Hillary has the overwhelming support of the party's super delegates. They can support whoever they want at the national convention.
I think the principal reason Bernie won't win the nomination is the numbers aren't there. Some say he will begin tumbling in South Carolina. There are a lot of southern, conservative and moderate Democrats who don't support Bernie's positions on issues.
I happen to support Bernie's positions on most issues. I just think that as President, Bernie would have little to no chance of getting his ambitious agenda through Congress. Shorter version: Reality bites.
Hillary and Bernie are pretty much indistinguishable on issues. That some of her positions seem recently acquired or strengthened is far less important to me than her superior track record of accomplishments and her greater ability to deal with a hostile Congress.
I also happen to admire revolutionaries. If any were around today, I'd likely vote for him or her. Bernie Sanders is not my idea of a revolutionary.
First, he has not been particularly successful at implementing change at the national level.
Second, he's no throwback to Woodstock Nation or 60's radicals or the counterculture. He wasn't a hippie, let alone a Yippie. I may have missed it, but where was he in 1968 during the Chicago 7 trial? Where was his support in 1969 of Woodstock or counterculture figures? Did he call for a boycott in 1971 over Cesar Chavez and grapes?
Bernie is not a baby boomer (he was born before their time.) As others have pointed out, he's a throwback to the 1930's, not the 1960's.
Come to think of it, he does kind of remind me of Warren Beatty's character in the movie "Reds" (with Diane Keaton and Jack Nicholson, in which Beatty plays a 1920's disillusioned journalist who wants to bring the communist ideas from the Russian Revolution to the U.S. Bernie has not endorsed communism, but that's not the point.)
Almost by definition, a revolutionary rejects and wants to overthrow a system of government, not join and lead it. Bernie isn't calling for the destruction of the two party system or Congress. He wants to bring change from within. That's not revolution. Subcomandante Marcos and the Zapatistas never sought to lead one of Mexico's major parties.
Forty-one years later, in 2016, the Zapatistas now have indigenous and autonomous control over land and resources—land free from maquiladoras (sweat shops), slave labor, GMOs, corporate land take-overs, corrupt politicians, bankers and multi-national corporations. Instead, their revolution has produced thriving communities with their own schools, healthcare clinics, thriving crops, indigenous language preservation and even an academic and trade focused University—all free. Run by the people, for the people.
Whist reflecting on the Zapatistas revolution, in April of 2015, the Zapatistas clarified the distinction, in a world-wide communiqué, between revolutionary change and voting in mainstream elections: “Because it’s the same thing among all those who want a political position, regardless of whether they dress up red, or sometimes in blue, or sometimes they put on a new color. And then they say they are the people and that therefore, the people have to support them. But they aren’t of the people. They’re the same bad governments who one day are local representatives, and the next are union leaders, then they are party functionaries . . . bouncing from one position to another, and also from one color to another.”
I've written a lot about Subcomandante Marcos on TalkLeft -- I've bought and read his writings. This communique of the Zapatistas about Marcos is my favorite.
I also happen to agree with FARC on a lot of issues. My point is, Sanders is not a modern-day revolutionary. He's not revolutionary at all. He is an idealist with the right position on political issues, who is to be credited for forcing the media and politicians to take the left more seriously this primary season. But he will be no more successful in the long run than Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, Jesse Jackson or Ralph Nader because the majority of Americans still do not embrace such views.
What makes all the media comparisons to 60's counterculture figures so irksome to me is that I can't find any wealth of articles describing his support for the radical left back then. Did he even attend the Chicago 7 trial in 1968? Give speeches in support of the defendants? I don't see his praise for Woodstock in 1969, and it doesn't seem he went. (His current wife did and loved it, but she hadn't yet met him.)
None of Sanders' ideas are original, and while I don't doubt his sincerity and commitment to his beliefs, and i happen to share most of them, he has had little track record of success with them in the past.
I'll end here, pointing out that things are rarely what they appear to be. What you don't see at the beginning of the "Volunteers" video above, are the words Grace Slick used to preface the song:
Alright Friends, you have seen the heavy groups, now you will see the morning maniac music. Good Morning People. Believe me, it's a new dawn.
Decades later, at age 70, Grace Slick was interviewed about the "revolutionary" message of "Volunteers." Turns out, it wasn't inspired by politics at all. Marty Balin, the Airplane's lead singer, had seen a Salvation Army type bus go by with the message "Volunteers of America."
“Volunteers Of America” actually doesn’t mean anything. It was something Marty Balin (lead singer of the Jefferson Airplane) and Paul Kantner put together. Now Paul is very political, Marty isn’t. Marty writes love songs.
“Volunteers Of Americas” was a print on the side of a truck that Marty saw. He was looking out the window, and a truck went by. It said “Volunteers Of America” on it. I believe it’s something like Salvation Army.... he liked that. He ran it around his head, “Volunteers Of America. That’s interesting.” So he had the repeated line, “Volunteers Of America,” and Paul put more political sh*t into the lyric. So it isn’t as deep as everybody thinks it is (laughs). It’s something Marty saw on a truck (laughs).
So people then projected that meaning into it.
Yeah. But Paul gave it semi-political lyrics that have to do with the Sixties, or at that time.
The media and Republicans are having a field day with their comparisons between Bernie and baby boomers, failed liberal presidential candidates from 30 years ago, hippies, 60's left-wing radicals and the Woodstock generation. But Bernie was none of these.
Bernie is too focused on campaign finance, the 1%, the working middle class and Wall St. Those just aren't the issues I care deeply about. Sure, he talks about social issues, but within three sentences, he's back to his economical gripes. Bernie may own the youth vote with his economic platform, but I don't think it will be enough. I see no reason to doubt that older voters and minority voters will continue to skew for Hillary -- as will the super delegates.
If Bernie was offering a revolution, I might feel differently. But he's really just trying to lead the system, not create a new one. And there's no revolution in that. He's really just rebranding the hope and change meme. From my point of view, 99% is hope, and 1% is change we can expect with him at the helm. I think Hillary can do better.
