV makes everything into a personality contest. We don't
have party platforms anymore.

Don't you get that you telling me that I am not allowed to
quote Mao's tactics is just the first step on the road to I
am not allowed to mention Mao at all?

And where do you get "apologetics". What, other than
POLITICAL strategy, am I defending. Did I say one word
about Communism as a SOCIAL system? No. I said their
political tactics were CLASSIC guerilla tactics, and we
need to consider using them.

I love what passes for "progressive" discourse in this board.

Have you read one other thing I have written in my years
on DU? If you had, you would not find me defending the
Communist system. I spend most of my time pointing out
that the PNAC/Trotskyites are really just warmed over
Stalinists.

So, rephrasing, are you for or against using the classic
principles of guerilla warfare?

arendt

[ulysses]

33. well put - just two small points

One, while the Nationalists were corrupt, there was (to my knowledge - I could well be wrong) no semi-official and monied Nationalist faction openly collaborating on policy with the Japanese.

This leads to Two, which is that the somnolent, media-fed American of today is not the abused Chinese peasant of the late 1940s.

[arendt]

34. Actually, point two is pretty large

Most Americans still do not get how absolutely shafted they
are, and their children are going to be. They don't get that
we are BROKE and we have spent our credit cards to the
max. They don't get that the health insurance and pension
systems have been gutted.

How can the guerilla swim in the sea if the ocean has gone
dry?

As for your point one, in my original post, I said that the DLC is
fighting the GOP mostly by running away. There probably
was a faction in Chiang's entourage which argued for a
negotiated truce. They would resemble the cave-in artists in
the DLC. I'll have to check my history deeper.

arendt

[arendt]

35. Actually, Mao saved Chaing's Butt.

Mao saved Chiang's butt!

Truth is stranger than fiction. Read this:

...."In December, 1936 Chiang went up to Sian to unloose
....the sixth anti-Communist offensive, and stepped into the
....most bizarre experience ever to befall a modern chief of
....state. He was kidnapped by Chang Hsueh-liang, intended
....commander of the offensive, in an endeavor to persuade
....him to abandon the civil war and agree to the united front
....against Japan...

...."Chiang's death was momentarily expected, not the least
....by himself, and indeed advocated by some of C H-l's
....associates. What saved him was that he was necessary.
....All at once the men in Sian, in Yenan, in frightened
....Nanking, above all in Moscow, saw the same prospect -
....chaos in China if Chiang were eliminated, with extended
....civil war and no gainer but Japan. Before his kidnapping
....Chiang was neither popular with the public nor enthusiastically
....admired by his supporters but he was the repository of
....the habit of obedience to the head of the family, and the
....sense of security under that authority which, in the political
....life of China, is transferred to the head of state. There was
....no one of enough stature to succeed him and no party
....that could have held office for more than three months.
....If the civil war was to be stopped and the country's united
....energies turned against Japan, only Chiang could do it.

...."Ironically, the Communists, who joined in the negotiations
....that followed the kidnapping, became the instrument of
....his survival, less through their own volition than because
....Moscow insisted on it. Acting in their national interest the
....Russians preferred Chiang Kai-shek to chaos in China
....with its resulting advantage to Japan...

...."Although every effort was made for the sake of face to
....avoid giving the impression that Chiang had entered into
....any bargain for his release, in fact he had agreed to call
....off the sixth extermination campaign and arrange some
....form of nominal coalition against Japan with the Communists,
....who in turn agreed to desist from war on landlords and submit
....their armed forces to Nationalist command."

"Stilwell and the American Experience in China"
....Barbara Tuchman

Just confirms me in my stance that we should all support the
Democratic nominee, whoever he is.

arendt