It seems that today, it's painfully obvious that, from the impression that I've gotten from Sanders' speech, he'd rather see the world burn than to work with any sort of deal with Clinton. His tone has gotten increasingly hostile, as he continued on and on to attack the democratic establishment, and to an extent, Clinton. In his speech tonight (unless I've missed it), he didn't even bother attacking Trump. All he did was recycle the same "take the power away from the billionaire class, breaking big banks" etc etc.
So wanting to take away the power of the super rich and powerful means he wants to see the world burn? I don't get the logic of that. I'm still not seeing how he is being hostile. He's never been hostile. Fired up, yes, but never hostile. He opposes systems that are unfair, but can one honestly call that hostile when he's merely responding to a kind of hostility that has always been opposed to changing for the better?
Bernie needs to realize something: in order to accomplish that, we need to actually work together. And I think that kind of thing went way over his head. Strong-arming the Democratic Party is not the right way to go about with things...there's a process to everything. I will give Bernie a lot of credit for his movement and inspiring millions of young voters (many for the first time) to come out to the polls to vote for him. What I am not proud of, however, is that these days, I feel that he is doing nothing but satiating his own ego.
Bernie is going through with the process which says that the nominee is chosen at the convention, not before. He is following the rules and he can stay in the race all he wants. There is no ego in this. It's about being the voice for all the people
within the Democratic party who believe in the same things he does, as well as all the people who have come out to vote and participate in our democracy for the first time because they finally felt like there was someone who represented them.
If Sanders was merely a candidate that was spreading a significant message and was moreso focused on calling attention to a particular cause, this action can be forgiven. After all, to call as much attention on your movement as possible, for the positive, seems like a good thing.
Well, then we can agree because Sanders is a candidate who has a cause and is sending a message: political revolution. Change how we do democracy in this country to make it fairer and more inclusive.
However, he's not. He legitimately thinks he can win. He legitimately thinks he can flip over hundreds of superdelegates, somehow convince them to turn their backs on the millions of people who have voted more for Clinton than Sanders, all for the sake of "well I do better in general election polls than Clinton does vs Trump". Keep in mind that's his only argument. That's it. He cannot come up with any good reason why he cannot connect with Hispanic voters, he cannot come up with any good reason why he cannot connect with minority voters, or African-Americans, or people in his own age bracket. He cannot come up with any good reason why he's losing in the popular vote. His only reason for pleading with the superdelegates--a group in which he's been slamming on--is merely because of arbitrary polling.
Sanders himself won't say so because he's too polite, but one reason he's losing votes is because of election fraud. That aside, the mainstream media has been influencing people to vote for Clinton over him since the beginning. Both very undemocratic things.
Meanwhile, while I watch Clinton's speech, I actually see someone that wants to work to fix the nation, to continue Obama's legacy, but at the same time, start her own legacy. She extends a hand over to Sanders and his supporters, she wants to focus on the general election and to call attention on how unqualified Trump is to be president. Her speech feels a lot more personal, a lot more human than Sanders, and a lot more people can relate with it. I truly think Clinton has finally found her narrative within the voters, and it's appealing to their emotions. Sure, Clinton won't rile up people and drive them nuts like Sanders did with his supporters and Obama before him, but Clinton has a different approach. Her approach is in sentimentalism, to establish feelings of sadness and happiness, and to inspire hope in her voters. To get them to look at reality for what it is, and what they can really achieve, and whats at stake, and to stress that out.
What I'm getting here is that Clinton threw a bunch of pasta at the wall and finally found what sticks. I don't see her as being more personal or human than even Trump. Sanders is real. He's not changed his tune over the years and pretended he's always been what he is. That more people don't see that's what Clinton is doing is a shame, but people will be people. Sanders is, I think, a better person to continue in Obama's footsteps because he wouldn't be content to follow them, but to step ahead of them and do more. Single payer healthcare instead of the imperfect Obamacare. That kind of thing.
The point of Clinton's speech is that we can all work together to build a better nation. It'll take a lot of work, to the point where even a Clinton presidency won't be enough, but it'll at the very least be a step forward. Sanders, however, gives off the message that he wants to upend everything and start all over. Is that really the direction that we want to go into? I'm really not sure, at least not compared to continuing things the way they are and possibly improving upon it.
Why would you think Sanders wants to upend everything? What does he want to upend?
What we need to keep in mind is that, if you really want to change the Democratic Party, you'll do so by electing the proper officials that closely aligns with the direction you want the party to go in. That's how the process works, and that's how the process has always worked.
You change the Democratic Party (or any party) by making it easier for anyone to run for any office. You make it easier for people to vote. Right now the game is stacked against outsiders. That's how the process works, but it's not fair and it's not democratic. It has to be changed.
