Bernie versus Hillary Redux or the War for the Democratic Party’s Soul

The Democratic Party is not big enough for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. They embody mutually exclusive visions of the economic policies the party should pursue and the ethical rules which it should follow. Accordingly, efforts to tamp down or paper over disagreements between those who supported Clinton in the primaries and those who supported Sanders are doomed to fail and shouldn’t even be attempted.

The war for the party’s soul will continue to the great benefit of Republicans until one group triumphs either by convincing a large portion of the other or by driving it out of the Democratic party altogether. If the pro-Hillary factions leaves, it will be reminiscent of the party’s cleansing in the mid-20th century. By the late 1960s, most southern racists and many pro-big business lawmakers and voters had defected to the Republican party in the wake of the New Deal, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Great Society.

If the Sanders faction peels off to form a new stand-alone party or to join an existing minor party like the Greens or the Working Families Party, two outcomes seem plausible. The new progressive or coalition party generates a critical mass sufficient to win elections and supplant the Democrats as one of the two major parties much like when the Republicans replaced the Whigs in the 1850s. Alternatively, the progressive party peters out quickly and corporatists continue to control both major parties.

The worldviews of the pro-Clinton and pro-Sanders supporters are simply incompatible. During the primaries, Clinton claimed to favor an incremental approach to change and, with respect to a few social issues, her record demonstrates such a commitment. Over time, she came to support gay marriage. When it came to criminal justice issues, she tried to walk back the lock ‘em up and throw away the key rhetoric she and her husband championed in the 1990s.

But Clinton never evinced a credible willingness to take on America’s remarkable wealth inequality – the greatest in the world. To the extent that she argued for a more equitable society, both her long record in government – especially support for “free trade” pacts and opposition to breaking up the big banks – and frequent fundraisers with financial industry titans undermined her credibility. Divisive and arguably dishonest rhetoric portraying Bernie Sanders as unconcerned with racism and many of his supporters as sexist characterized her campaign during the primaries.

After clinching the Democratic nomination, Clinton pivoted right on economic matters as most expected. She chose Tim Kaine, a determined centrist, to be her running mate. While Kaine was not a terrible choice by any means, he was hardly an economic populist and generated no excitement on the left. Much worse, in the eyes of progressives, was picking former Colorado Senator Ken Salazar to head her transition team. Salazar left the Senate in 2013 to open a Denver office for international law firm WilmerHale. There, he represented oil and gas companies and lobbied for corporate clients on behalf of the Trans Pacific Partnership.

Sanders argues, and his supporters believe, that economic and social justice are inextricably linked. Unless, their thinking goes, the Democratic party vigorously champions both, it cannot compete successfully over the long-term for white working and middle-class voters. Republicans are simply too adept at exploiting people’s innate fears and prejudices.

Moreover, says the Sanders wing, the Democratic party cannot be an arrant defender of the 99% if its candidates seek and accept financing from corporations and the superrich. There’s simply no way to square this circle. Internal divisions will rip the Democratic party apart unless a significant number of populists abandon it or win over frenemy corporadems.

Establishment Democrats and moderate to left-of-center party loyalists may push back against this conclusion. Their version of “why can’t we all just get along” is likely to include the following chestnuts. We agree on much more than we disagree. Hillary voted with Bernie 93% of the time. Bernie didn’t care about racism and sexism so if you supported him you probably don’t either. Whatever our differences may be, we must all come together in opposition to the common enemy Trump.

Here’s why those arguments don’t work. We actually disagree more than we agree. In addition, the more important an issue the likelier we disagree. Regarding Clinton’s dependence on large contributions from a small circle of wealthy donors, the Sanders side views awarding special access to economic elites as both inherently corrupting and, for Democrats, political suicide. By contrast, even after the devastating loss in November, Clinton backers, including inner-circle confidant David Brock, are looking for new ways to connect bundlers and hyper-wealthy individuals to Democratic candidates.

Clinton’s supporters seem comfortable with her close ties to Wall Street and her reluctance to embrace legislation and policies that gore the rich person’s oxen. By contrast, Bernie’s refusal to take any corporate financing at all attracted millions to the Sanders standard. His standard stump speech which included attacks on “free trade” and private prisons a call for tuition-free public colleges and universities and more generous social security reflected an absence of concern for Wall Street’s interests.

With respect to military adventurism, there again is much to choose between the candidates and little overlap. While Clinton recoiled at being called a hawk and her supporters view her as a hard-headed realist, Sanders supporters perceive her to have been a neo-con imperialist carrying water for multinational corporations. Simply put, there is a yawning gulf between how Sanders and Clinton supporters view her foreign policy record.

As to the common enemy argument, most of Bernie’s supporters concede that, compared to Trump, Hillary was the lesser of evils. But they posit that her positions, votes, and actions, harmed most Americans and thereby paved the way for the demagogue Trump. In support of this argument, they note that the bottom 50% of Americans saw virtually no improvement in their living standard since Bill Clinton took office and a decline over Barack Obama’s Presidency.

Clinton’s backers frequently argue that Bernie’s focus on economic injustice bespoke an indifference to racism and sexism. Bernie’s supporters acknowledge that Bernie didn’t build sufficient trust within African-American communities to persuade black voters to forsake the more familiar Clintons. Nevertheless, progressive Democrats contend that Clinton’s dependence, and the dependence of many other Democrats, on corporate financing to underwrite campaigns means they can never be true allies in the fight for economic and social justice.

Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel – the Democratic Congressional Committee’s fundraiser par excellence in the early 2000s – oversaw decimation of Chicago Public Schools and covered up the execution-style killing by Chicago police of Laquan McDonald. Emanuel’s support for charter school operators, to the detriment of the local public school system, becomes explicable when one considers his business relationship with Illinois’s Republican governor Bruce Rauner.

Rauner is a multi-millionaire with close ties to charter-school operators. He has profited handsomely from investments in for-profit schools. Charter schools likewise invested heavily in Emanuel’s election and reelection.

Hillary Clinton championed “three strikes and you’re out” legislation in the 1990s and opposes marijuana legalization. Three strikes and the war on drugs have driven the obscenely high incarceration rate of African-Americans over the past 20+ years. The Democratic base hates both. But Clinton’s support for these expensive counterproductive policies is understandable given that both the private prison industry and banks financing that industry like Bank of America have helped bankroll her political campaigns.

Florida Congresswoman, former DNC Chair, and staunch Clinton supporter, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz solicited hundreds of thousands in contributions from the financial services industry. She then attempted to delay implementation of regulations on payday lenders which the industry vehemently opposed. Payday lenders prey disproportionately on women and minorities and have a destabilizing effect on Latino and black communities.

Just as the Democratic convention was set to begin, Wasserman-Schultz resigned in order to promote party unity. Establishment Democrats lauded her leadership and Hillary Clinton hired her immediately. But progressive Democrats, in the main Sanders supporters, “booed [her] off the stage in Philadelphia” when she tried to speak to the Florida delegation. Reconciling the conflicting ideologies laid bare by the Democratic primaries proved impossible. Like it or not, the party will have to choose a Sanders-like brand of progressive populism or Clinton’s compassionate corporatism.

The two factions – progressive populist and corporatist – can work together on discrete issues. Immigrant rights, racial justice, women’s and reproductive rights, all come to mind. In the end though, the close ties between big business and corporate Democrats make them, at best, unreliable allies with progressives.

Those social justice Democrats whose primary concern is racism or sexism or homophobia fear that a progressive populist President backed by majorities in Congress may not address discrimination or may be unable to change the hearts and minds of bigots. The question group identity voters must ask, though, is not whether raising taxes on the rich, repairing the safety net, and bringing good working-class jobs back will guarantee social justice. Instead, they need to ponder whether there is any other way to bring it about. History says no. Warming hearts and opening minds is surely difficult even in economically just societies, it is well-nigh impossible where the rich and powerful lord it over everybody else.

1890s France was in the midst of an extraordinary cultural renaissance. Perhaps best known for its impressionist painters, the “Belle Epoque” saw great intellectual ferment in literature and music as well. Surely, all that beauty should have led to more mutual acceptance and inter-religious tolerance. Instead, the Dreyfus affair and the resulting wave of anti-semitism tore asunder the “center of world civilization, culture, and l’amour.” Littlefield, Oh What a Lovely War (1963).

In 1894, Captain Alfred Dreyfus an obscure Jewish officer was accused of treason. Despite obviously flimsy evidence, what remained of the French nobility and the Catholic church joined with the reactionary elements in the army to denounce Dreyfus and to whip up hatred against Jews among the masses.

Fin-de-siècle France seemed an especially unlikely site for mass anti-semitic hysteria. Over a century earlier, the Revolution emancipated French Jews. The Code Napoléon specifically guaranteed religious freedom throughout Europe. Throughout the 19th century, France had been a haven for eastern European Jews fleeing pogroms.

But the French economy since at least 1870 had not been performing nearly as well as her artists. The Bourse crashed in 1882. French GDP dropped over the next decade. Concomitantly, the banking industry reeled from crisis to crisis jeopardizing the savings of millions of small depositors. By 1900, France had fallen behind Germany and the United States as well as Great Britain in wealth and power. This economic instability may account for the outsize influence of Edouard Drumont an anti-semitic publisher who riled up the masses before and during the Dreyfus Affair by contrasting the wealth of Jewish bankers with the poverty of French workers.

Ten years after the Dreyfus Affair roiled France, England was facing an outpouring of racism and anti-semitism. By 1900, England’s economy was, as France’s had been over the previous three decades, in decline. Domestic manufacturing was being undermined by cheap products from overseas. Workers were locked in competition for scarce jobs. Despite the flood of relatively inexpensive imports, inflation further reduced the buying power of the poor and workers.

In response, the British government enacted the 1905 Aliens Act which severely limited the number of Jews who could enter Great Britain and also kept out those who lacked both financial means and the ability to gain employment. Riots against Jews and immigrants followed the introduction of the legislation into Parliament. Historian Ruth Brown calls the Aliens Act essentially a piece of class legislation. Growing competition for jobs within the working class, as well as for other basic necessities of life like housing, was increasingly evident during this period. Both Liberal and Tory politicians attempted to conceal their abject failures by blaming immigrants for the growing housing crisis.

For an American example of the symbiotic relationship between exploitation by economic elites and racism, one may want to examine the American south in the years immediately before the Civil War. President U.S. Grant’s description of poor whites is instructive:

The great bulk of the legal voters of the South were men who owned no slaves; their homes were generally in the hills and poor country; their facilities for educating their children . . . were very limited; their interest in the contest was very meagre — what there was, if they had been capable of seeing it was with the North; they too needed emancipation. Under the old regime they were looked down upon by those who controlled all the affairs in the interest of slave owners, as poor white trash.

Yet these victims of a profoundly evil system were gulled into endangering, and often sacrificing, their lives on behalf of the beneficiaries of that system.

Hillary Clinton and the Democratic establishment are direct beneficiaries of the current unjust system. They have become rich and powerful by accepting the blandishments of multi-millionaires and billionaires. Deft and likable Democratic politicians including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama may ride corporate largesse to the White House. They may even enact progressive legislation, like the Affordable Care Act, that eases some burdens. Ultimately though, their inability or refusal to take on the “malefactors of great wealth” and privilege empowers reactionary forces that elect regressive administrations. Presidents like George W. Bush and Trump then do their utmost to consign the corporate Democrat’s good deeds to history’s ash heap.

There is not enough room in the Democratic party for those who backed Sanders and those who supported Clinton in last year’s primaries. Their prescriptions for the party’s resurgence are too divergent. Clinton and those with her argued that Sanders wasn’t sufficiently committed to social justice in part because he talked so frequently about economic injustice. Team Sanders responds that regressive economic policies that both Clintons (and Barack Obama fitfully) embraced are somewhat responsible for any recent rise in racist, sexist, and anti-immigrant attitudes among the white working class and, by extension, Trump’s triumph.

For decades, Clinton has demonstrated fealty to big money. Many of her supporters believe this is savvy politics and essential to victory. Progressives contend that any Democratic victories gained via reliance on corporate financing are Pyrrhic. Ultimately, progressive populists and Democratic corporatists do not not embody two sides of the same coin but different currencies altogether. Unless the latter leave the party or changes its ideology, the Democratic party may win some elections but cannot regain long-term ascendancy.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Bernie versus Hillary Redux or the War for the Democratic Party’s Soul

  1. Glenn Sadowsky says:

    Lengthy to get it all chewed down, yet ON POINT my friend.

  2. halginsberg says:

    Thanks Glenn. Too lengthy?

  3. I agree with Glenn. Too long, but you make good points, Hal, and I agree with your conclusion.

  4. DV says:

    I didn’t bother to read the article, it’s too long, and the title was pure click bait. As usual Hal you are still delusional. First things first: In order for Bernie to lead the Democratic Party he would need to be a Democrat, which he is not. I do not anticipate the Democratic Party ever making the mistake of inviting a turncoat to participate as a candidate on our ticket. I would have a tremendous problem with the DNC handing over any of our resources to the arrogant, aged, belligerent sore loser that help contribute to Hillary’s loss.

    Bernie is not popular with the the 63 million who voted for Democratic candidate, which is why he was not the candidate. He is not able to connect with the diverse nature of the Democratic Party, which renders him mute to the majority of the party. Bernie was tone deaf to the needs of the people who make up our party and that’s why he’s an Independent. He should run as an Independent and the rest of you scally wags can go with him.

    Nonetheless, Hal, as I take a quick look at your website, I see you’ve stayed true to form in your support of POTUS, not one word written on your treasured leader You were always a Trumplethinskin. I just want to know how the Presedential knee pads feel while slobbing on Trump’s knob?

  5. Hal says:

    The title accurately describes the content but since you didn’t read it you can’t know that. The underlying premise is that Trump is awful and therefore we have to figure out how to prevent his reelection and others like him from getting elected. Thanks for commenting Doug.

  6. DV says:

    Just curious, Hal…do you feel at all responsible for the election of a Nazi to the Whitehouse? All I can see is your continued gloating of Hillary’s loss. What are you doing to resist now, Hal? Or are you sitting this one out too?

  7. Hal says:

    Doug – if you supported Hillary in the primaries, you are the one who bears partial responsibility for Trump. If you don’t recognize the culpability of the corporadems led by Hillary, DWS, David Brock, and yes even Obama, then you can’t be part of the solution. So do you?

  8. DV says:

    Hal – I cast my vote for the Democratic nominee of the General election. Whom did you cast your for? If you did not vote for Hillary, it is you and you alone who bears responsibilty for this Nazi. There were two people on the ballot and those of you who didn’t vote for Hillary will bear the responsibility for the destruction of our country and our liberties. How can you stand yourself, Hal? I can smell the stench from here in California.

    Regardless Hal, some part of me will always remember your FaceBook post to an old listener and friend of mine on FB, Carl. The day before the election you jumped On his page and commented to not vote for Hillary. He told you to vote for whomever you wished but to get off of his page.

    I often wonder how many voters were persuaded by your argument that 45 must be smart because in your eyes he was a so-called successful businessman? How many hours and countless blogs did you write about Hillary’s connections to big business and Goldman Sach’s? And yet not once did you take anytime from your show to even attempt to vet 45.

    I remember Glenn Sadowsky attempting to discuss how terrifying it was for him to hear people close to himself considering voting for 45, he was distressed and the conversation was shut down. I recall Carl from Tennessee, one of the best callers, being frustrated with your ignorance on many subjects including rasicism. Carl predicted this would happen and he was correct in his prescience that you were normalizing 45.

    Sorry buddy, you can’t run away from the role you played in helping this Nazi into the Whitehouse. You never vetted him on your show and you did not vett him in your writings. Why was that, Hal?

  9. DV says:

    Just imagine for a moment how beautiful our country and lives would be if Madame Hillary Clinton were POTUS? She would be dutifully holding meetings in well lit rooms, she knows where the light switches are, she would be charming our allies not making them enemies. Hillz wouldn’t have gotten a young man killed (along with precious other lives) in the second week of office because of botched planning, and all of the numerous other mistakes that we are bombarded with this incompetent man.

    Look for Corey Booker to take it the top in 2020. This country will need another Super Human Black Man to get us out of the shitter once again. For as we can all see the election of 45 has delegitimized any white man from being POTUS after this.

    By the way, how fly did Barack look kite surfing?

  10. halginsberg says:

    Doug – Thanks again for commenting. Here is my response:

    1) You write: “The day before the election you jumped [on Carl’s facebook] page and commented to not vote for Hillary. He told you to vote for whomever you wished but to get off of his page.”

    The actual colloquy to which you refer transpired on October 20, 2 1/2 weeks before the election not the day before. At no point did I tell anybody not to vote for Hillary. Nor did Carl tell me to get off his page. He said let’s not fight but come together in advance of the election. I do regret saying that Trump had zero chance of winning. In my defense, I posted the comment before the Comey letter. I also regret how strongly I criticized Hillary. My words were defensible but probably should have been more measured in light of the upcoming election. Again, at that point, Clinton looked like a shoe-in. Still, by praising Clinton to the skies rather than acknowledging how terrible a candidate she and her record were, Clinton’s uncritical supporters lost all credibility with the undecideds whom they ultimately needed to persuade to win.

    2) I don’t think there’s any doubt that Trump has a certain level of craftiness. I wouldn’t call it intelligence. If I called him smart at any point, I was wrong to do so.

    3) If you’re saying I wasn’t sympathetic to Glenn’s concerns about people voting for Trump, I was and am. As I’ve said over and over, Trump is a disaster for America. He is by an order magnitude worse than Clinton would have been. But he is President because Democrats nominated a disastrous candidate of their own.

    4) Regarding Carl’s prediction that Hillary would lose because I didn’t support her strongly enough, I told you and other listeners over and over that Bernie was the stronger candidate and that he would have a better chance in November than Clinton. Did you listen?

    5) Regarding the claim that I don’t get racism, of course I cannot get it or feel it in my bones like African-Americans do. The same goes for you. What I can get though is the sense that you don’t have any friends in high places who stand up for you. I get the feeling that both parties are in the bag for the rich and powerful, not for the little guy and gal. That is how many many millions of Americans of all races, colors, genders, and ethnicities understandably felt when they contemplated the two major party candidates in the last election. One of the many reasons that I supported Bernie is because I recognized that his policies were beneficial to the great majority of African-Americans while the policies Clinton championed harmed them.

  11. DV says:

    Thanks for some clarification on the issues that I have stated. I recall Carl posting on Nov. 3, 2016, but it is neither here nor there as you accept your role in attempting to peel votes away from the Democrats.

    As you know Bernie was not on the ballot, so I find your insistence in contuing to bring his name up a moot point. Bernie was the Nader in this election and he and his supporters will hold part of the blame in history books. Your excuses for Bernie are unacceptable. Bernie’s policies do not address the very separate issues of systemic racism and economics and there in lies the problem. I am uncomfortable with what I see as casual liberal rasicism and I suppose others are as well and that’s why like liberals will lose.

    You also seem to forget that Hillary won the popular vote. More people favored her leadership. You!d do yourself more benefit to focus on the antiquated EC instead of trying to prove false facts. Hillary won more votes. Don’t ever forget.

    One other thing about point 5 is how much white supremacy played a role in white liberals shutting down black voices and not being supportive of their concerns. Because of that there was a breeding ground of hatred and divisiveness fostered by white liberals. I’m not sure that there will ever be enough trust for us to come together again. Black women carried the day and tried to save our country. Those very same black women are the ones who consistently vote Democratic. Those are the voters that Bernie ignored, to his detriment. What is problematic is that those were the very voices we should have been listening to and instead they were greeted with hostile attitudes, told they were divisive, and shut down. I heard it happen on your show over and over again.

    As a result, we elected a Nazi. Not because of economic anxiety but because of white supremacy. Your negligence in not vetting 45 was more rooted in your misogyny and white privilege, than in thinking Hillary would win. It’s hard to re -write history Hal. We listened and heard you loud and clear. We’ve read your musings and they fail to address the real issues that played a role in your lack of journalistic integrity.

    And Hal, though I may be a pale Viking, I had the damn good sense to be marry to a brilliant, beautiful black woman. She and her family and friends have afforded me insights that I never would have had. So in many ways I understand and am able to recognize injustices on a more cellular level, than perhaps you. Or perhaps you’re just a psychopath? J/k

  12. halginsberg says:

    It’s interesting that you have to insult me rather than deal with my specific arguments. If you read what I wrote, you will see that my support for a true progressive one who championed both economic and racial justice was based on my recognition that without both we can have neither. So long as the Democrats run corporadems like Clinton, like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, like Cory Booker, like Rahm Emanuel, Democrats will continue to lose elections and fascists will win them.

    Oh and given your ability to recognize injustices on a “more cellular level,” do you recognize the injustices perpetrated on the working-class by the Clintons and Obama when they championed job-destroying “free trade deals”? Do you recognize the injustices perpetrated on the Haitian garment workers – almost all black and mostly women – by Clinton when, as Secretary of State, she undermined a minimum wage hike to 61 cents? How about the injustices perpetrated on Muslims by the drone war which President Obama drastically expanded? Do you recognize any of those actions as injustices?

  13. DV says:

    Indeed I do, Hal. And considering all of that will be children’s play compared to what the Nazi Republicans have in store for US with the complete destruction of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and treaties and laws all across the world. Your failure to understand the path of destruction that we are on because your special snowflake candidate was not on the ballot is not only astounding , it is evidence of how you are looking to scapegoat and “other” folks in our party who had the intelligence to see what you cannot, what you refuse to acknowledge and accept as the facts of the party. Bernie is incredibly divisive, an opportunist, and a fool. To see him pandering to 45 is nauseating, especially after 45 has humiliated over and over again.

    If we are truly to come together the white supremacy and misogyny within the party must be addressed and purged. If not we will continue to be a party, and purge those anyway and those that still wish to live in a world where white supremacy thrives can go join the Libertarians or Repugs. We don’t need you nor do we want you.

    Bernie is Nader and just like Nader he will suffer the consequences. Bernie Bros are the reason we have the Nazi Republicans. Accept it, take responsibility for the fact that you enabled white supremacists and they now hold power in all three branches of our government. And please understand that I’m not intentionally insulting you, I’m realistic about your lack of capacitiy to understand those that you share a country with. – Captain Obvious.

  14. halginsberg says:

    You dismiss really bad stuff that Democrats have done because Trump is worse. I agree that Trump is much worse. But you cannot so blithely write off the hollowing out of America’s middle-class as a result of the trade deals and the bank consolidations – which some Democrats supported. Recognizing that Republicans were fighting him tooth and nail and it would have been an incredibly tough battle, Obama did have a chance to take on the forces of wealth and power and he did not. That, and Clinton’s establishment-aided win over Bernie, is why we have Trump. You need to get that or we will keep losing.

    I fully recognize how terrible the situation is. I am incredibly depressed over the “so-called” President. I cannot believe anybody worse could occupy the office. Frankly, I have virtually no hope for the future. We just experienced our 3rd consecutive year of record-breaking heat on earth. Trump is doing away with any protections for voters. He is scapegoating immigrants. I am terrified for my children’s future. I am in no wise blind to the onrushing freight train.

    Doug – I truly believe your heart is in the right place. I think you care very much about the American people. But your understandable and laudable concern for the plight of African-Americans (which I share regardless of how much you may claim to the contrary) has blinded you to the fact that there are other victims of the corporatocracy. Moreover, your righteous anger has caused you to lash out at others who could be allies with you in the fight against economic, racial, and social injustice. Rather than join with us, you tied your troth to an utterly undeserving candidate in the last Democratic primary cycle – one who is part and parcel of the corporate elites who are responsible for the terrible situation we are in.

  15. DV says:

    Hal, I am joined with liked minded people and we didn’t just start fighting, brother, we’ve BEEN fighting. But you and yours were missing, son. Don’t tell black people, Latinos, and poor whites that you’re an ally when you’re the one who have been missing from the fight pontificating from your keyboard instead of getting in the streets and helping the unfortunate when their civil rights were being taken away and they were being senselessly murdered in the streets.

    See this is white supremacy in action, this is casual liberal racism in action…your inability to see that righteous folks have been getting their asses kicked day and night, fighting day and night and being killed for any little thing.! They needed allies then as much as they do now. And where were you, Hal? Holed up in the burbs, I suspect, scapegoating blacks for standing up for their rights, being critical of everything that they did and not being interested enough to cover stories in your own backyard i.e. the brutality in Baltimore.

    Before you question my work take a look at your own. I’m not the first one to be troubled by your white supremacy and I won’t be the last.

    Unfortunately, for you and those of your ilk, you are now viewed with suspicion and your motives are questionable because the principles and values that you claimed to represent were all bullshit. You haven’t been a good ally and therefore there is no reason in the world anyone would band together with you. Why? You’re weak and you side with power, when it should be challenged. Michelle Jackson and her husband just came to mind. Did they ever receive justice? You never held those in power accountable for there injustice done and you had many opportunities.

    I think you’ve proven yourself to be the kind of ally that one cannot trust. You once preached vote for the most liberal candidate on the ticket who can win.

    So tell me Hal, who did you cast your vote for?

  16. DV says:

    I stand corrected. My apologies and a hat tip on this piece, Hal.

    Now, whatever happened to the Jackson’s case? Was it ever solved?

    And who did you vote for?

  17. halginsberg says:

    The Jacksons moved away but not because of the assault and wrongful arrest as far as I know. I do not believe any police were cited afterwards for wrongful arrest or dereliction of duty and no arrests were ever made of anybody at the Carmel River Inn. Joe may have had some difficulty identifying the assailants – understandable given that he had been punched and may have been somewhat confused during the incident. I will not tell you for whom I voted. The state in which I did vote went 2 to 1 for Clinton.

  18. DV says:

    Thanks, Hal, I appreciate the update!

    So you wrote in Bernie…😂😂😂😂

  19. halginsberg says:

    You’re welcome DV.

  20. John says:

    Hal, great article! I would have agreed it was too long if it were filled with extraneous content, but it was all on point. My prediction is that the progressive faction of the party will ground it again. The transition will be hard fought and so incremental that it won’t chap many asses in the constituency. If Warren runs in 2020 the identity politicos who were Clintonites will suddenly find themselves espousing the progressive policies of Warren. I don’t think policy was ever the impetus behind their support anyhow.

  21. Hal says:

    Thanks John!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *