Politico reports what readers of this blog know very well: teachers are divided between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, even though the two national teachers’ unions were among the first to endorse Clinton.
The plus side of Sanders: He speaks to the anger and outrage that many teachers feel as a result of unrelenting attacks on the teaching profession and on public education. He can be expected to fight privatization and inequality.
The downside of Sanders: He has not been a member of the Democratic Party until now and if elected, would have few supporters in Congress to enact anything he proposes. While he has high poll numbers now, the Republican attack machine has thus far ignored him. They will drive his numbers down by calling him a communist and pulling every dirty trick in their arsenal. On education, he has been a member of the Senate committee that deals with education and voted for an amendment that would have preserved NCLB-style accountability under the control of the US Department of Education. His statement that Hillary is “not qualified” to be President was dreadful and petulant. Would he prefer Trump or Cruz?
The plus side of Clinton: She has broad experience in domestic and foreign affairs. She is ready to be President.
The downside of Clinton: She is closely associated with the neoliberals at the Center for American Progress who have been pushing Race to the Top, high-stakes testing, VAM, Common Core, and charters (school choice). Her campaign manager, John Podesta, is or was the leader of the CAP. She has not spoken out against any of these policies nor disassociated herself from the Bush-Obama test-and-punish regime. She might reappoint John King as Secretary of Education. She has been clear on every issue except education. Does she really think charter schools are public schools?
Since neither Clinton nor Sanders has given a major speech addressing K-12 education, we can’t be sure what they intend to do. Let’s hope they speak out soon and let us know where they stand on high-stakes testing, charters, vouchers, for-profit schools, privatization, teacher professionalism, tenure, and other issues that concern parents and teachers.
The bottom line: We cannot afford to permit an extremist like Ted Cruz (who despises public education and appeals to the Evangelical vote with his views on social issues) or a crude narcissist like Donald Trump (who evidently knows nothing foreign or domestic policy issues) to become President.
So, whether you vote for Sanders or for Clinton, be prepared to unite for the Democratic nominee if you care about the future of public education in America and maintaining the promise of American life for all our children.
It is nice to be heard. Slowly but surely. Thank you, Diane.
I think parents, students, teachers need to get used the idea that they’re on their own for the foreseeable future no matter who wins the election.
The Presidency is the curtain in the Wizard of Oz (with Oiligarch as wizard)
Parents need to be Toto.
“The Wizard is a Lizard”
The Presidency is curtain
With Oiligarch as Wizard
And Toto is alertin’
That Wizard is a lizard
Alternative title “The Lizard of Oz”
The Power Of Sleaze ,,,
What about Jill Stein? Here’s what I found on her web site about education:
Education as a Right:
Abolish student debt to free a generation of Americans from debt servitude. Guarantee tuition-free, world-class public education from pre-school through university. End high stakes testing and public school privatization.
“Sanders/Stein in 2016”
Bernie is dreamer
And Stein is the brain
Countering schemer
And all that’s insane
“Abolish student debt to free a generation of Americans from debt servitude”
How about the parents who also carry student debt? It’s two generations in our family who would love to get some relief. We will probably be paying off loans until we die.
I would have amended the final sentence to: “…be prepared to unite for the Democratic nominee despite the fact that you care about the future of public education…”
Podesta, Rahm, and DFER are all associated with Hillary. Union leadership sold out their membership when they endorsed Hillary before getting any concessions from her regarding the policies that are killing public education.
She will continue to carry the water for the privatize/profiteer movement.
I can’t vote for her. I will write in Bernie. Democrats need to learn they can not automatically count on teachers’ votes simply because the other candidate is awful.
I’m with you Liz!
I am totally with you, Liz, and almost every Bernie supporter I know has said the same. I will never vote for Hillary, and maybe the Democratic party needs to realize that rigging the nomination process for her could cost them the election. if it happens, so be it. Since I see her as no better than a Republican on almost every issue, since she is corporate funded and owned, I will vote for Bernie no matter how I have to do it. #BernieorBust
Being trapped into settling for the lesser of two evils is why policy remains driven by the audience members at paid speeches where they were likely told that they were not only safe and secure, but also important because of their financial contributions. Real change comes with demands for it and the citizen action to back it up-like “opt out”. This will be a “vote out” for politicians who won’t support citizens.
The risk of sitting this one out can be summed up in four words:
President Trump
President Cruz
Six words:
President Clinton
The two party system no longer works for the people.
I have never sat out, and I have never voted for a compromise candidate. We don’t just need our profession back, we need our country back. Our union leaders have stuck with an admirable strategy while member voice has slowly faded into the background.
Other possibilities according the CNN are President Kasich or President Ryan. Yuk!
YES. If the citizens don’t demand educational change, there is little that will come from a deeply entrenched “demi-cratic” leadership. Even Bernie, with all of his good intentions, falls short on what he should be saying about educational privatizing and Big Money invasions. ALL of the candidates still suggest that we have BAD teachers, FAILING students and BROKEN schools…and ALL argue that the punitive, standardized testing of diverse student populations must continue.
I will vote for Hillary if she is the candidate of the Democratic party. I am also going to vote for as many progressive candidates as I can for legislative positions at both the state and national level. I also want candidates who are understand how to compromise and who don’t demand everything they want. It has taken a long time for us to get into this mess. We are not going to solve our problems with one election.
We do not appear to be divided here. Where are all the die hard Hillary supporters beyond Lily, Randi and their minions?
Dmaxmj, you’re right!!!!
I support Sanders, but I am not of the “Bernie or Bust” mindset. I am a realist. If Hillary gets the nod, I will vote for her as she never made a hostile more on public schools as state senator, and we need to block the Republicans. I will not throw my vote away on a “Ralph Nader sub.” Remember how that worked out for Democrats! I do not agree that because Bernie is an independent he will have a hard time getting things done. He is one of the most respected members of the Senate, and he has an admirable record of building consensus and getting laws passed.http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/bernie-gets-it-done-sanders-record-pushing-through-major-reforms-will-surprise-you
“I will not throw my vote away on a ‘Ralph Nader sub.’”
Anyone who has followed politics at all should know that the “Ralph Nader MYTH” has been thoroughly debunked many times. Georgie the Least didn’t win because of votes drawn away from Gore by Nader.
Gore didn’t even win his home state of Tennessee. Over 200,000 registered Dims voted for Gore in Florida. If only 1% of those had voted for Gore, he would have easily defeated G the Least in Florida and won the presidency, no need for “hanging chad” discussions, no need for the Supreme Court to get involved etc. . . . Need more “truths” about that “Nader MYTH”???
Keep voting for the lesser of two evils as if we haven’t seen where that has gotten us.
Jill Stein knows the stakes and the stakes for the Green Party and this country is to break the stranglehold the oligarchical two party system has on the country. Both Dims and Rethugs will unite to prevent that from happening. The stakes are to get the Green Party on a more equal footing with the two old worn out political machines and by voting for Stein one is helping to help that process along so that eventually we will be able to perhaps talk about the viable 3,4 or 5 presidential candidates.
Vote 3rd party of your choice. Help break the plutocratic oligarchical duopoly of the Dims/Rethugs.
Ralph Nader is and was a prescient and intelligent man. Much of what he predicted has now come to pass. Problem is, he was just a bit before his time. The other problem is that people are still basically comfortable. Things have to get a lot worse for people really to take a stand. Perhaps they have to be so low that there is nothing to lose.
Mamie
Ralph Nader is very astute.
He also tells the truth and has been doing so for a very long time.
Many people hate that *****especially when he says we actually have a one (corporate)-party system***** and some (especially high level corporate Democrats) have never forgiven him for it.
Poet,
Agreed.
I cannot and will not vote for one more dishonest, manipulative fake democrat who will suck up to and use teachers for votes and then throw us under the bus. I am not with her. I will write in Bernie over an opportunistic, calculating liar. For a quick refresher watch this campaign stump speech:
Shillary is just more of the same.
Where were you Barack for Wisconsin and Chicago teachers? Upgraded to fancy shoes eh?
Yup. More empty promises. Tell them what they need to hear to get their vote, then stick it to them once elected.
At least with the Republicans they have the honesty to stick the knife in through the chest. The neoliberal, Republican lite Dems always put the knife in our backs.
The sad reality is that most politicians are skillful liars. Sanders is a rare bird indeed.
Just to clarify, retired teacher
Are you saying he’s not a liar or not a skillful one?
I would put Obama in the skillful liar category for courting the teacher vote in 2008 with promises of supporting public schools. Like a typical lawyer, he would probably maintain that “charters are public schools” according to the government. Remember POTUS stands for Prevaricator of the United States.
After years of THE Obama/Duncan Educational Scorched Earth, it is extremely difficult to support Dems or GOP! Money is the name of the game, and we stand between American/International GREED and America’s CHILDREN!
Parents have all the power, but are afraid of the Shysters who can harm their children even more. We remain in this abusive relationship, because we are used to it?
Who to support?
Obama LIED TO US!
Big Time!
We can trust none of them!
Our children are worth BILLIONS to BILLIONAIRES!
They will win!?
Is there a button? How do i “like” this comment, because
I do.
Some argue that Bernie’s status as an Independent is a liability, I think it is an asset. Bernie is NOT part of the Dem establishment that sold out our public schools.
Her recent comments, as tweeted by an audience member, at an nysut event, were lackluster at best. Lots of slogans about loving teachers, less testing, honor the profession blah blah blah. She didn’t even know mentioning Cuomo’s name would not go over well when speaking to NY teachers and she was booed, then she smirked (yes there’s video) uttering: “C’mon C’mon.” Even with cue cards from Randi and Lily, it was generic teacher tripe. She will eventually obey Eli and we are back where we started: used and abused.
Cuomo and Rahm Emanuel are among Hillary’s staunchest allies. Hillary takes millions of dollars for her campaign and her super PAC from the same hedge funders who want to profit by privatizing public schools. I’d boo her too.
Bernie doesn’t even have a super PAC.
I think you are overestimating Bernie’s downside. Yes, the Republicans will go after him for being a socialist. They will do the same thing to Hillary just as they did with Obama. But at least Bernie actually IS a socialist! Secondly, how can you criticize Bernie’s remarks that Hillary is unqualified without criticizing hers about him? Face facts. Bernie has MORE experience in government than she does. He has been an elected official for much longer. Yes, he does have less foreign policy experience, but given how hawkish Hillary has been, this is not necessarily a negative. Finally, Bernie may not be a typical Democrat but he’s caucused with them from the beginning. Of course he’ll have support in Congress. He’s been in Congress for decades. He knows them BETTER than Hillary. If he is the nominee, the rest of the Dems will support him at least as well as they would Hillary. But your point about supporting the Denicratic nominee – whoever it is – is well taken. Let’s just not assume that is anywhere near decided yet. Hillary would be 4-8 more years of Obama. That’s not the worst thing in the world, but with Bernie we have a chance at something better. He could turn out to be just as bad, but I’m willing to give him a shot. If he does half the things he says, he’ll be a major improvement.
Sanders is much more honest than Hillary. I know much about her behind the scenes. H A Hurley is so right. Homeschooled children are great! I am a retired teacher. People need to wake up about the public school agenda (testing by our government).
Bernie has caucused with the Democrats for decades and was dubbed “the Amendment King” for getting the most amendments through a Republican-controlled House.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/24/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-was-roll-call-amendment-king-1995-2/
Hillary and her surrogates started the conversation about “unqualified” and then charged Bernie with going on the attack when he responded by asking if voting for an unnecessary and immoral war and taking millions of dollars from Wall Street are qualifications for the presidency. If you look behind the headlines, this is a story about political games played by Hillary and her entrenched relationship with corporate media (including CNN, MSNBC, and the NY Times), and has nothing to do with Bernie’s temperament.
The Washington Post, owned by anti-public school billionaire Jeff Bezos, has been particularly harsh towards Bernie, and was instrumental in fomenting the “qualifications” story.
How can I support Hillary? She was a central figure in paving the road for NCLB. She campaigned for NAFTA and negotiated TPP. She sat on the board of directors at Walmart. She is a close friend of Eli Broad; so close she attended and danced at is relatively small private wedding. She has the financial support of leaders of the DFER. She supported DOMA. She supported the IRAQ war. Not that long ago she was talking about black “super predators”. I voted for Obama in 2012 because the alternative was so scary. I am not going to be frightened into voting for another president that I know will be an enemy of public school teachers. I will support Jill Stein if Bernie is defeated.
Support Jill even if Sanders gets the nod.
One of the many reasons Clinton has lost support from voters is her identification with the status quo. Her involvement in decisions that have negatively affected taxpayers and her refusal to own up to mistakes. I would respect her a lot more if she admitted she made these mistakes and pledged to correct them. These politicians never admit when they were on the wrong side of an issue and need to correct tsar. Hillary will not champion our cause, public education above all else and its shortsighted and wrong for teacher’s unions to feed that to their membership. Acknowledge who she is and her affiliations then vote accordingly. You are right about Bernie, his programs and ideas are more to my liking but does he have the clout to implement them?
I vote Bernie.
I am a STRONG supporter of Bernie. I may not wish to vote for Hillary but a vote for her is a vote against ANY of the people that the Republicans can put up this year.
It is VERY short sighted NOT to do so in my opinion.
Please do NOT get entangled in a single issue. Look at the TOTALITY of what is offered.
School vacations coming up. See where you can canvas or phone bank for Bernie. Just enter your zip code.
http://map.berniesanders.com
#feelthebern
#Imnotwithher
For decades, Bernie Sanders has proven that he can get things done while working with members of both corporate-funded political parties. That’s why he was called the “Amendment King” while serving in the House of Representatives. He seeks common ground with those with which he disagrees. He has the voting record, life history, judgment, character, knowledge and experience worthy of your support. Feel the Bern!
BernieSanders latest ad:
https://amp.twimg.com/v/1cba4dba-66f5-478c-b079-490a0dbd80f3
Phone bank or canvass for Bernie. Just enter zip code.
http://map.berniesanders.com
I’m a retired teacher and will vote for Bernie. Ties to Wall Street, votes re the Iraq War are 2 important reasons for this choice.
As a retired public school history teacher, I believe that every successful revolution in history is impossible right up until the the time it becomes inevitable. With the cooperation of both parties ( remember Romney said he would be happy to retain Duncan ) we are on the path to destroying the crown jewel of a democracy and mere course corrections are not the answer. So far I know two things for certain. 1. Only one candidate is talking about a revolution. 2. Unlike some other unions, my union did not poll its members.
Bernie is by far the best candidate as he openly praises public schools. He has the independent vote and Democrats will vote for him over Cruz or Trump. The idea that the communist label will stick is absurd. If Hillary is the nominee then Democrats lose. It’s as simple as that.
Diane, you should withdraw this post. You are starting a firestorm of proportions that will only cause you to lose credibility in many educators’ eyes, including my own. First and foremost, it is disingenuous of you to mention that Bernie Sanders has only been a Democrat for a short while. You yourself have changed sides and should know that there is no shame in this. You said that Bernie voted for a NCLB-like amendment to the re-authorization of the ESEA. Let me remind you that Elizabeth Warren also voted for this amendment. Your question about this vote was addressed by Steven Singer in a letter he and others wrote to Bernie Sanders, asking why he voted this way. A staffer for Mr. Sanders wrote a response which you can read here. https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2015/08/15/bernie-sanders-explains-puzzling-education-vote-its-because-accountability/. His reason was because “aspects of the bill that were insisted upon by Chairman Alexander and Senate Republicans and that do not reflect the best interests of vulnerable populations.” How might Mrs.Clinton vote for this if she were a member of Congress at the time? Judging from the “education reformers” with whom she has aligned herself in the past, she may have voted this way this way as well. But, we will never know the answer to that question. You say that “Hillary has broad experience in domestic and foreign affairs”, so I will remind you that she voted for the Iraq war, and Bernie did not. Your downsides for Hillary are very much more toxic to public education than Bernie’s potential to be ignored and stomped on by Republican Congress. What this comes down to, Diane, is do we wish public education dies a slow death under Hillary Clinton, a fast death under either Republican candidate, or should we take a chance on a real doctor, a champion of the middle class and working people, Bernie Sanders?
I believe I have the responsibility to fully and exclusively support the candidate in whose ideas and personality I most believe would veto-stop the bleeding of 30 years of privatization, and not just of education, who would be guided by a moral compass beyond the influence of Walton and Broad, Senator Sanders, until April 22nd, or until June 6th, or even until the Convention. Unless or until he drops out or is defeated, it is still primary season for me. Go Bernie! Then, however, the general election might still be the usual Democrat versus Republican affair. We’ll see. I do not have a crystal ball.
Hillary can never have enough money, so little will get done with her in charge
There are 712 super delegates. Will they all vote for Hillary should the primaries and caucuses show that Bernie is the popular choice? Some say, no, they won’t because that would rip the party apart.
Teachers perceive that, If elected, Clinton will not engage the billionaires’ boys clubs to get them out of the corporate takeover of public schools, despite their union leaderships’ support of her. They saw their union support Obama twice, and he has supercharged the bbc’s assault through RttT and ESSA. Too much has been taken from public ed already. It continues without stop. There is too much for her to unwind in order to win over the young and progressive Dem teachers.
She cannot even start that conversation because of the significant financial support her campaign and the Clinton Global Initiative receive from the bbc — whom you have also railed against for good reason.
The issue is that she — and Bill before her — are so enmeshed with the moneyed interests that run our political system that they have secured a top in that club through their CGI. They have used their donations to state Democratic parties to lock up superdelegates in advance, making it look as though she is the inevitable candidate with an insurmountable lead. Does that remind anyone of a certain other Bill’s approach to locking up Common Core?
Acolyte and ally Rahm Emanuel famously said, “Where are they going to go?” referring to the laughable, no-win position of Democratic Party progressives. And the Dems felt safe as they veered to the right starting during the Clinton era. This led to many other shifts, including the loss of millions of good paying jobs through NAFTA, and now under Obama, through TPP. It led to the erosion of union rights and earning power for working families, exacerbating income inequality..
We are done with neoliberalism — which is another word for greed. We like hearing the truth. We will write in Bernie.
And, yes, I agree, with Hurley. Obama’s campaign was a lie.There turned out to be no ‘audacity of hope’ in his education policies, which have been highly destructive, and he never deigns to address with the public in any constructive way.
How can teachers be “divided” between Hillary and Bernie? Any teacher who votes for Hillary has no room to complain for the next 4 or 8 years. It’s not like Hillary hasn’t made it clear who she is.
Who knows what Bernie will do about education? He has not distinguished himself at all.
Remember what happened when everyone jumped on the Obama bandwagon. Hillary has some bad ties of course but she seems aware that the tide has changed. Bernie sometimes just seems clueless about education even though he was on the education committee. He and Elizabeth Warren both knew better but went along with the reformers. I expect Hillary to be smart enough and have enough common sense to moderate some of the worst of the reformers excesses.
John Podesta is still active in her campaign, isn’t he? She’s still friends with Eli Broad. Those two things tell you all you need to know about Hillary’s education platform. At least there’s some doubt with Bernie.
All of the above posts make it clear that active and retired teachers are well aware of the fact that Obama’s endorsement of Clinton means more of the same Duncan/Emanuel policies will be inflicted on teachers and children in public schools. Senator Sanders should rightfully be the Democratic Party nominee, and if he wins the majority of the We the People vote in the primaries, perhaps the Democratic Party will concede to We the People and let the so-called “superdelegates” go over to him. Ironic, isn’t it, that with its “superdelegate” scheme for controlling the nominating process the Democratic Party has become the least democratic party.
I’m surprised you would consider either. Hillary will continue Obama’s common core/power grab of the public school system. I can only assume Bernie, being a socialist, will do the same. That’s what socialism is- the government runs everything and you have no choice. Most of the republican candidates have run on doing away with common core/ PARCC and giving the control back to states. My vote goes to anyone who will do away with common core.
Susan, Cruz or Trump would get rid of Common Core and also public education
Susan’s ignorance of Bernie Sanders and socialism is astounding. Do some googling, Susan
Wow, Susan, you’re such a bright light bulb.
Anyone have a pair of sunglasses I can borrow?
Hillary is a big problem.
If she is the nominee, many Bernie supporters will NOT vote for her.
If Bernie is the nominee, I will support him with enthusiasm. If Hillary is the nominee, I will support her with enthusiasm. Every one will make his or her own decision. As I wrote before, the party that is united wins. The party that is divided loses. Your choice.
The fundamental irony is that we all recognize that if enough people opt-out of standardized testing, it may be the best way to change the course of education policy. Yet if we choose to opt out of a vote, we are told that we have no right to complain when those we oppose win. But what if we oppose both standard bearers?
With respect to Clinton, Trump, Cruz and Kasich, when one looks beneath the veneer of the issues that suck up all the attention of major media—through which, unfortunately, most people form their political opinions—such as abortion, guns, immigration, and political horse races, it obscures the 90% of policies that actually impact the everyday lives of average people. . (I agree that it might matter when it comes to Supreme Court Justices, but remember although George I gave us Thomas, he also gave us Souter). Issues like education, infrastructure, medical research, health care, food safety, energy and climate change, public lands and recreation—the ones that really impact virtually every American—fall under the radar screen and get ignored.
But they are not ignored by the many lobbying firms in Washington and every state capital. These firms are generally have well-connected Republicans and Democrats in order to cover all their bases. They write most of the legislation, regulations and funding rules. And that’s why it doesn’t really matter to them who gets elected; their policies on those under-the-radar issues (at least for the “mainstream media” and those influenced by them) will be pretty much the same regardless. The issues discussed by this blog underscore this better than anything I can envision.
Sanders is the first serious presidential since FDR who actually scares them (unfortunately, John Anderson was not as serious as I led myself to believe when I was a young idealist). While I will vote carefully down ballot in November, I have yet to have someone convince me why opting out for the presidential vote is not a serious option if the choice is Clinton vs. a neo-fascist (pick ‘em) or a craven tool like Kasich or whoever might ride in on the Cleveland white horse.
Greg, opting out of testing may bring standardized testing to a screeching halt. The test scores for districts are no longer valid when 70% of the kids don’t take the test. Choosing not to vote when the choice is between Trump/Cruz or Bernie/Hillary doesn’t mean you get no president. You will get one.
After the last nearly 36 years of neoconservatism and neoliberalism, it is impossible for me to support another member of the establishment, regardless of party, who fits comfortably into either of those camps (or both). That absolutely includes Hillary Rodham Clinton. She’s everything that’s been wrong with the Democratic Party since it decided to become Republican Lite after losing to GHWB in ’88. Anything to get back the White House might have seemed like a good play in 1992, but it was a devil’s bargain and for the most part progressives, liberals, and public education, to name but a few areas of our democracy, lost and have kept losing, regardless of which party has held the White House or either branch of Congress.
That said, I think it’s shortsighted in the extreme to be waiting for Bernie Sanders to give the dream speech some people are waiting for that focuses on education. It’s not happening at this juncture. Sanders mentions the importance of public education in his stump speeches and that’s as good as it’s going to get right now. If he wins the nomination, it may be that he’ll sharpen his comments on any number of issues that currently are simply part of the mosaic that is his campaign. If you’re a Hillary Clinton supporter, you spin that approach to be “one-issue campaigning.” I think that’s a crock, but spin is spin and it’s to be expected.
The fact is that there are so many more vital issues at stake in 2016 that if Sanders hits it out of the park on most of them and whiffs on education (which frankly I very much doubt will happen), I’d still vote for him given all the current alternatives. I suspect many readers of this blog held their noses to some extent in 2012 and pulled the lever for Obama for a second term, knowing that things were most decidedly NOT going to get better for teachers, students, or schools.
So why hold Sanders’ feet to the education fire? He’s not a one-issue candidate, but if he were, his “one issue” is social justice. And that includes fairness and justice in schools and schooling. If you think that things will be at least as good with Hillary Clinton in the White House, by all means vote for her in the primary of your choice and in November should she get the nomination. If not – and you can count me in the very definitely NOT camp – write in Bernie Sanders’ name in November should he NOT get the nod from the Democratic Party. That’s what I’m doing.
Ohio media report that Hillary may select Sen. Sherrod Brown, as a running mate, to attract Bernie supporters. Brown is a public education privatizer
Thank you Diane. Your advocacy for a Democratic ticket, regardless of who is on top, is something I respect greatly, even though my opinion is different. I guess what I was trying to say before the spirit hit me was that it is as, if not more, important to vote on down ballot candidates and issues that will revive a progressive movement. The recent news of how many Democrats voting in the Wisconsin primary didn’t vote on the down ballot candidates just solidified Walkerism in the state.
Should Clinton become president, I very much hope that she will select you as her top education advisor. It would be the best decision she could make. Plus, it would be fun to watch some of her closest advisors’ heads explode!
Greg, that would be fun!
You are so right about the other races. We need wiser legislators, governors, mayors, etc, who follow the children, not the money or the test scores
I am feeling very selfish, Greg. You do realize that if Diane was chosen as Secretary of Education that this blog would be kaput. I would definitely go for Diane’s voice being heard in the selection process, but I want to keep her where she is able to support the voice of teachers. As the Secretary, she would be beholden to the President and obviously would not be blogging even if she had the time.
2Old2Teach: don’t worry about it. I would never put away my conscience and my voice. No way.
That thought never even entered my mind.
..and if Diane were Hillary’s Sec of Ed, she probably would not be permitted to allow comments like “Hillary is a big problem” even if she were allowed to keep blogging.
On the other hand, if she were Bernie’s Sec of Ed, “Hillary is a big problem” might be allowed.
Good point 2old2teach! Hadn’t considered that. Guess that’s why I like this blog so much. It keeps me thinking.
I am a Bernie supporter. I most certainly will vote for the republican if it’s Hilary on the ballot. I am a unionized teacher yet I never care who Randi endorses because Randi is part of ed deform as is her buddy Hilary. So I might as well vote republican—at least they are up front about hating teachers. Democrats like Clinton are phonies with their claims of support for teachers.
Why vote republican? Isn’t it better to vote for a candidate one really likes and otherwise not to vote?
Perhaps Sanders made a mistake of running as democrat.
There is a reason other democratic countries have more than two parties. They can accommodate more diverse opinions in groups closer to what all the members believe. We squeeze everyone into two major parties that have a major voice in government. You know there has got to be a fairly wide range of opinions in those two groups. Right now both parties are being controlled by elements who really do not speak for the party base in a productive way. Whether our “fringe” parties grow in influence in their own right or not, I have no idea. That discussion is well beyond me. Even in other countries, though, those parties have to find ways to work together to form a coalition the can govern. I assume that takes compromise as well as collaboration, just what our two parties have been unable to do in the recent past, either with each other or even with factions within their own parties although Democrats have probably been better at intra-party cooperation than the Republicans.
Bernie would be appalled to hear you say that.
Obama backing Hillary doesn’t mean that much. And by the way many of the same folks that are blindly backing Bernie also were swooning over Obama last time-beware the new or old shiny object. Bernie and Obama share many of the same characteristics-holier than thou attitudes, inability to be team players, good speech makers with problems following through, insularity and lack of interpersonal skills necessary for legislation victories. Bernie has collected millions of dollars and shared with none of the other Democratic candidates. In contrast the Clintons have helped many Democrats for years with money and time. Passing legislation is about something more than being idealogically pure.
The Hillary hating is out of control-some objectivity and realism is needed
I disagree with your statement that Sanders and Obama share many of the same characteristics. If you do a bit of background checking, you’ll find that Obama had long ago given his fealty to the Pritzkers and other 1 percenters. He was no agent of change. So determined were his wealthy backers to propel Barack to the front of the line that Illinois real ruler, House Speaker Michael Madigan, rammed through a bill moving the Illinois primary up to February to boost Barack’s chances. Those of us who watched Obama since the early aughts have known that he is a prevaricating tool of the 1 percent. Hillary is far more similar to Obama than Sanders is.
The war in Bernie Sanders by the Democratic Party elite
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-primary-president-iowa-caucus-new-hampshire-primary/
Eleanor,
Spot on, great post.
Onama’s fealty is how Penny Pritzker came to be our Secretary of Commerce. Penny Pritzker, Obama’s fairy godmother, owner of the Hyatt Hotel chain that turned the heat lamps on housekeepers picketing the Chicago hotel in 100 degree weather. Those housekeepers had full time jobs, many for decades. The Pritzkers replaced these employees with part timers to avoid paying benefits. The same Penny Pritzker raising money for the Obama 35 million home in Hawaii.
This is Hillary Clinton territory. Where did all of the donations earmarked for Haiti end up?
If Bernie Sanders is not the nominee, I will write his name in.
It’s time! Democracy Spring!
SAY NO to Hillary!
NEA should be ashamed of this endorsement!
NEA should NOT endorse a political candidate just like it doesn’t endorse a certain religion. It’s personal and private and should be kept that way.
This endorsement doesn’t represent ALL members therefore it shouldn’t be!
I agree!!!!
Bernie is working for US not corporations. If parents had an easier time making it, they’d have time for their kids, too. Hillary will sell us to the highest bidder, again, as she has in the past. Bernie speaks to teacher’s anger and Hillary is ready to be president? Give me a break. Corporate takeover is what happened to our schools, and you can expect more under Hillary. I’m ashamed to be a member of the NEA, they didn’t ask me who I support. You couldn’t pay me to vote for a war criminal, racist, flip-flopping, arms-dealing Goldwater girl. I’m either voting Bernie or writing him in.
Me too!!!
Hello Diane: Hillary received $225,000 on June 20, 2013, to give a speech to the Boston Consulting Group. Do you think Hilllary would honor the request to release the transcript of that speech if you were to request it, on behalf of America’s public school students, parents and teachers? Thank You
Here is the link:
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/HRC_2013_Speeches_-_Tax_Return_Addendum%20(3).pdf
Eleanor,
I wish she would, but it is unlikely since she has not sought my advice about education.
I looked on Bernie’s site for anything about public school K-12 education. All I saw on education was his proposal for college tuition and student loans:
https://berniesanders.com/issues/its-time-to-make-college-tuition-free-and-debt-free/
I looked on Hillary’s site for anything about public school K-12 education. Here’s what I found:
Early Childhood education: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/early-childhood-education/
K-12 education: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/k-12-education/
I also found this about college: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/college/
I posted earlier what Jill Stein said about education.
mathcs, you missed the section on Bernie’s website about K-12 education:
http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-education/#k-12-education
I’ve respected you and your views for quite a while. Unfortunately, I disagree with you this time. Mrs. Clinton has taken far too much money from the oligarchy for her to disregard their wishes. I can no longer hold my nose while voting. If Senator Sanders does not win the nomination, I will be voting for Jill Stein in November.
This is no longer about the Democrats vs. the Republicans. It’s about the 1% vs. the 99%. Mrs. Clinton and the GOP serve the 1%. Senator Sanders serves the rest of us. The revolution has already begun.
Right on, Ellen.
Ellen, As I have said again and again, every one will make his or own decision. That’s democracy. I won’t tell you how to vote. I am not even sure how I will vote.
I would be grateful if people stopped chastising me because I don’t agree with them. I won’t impose my uncertainty on you. Don’t impose your certainty on me.
I will say only this, also again and again, I will vote for the Democrat nominee, whether it is Bernie or Hillary. The possibility of a President Trump or Cruz is horrifying. But that’s just my view.
Yes, Ellen, you’re right!!!!
Revolution!!!!!!
The statement that “[Sanders] has not been a member of the Democratic Party until now and if elected, would have few supporters in Congress to enact anything he proposes” overlooks two important things.
First, it’s precisely because he’s NOT a member of the either of established party, which a growing segment of the voting population believe are both too corrupt to redeem, that his support continues to grow. Those are the voters who will never, ever vote for HRC; they will either not vote at all, will vote for a Republican in a misguided attempt at protest or, most likely, will plead with Sen. Sanders to run as an independent third party candidate if he loses the nomination.
These are also people who are profoundly offended that they are constantly bombarded by people implying or outright saying they’re fools and/or unpatriotic if they don’t agree to vote for a candidate they despise. They, and a lot of Democrats, are fed up with being told they have to vote for the lesser evil, because evil is evil.
Second, Sen. Sanders has worked closely with the Democrats in both houses of Congress and is respected there. His choice to designate himself as an Independent has not prevented him from engaging support from both Democrats AND Republicans in his many years of service. In fact, his very neutrality eliminates accusations of partisanship.
It’s fine to have reservations about a candidate, but they should be based on the complete package, not bits and pieces selectively chosen in an effort to create a fallacious list of pros and cons. It’s because of her total record so many refuse to support HRC, and her occasional forays into progressivism are no more definitive of her quality as a candidate than Sen. Sanders’s rare support for non-progressive legislation.
Elizabeth Burton If Sanders works so well with Democrats in Congress, then why do almost all Democratic House members and Senators endorse Hillary Clinton? (Only a few have endorsed Bernie.) Also, she is raising money for Democratic congress fights as well as her own presidential campaign. Bernie refuses to do that. So how well will his proposals be taken by Congress? (And since he does not want to help Democrats regain Congress, in his case it sounds like the current Republican Congress.)
Yes, he has been able to get non-controversial bills through Congress, such as a veteran’s benefits bill with McCain, etc. But why not any of his major policy proposals? Why don’t we already have single payer health care, free college tuition, etc.? If he was not able to get any of that through Congress in decades, including when it was Democratic-controlled, how do you expect him to get such proposals through a Republican Congress?
Do you recall how hard it was for Obama to get ACA through a Democratic Congress? He had to keep watering it down more and more, remove the public option, etc. Yet a mild and watered down the final bill is, the Republican Congress has kept trying to repeal it. Now you tell me how Sanders will get single-payer through Congress, much more radical than Obama’s initial proposal, which Obama had to keep watering down.? (By the way, I agree with Bernie that single-payer would be best, but see no way in the world he could get it through Congress.)
By the way, whether you like it or not, the “Bernie or Bust” stance is very immature, and based on privilege. It is saying that your feeling of ideological purity and moral superiority is more important than letting the country go to hell with Trump or Cruz. Bernie will almost certainly endorse HRC if she is the nominee (as she probably will be). So will Elizabeth Warren. Will you then hate and vilify them too?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/opinion/campaign-stops/bernie-or-bust-is-bonkers.html
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/democratic-vote-hillary-clinton-election-2016-bernie-sanders
Those who see Sen. Sanders not just as an alternative but as the only one willing to confront what they see as the total corruption of our republic at the hands of Big Money have heard all those irrelevant arguments.
You’re clearly dedicated to Ms. Clinton, and that’s commendable. However, repeating the neoliberal dogma that people who have suffered, are suffering and will continue to suffer unless the direction this country has taken changes should just be patient is no longer acceptable.
The “Bernie-or-bust” is only about Sen. Sanders on one level. The other levels are the growing realization among many, many people that they have been used, abused, lied to and manipulated for the last thirty-plus years, and that Ms. Clinton is the face of all that. Those of you who believe she’s the best choice need to pressure her to stop paying lip service to the issues Sen. Sanders knows are vital to the salvation of the US and its people. If she expects those who see the emperor’s nudity to vote for her, she needs to prove to them she’s not one of the tailors.
“Teacher” I’m not here to argue all day today, but to address your point on privilege: no, the side that accepts small incremental change that is beholden to big money is the real group of “privilege.” The ones who will refuse to settle for Hillary are going to be the ones who change the world, and you will enjoy the fruits of their revolution.
I was angered when Teacher’s Unions endorsed Clinton without a single vote from membership. The endorsements came early, and were NOT a reflection of the membership. That was cause enough for concern. In 2012, the NEA chose not to endorse any candidate, and they should have done so again.
The fact that Sanders is not a Democrat is not a downside to anything. Since Independents are actually the voting majority of this country, I am thrilled to see him getting the momentum he has while playing the two party system game. To imply that Sanders is not tested is also short-sighted. He is one of THE most effective members of Congress in that he actually has worked with many different people finding common ground and getting things done. This experience will prove itself invaluable in multiple ways – something Clinton will never achieve. She is too divisive. Your claim that she is ready to be President is one most Americans do not share. She will not win a General election. Nor should she.
I am a teacher. I am an Independent. I am a Sanders believer and supporter. My vote will not be for “any blue will do”. If the Dems continue to play this election and place HIllary on the ballot, be prepared to carry her on your own. There are other options and many of us are going to exercise them in the event Bernie Sanders is not elected in this Primary. It is not about not getting our way. It is about the fact that Clinton is just not good enough to even be our second choice.
The Supreme Court is too important to what happens over the next decade to leave it to a conservative Republican administration. If Bernie sees the value in voting for Clinton, I am not going to second guess him. Beyond this race, however, make sure your vote counts at the state and local level.
“I was angered when Teacher’s Unions endorsed Clinton without a single vote from membership. The endorsements came early, and were NOT a reflection of the membership. ”
Yes, that was very telling.
It basically told us that Weingarten and Eskelsen-Garcia are hoping for a job in a Clinton administration (if they have not already been promised one).
Diane, you wrote that Hillary Clinton has not spoken out against charters. What about the following: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/hillary-clinton-charter-schools-education-215661
I recall she got a lot of flak from charter advocates about that, as well as her comments in support of teacher unions.
Teacher, Hillary criticized charter schools, but caught a lot of flak from funders. Her chief education advisor “walked back” her accurate and very tempered criticism, and said that Hillary supports public schools and considers charters to be public schools.
Teacher, your vehement defense of Hillary is very telling.
Of course I disagree with your post and assessment, but I’ve already written enough, and will simply sigh this time and digress…
Do not be surprised, though, if/when Sanders supporters do not rally around Hillary, who is in perfectly in line with the root of the problem (oligarchy.) It’s time for real change, not to continue being entertained by breadcrumbs falling from the tables of the rich and powerful.
I’m hoping, if Bernie doesn’t get the nom, that his supporters can convince him to go rogue and run independent. It would not bother us one bit he if went back on his word to not run independent. That was a coerced “promise” if ever there was one. Hillary is their darling, since she will do their bidding. I do not understand how she has been made of teflon–she is a criminal and a liar. Americans cannot afford another Clinton presidency.
Right on, Ed Detective!!!!
For those of you who say the Democratic and Republican parties are the same, no difference, I beg to say that is totally untrue. More untrue now than ever, as the Republican Party is falling off a cliff of the Tea Party. There are SO many major differences.
Let’s just take one Supreme Court appointments. These folks are appointed for life, and make a great deal of difference in everything, including education,. (For instance, Friedrichs would almost certainly have passed the SC, extremely detrimental to teacher unions, if it were not for the accident of Scalia’s death.)
There is one SC seat open now (not likely to be filled this year), and likely a few more in the next eight years.
Is there anyone here would like to make the case that there is no difference between:
Ginsburg and Scalia?
Kagan and Alito?
Sotomayor and Thomas?
I would like to see if any of the haters think they can make such a case?
Teacher,
I hope you will take some solace in knowing that the vast majority of Democratic voters share your thinking. There are consequences to elections. Anyone who thinks that New York State, e.g., would have a ban on fracking, would be on the way toward a $15 minimum wage, and would have legalized same-sex marriage had either Rob Astorino or Carl Freaking Paladino won either of the last two gubernatorial elections is out of their minds.
The delegate and popular vote math just doesn’t compute for Bernie. It has been a fun ride and excellent preparation for the general.
What evidence do you have that teachers are divided between just those two choices? Was there a poll done? Some of us do not plan on voting for either one.
De acuerdo, gracias.
New York will likely decide this election. If Bernie can win there everything about this race will change. The delegate count, the super-delegate count, the inevitability of Hillary winning and the possibility of winning in additional primaries.
Surprisingly little will change, unless Sanders wins NY with 55+ percent of the vote. Those damn “Southerners” have staked Clinton to a big, big lead.
‘New York will likely decide this election.
New York voters put Andrew Cuomo in office (twice!), so all I can say is “Yikes!”
I don’t agree with the statement that name calling by Republicans will drive Sanders’s numbers down. I think people are fed up with this tactic. The bodies at Sanders’s appearances support this. Nor do I buy that he will have little support in Congress. He has caucused with the Democrats, not the do-nothing Republicans.
Like Canada, I think the U.S. is ready for change. Clinton would mean more of the same.
of what we’ve had for the last 30 years.
Diane wrote “The test scores for districts are no longer valid when 70% of the kids don’t take the test.”
The test scores weren’t valid to begin with, never have been and never will be. The COMPLETE INVALIDITY OF STANDARDIZED TEST SCORES has been know since at least 1997 (actually before but not explicated as thoroughly) by Noel Wilson in his never refuted, never rebutted seminal dissertation (the most important educational writing in the last half century at least) “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine.
1. A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other words all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self-evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
Had to do it, Diane. You gave me the opening-ha ha!!!
I’m an Australian teacher union activist and I’ve been following the US presidential primaries quite intensively. Although, I don’t have a vote, I hope you’ll take a comment from afar.
It is disappointing that Bernie in particular – and I’m a YUGE supporter of his – has not made his views known on K-12 education issues. This is also the case with really progressive politicians here who often don’t get as well informed as they should on important aspects of the corporate education agenda and tend to talk mainly about financing of public education and respect for teachers but don’t get into the testing and accountability issues.
Having said that, though, I feel that Bernie’s instincts are good and he will respond better to progressive voices in education than Hillary who, like Obama, will be under pressure from her corporate backers to carry on with the current agenda.
If Bernie were to be elected, I would suggest that who he appoints to the position of Education Secretary would be decisive. If I were in the US, I would concentrate on this. Obama declared his hand with the appointment of the neo-liberal Arne Duncan to the post.
I was absolutely appalled with the decisions of the NEA and AFT national leaderships to support Hillary without, in the first place, even attempting to get guarantees from her about crucial issues on the progressive education agenda. In other words, a blank cheque! I understand their excuse is they wanted a “seat at the table” in a Clinton administration. Well, that worked well with Obama, didn’t it???
Fully support Karen Lewis and the Chicago Teachers Union in their struggle with the awful Rahm Emanuel administration. The fact that Hillary has not disowned Rahm Emanuel’s actions ought to send out alarm signals to any teacher about where she’s likely to be on education issues. Which is why I’d be very sceptical about her being a force for positive change in education. Bernie, in contrast, prides himself on NOT having Rahm Emanuel’s endorsement.
By the way, Bernie has pulled back from his comments about Hillary’s qualification and I think it’s a pity you did not report this.
I, for one, am sick of “voting for the lesser of two evils.” I was overjoyed when I’d heard Bernie’s declaration speech–I’d been saying for years, “Why can’t Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren run?” And now he is, powered by the people. Having followed Bernie (&, BTW, I found yet another picture in the Chicago Tribune–in an article on the infamous “Willis Wagons” & the subsequent ’60s protests–where he was sitting in the middle of street in front of a bus holding the hand of a young African-American woman, while surrounded by police.
A picture is worth 1,000 words. Does anyone who reads this blog seriously think that Bernie is not for public schools and for children, given his speeches (over many years, not just during these primary months) with relation to the problem of poverty and the ever-shrinking middle class? Hasn’t this blog in as many years contained posts emphasizing (for those government-corporate cronies who don’t–& won’t, because they are beholden {& will never} “get” it) “it’s the poverty, stupid.”
Now, finally, we have a candidate who is addressing that very issue–poverty destroying our children. Can homeless children concentrate in school? Can children subjected to violence in poor neighborhoods have the emotional stamina to sit at their desks and learn? Can children whose stomachs are empty be expected to absorb knowledge?
Bernie may not yet address every single pre-K-12 educational issue out there at this point, but “getting” that poverty is at the core–and sticking to message–is far and away the best presidential platform we have heard in many, many decades.
For you readers in New York, please work as hard as you can for Bernie.
We won’t see another honest, people-driven candidate like him for many more decades.
Don’t skip ahead to November and discount him–some delegates have already flipped &, as I’ve said in the past, yes, WE can!
Sanders will not accomplish what he promises, we’ll do it. He’ll just put our feet in the door. He is talking about us, gives our confidence back as he is talking about what we can do if we use our power we forgot we have.
Did Obama get our feet in the door? Did he try? How about Hillary?
Hillary is talking about pragmatism, real world and such. The real world is us, and what she is talking about is a virtual reality diligently maintained for us by billionaires.
I agree that Sanders is NOT the only focus here, Mate. We ALL must get involved and civically participate. WE must run for various offices as well . . . He can’t do it alone.
What an excellent and critical reminder you provided here . . .
Sanders is my only choice, but he is not Superman alone; we must all become Superman.
“Bernie had his chance, but as Junior Soprano might say, he couldn’t sell it. He wants to overthrow the boss, but he couldn’t sell it to the people he needs to support him. Bernie Bros tend to blame the people who aren’t supporting Bernie for not being informed, but it was on Bernie to convince marginalized Americans that he was their voice, and he couldn’t do it. Not in large enough numbers he himself has said he needs.
“That’s just the big picture. I’m a New Yorker and once you get down into the local issues at play in this primary, Bernie is a problem. “The banks” — a term that he clearly doesn’t fully grasp — are here! They employ people here. You can sit in Kansas or Oklahoma and talk about “breaking up the banks” and get applause. In New York City, you better have a plan to replace those jobs. You better have a plan to replace that tax base. You better have a plan for the waitstaff at Cipriani, because they can’t all serve overpriced duck to the army of new grade-school teachers he plans to hire.”
http://www.atlredline.com/i-m-with-her-i-guess-1769742021
Sanders really ought to be honest with his supporters in New York and what his plans would do to the local economy.
Can we please stop all the talk about how much “experience” Hillary Clinton has? The woman has been either wrong – very, very nastily wrong – or has failed at virtually everything she has done or tried in the political realm, going back to her days as a “Goldwater Girl.”
I wish someone would point out to me and Diane’s readership a single positive accomplishment this woman has made, anywhere, ever. And please, don’t refer to her leeching off Marian Wright Edelman and the Children’s Defense Fund: that trope died a miserable, agonizing death a long time ago, ever since (if not before) Peter Edelman resigned in protest over Bill Clinton’s signing of so-called welfare reform legislation in 1996. That episode encapsulated how she and her husband’s entire political career has been based on little more than sacrificing their political base in the interests of their campaign and Foundation funders.
As far as I see, on virtually every issue, Hillary is a failure:
Her botched effort at health care reform set back those efforts for almost two decades.
She supported the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which helped give us a major media landscape owned by a handful of corporations.
She supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which helped give us the financial panic of 2008.
She was a tourist in the US Senate, and NEVER had a bona fide connection to New York, unless you count her Wall Street campaign funders.
She voted for the Iraq war, and as Secretary of State almost single-handedly turned Libya into a failed state and base for ISIS.
With a nod-and-a-wink, she allowed a military coup to take place in Honduras, with the predictable results of trade unionists, community organizers and political dissidents being murdered, with virtually the entire economy of the country controlled by narco gangs or stateless corporations running factories in “Free Trade” zones.
Her closest advisors in the State Department helped engineer a coup in Ukraine that brought in a Nazi and gangster-infested government into power, and which has turned Ukraine into another failed state.
As Secretary of State, she privatized her email communications. Combine that with her and her husband’s long-time relationship with Eli Broad, so-called reform shill and political broker John Podesta’s prominence in her campaign, etc., and you have to be beyond naive to think that this woman will not betray public education and public school teachers.
Shall I go on?
Teachers should rightly ignore the self-serving ambitions of the Randi Weingartens of the world, and ignore the AFT’s endorsement. Hillary is a political chameleon and incompetent by almost any standard, and is an extremely brittle candidate.
Donnie Trump did us all a big favor by once and for all eliminating the possibility of a continuing Bush dynasty. New York State primary voters can go a long way toward helping the nation by putting a stake through the heart of a potential Clinton one.
Feel free to fill us in all the great stuff that Bernie Sanders has accomplished in 25 years in Congress.
If the current condition of Vermont is any indication, it’s been next to nothing. Vermont’s economy is a train wreck—and it would be a lot worse if it weren’t for flatlander Wall Street bankers and lawyers buying summer/ski second homes and spending tourism dollars there. Vermont is losing population as birthrates drop and as its young flee as soon as they can for states where there are jobs and opportunity. In the past five years there has been a 50% increase in the percentage of children qualifying for free lunch and a similar increase in the number of families receiving SNAP benefits.
Oh, and then there’s the small matter of Vermont’s being the opioid addiction and crime capital of America, with towns like Barre and Rutland looking like war zones.
Being president is just a touch more difficult than being a legislator from the US’s smallest and by far most homogeneous state, and that state is in a death spiral. Why should anyone expect Bernie to be more effective as president than he’s been as Vermont’s representative and senator?
You are behind the times. Vermont’s response to its drug problem presents a slightly more nuanced picture than yours.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/vermont-heroin_us_55e4768de4b0aec9f353dc95
http://www.npr.org/2016/01/30/463952989/tragedy-moves-a-community-to-combat-drug-addiction
Bernie Sanders won the Vermont primary by more than 70 points. I’m sure that’s because he’s never accomplished anything.
Hillary won her home state by 2 points.
“Farmer’s Oath”
Doing nothing’s better
If what you do is harm
And war will make ’em deader
Than living on a farm
Notice how, instead of refuting or even attempting to rebut my factual statements about Hillary, Tim resorts to the fallacy of “You, too!” or in this case, him (Bernie), too! That it was false and ineffective seems to not matter, but then again, it never does.
After so much time trying to defend the indefensible – charter school practices – with deflection, misdirection and non sequiturs, I guess he just can’t help himself.
Michael Fiorillo, That is Tim’s modus operandi. He always changes the subject, diverts, or says “you, too.” Name the worst thing that is common practice in Eva’s network, and he will find a teacher who did something horrible somewhere.
Tim: “Feel free to fill us in all the great stuff that Bernie Sanders has accomplished in 25 years in Congress. If the current condition of Vermont is any indication, it’s been next to nothing. Vermont’s economy is a train wreck—and it would be a lot worse if it weren’t for flatlander Wall Street bankers and lawyers buying summer/ski second homes and spending tourism dollars there.”
(Hi, I’m Tim, and I’m a moron to believe that only and mainly wealthy second home owners drive the Vermont economy, but hey, that’s me!! Things are simplistic, which is perfect for me, a simpleton!)
Tim: “Vermont is losing population as birthrates drop and as its young flee as soon as they can for states where there are jobs and opportunity. In the past five years there has been a 50% increase in the percentage of children qualifying for free lunch and a similar increase in the number of families receiving SNAP benefits.”
(I’m Tim, and why would I not pin-point Vermont for free and reduced lunch when there are myriad other states whose populations are increasing under that very cohort because poverty in general is increasing throughout the United States. I’ll just stick to Vermont and pose it as an OUTLIER! Yeah! What a great tactic! But what the hell, I can be just as desperate as Paul Ryan in my reasoning and synthetic, frail, lame rhetoric!)
Tim: “Oh, and then there’s the small matter of Vermont’s being the opioid addiction and crime capital of America, with towns like Barre and Rutland looking like war zones.”
Funny, I have friends who live in Rutland, and it is not more propped up or run down than any other average New England township. And if you really want to know: All of New England is becoming a hot bed for heroin trade because of its remote villages and mountain towns.
(But I’m Tim, and I don’t have the intellectual capacity to link increasing poverty with increasing drug trade and violence or any other component of American society and policy. I’m just a two dimensional piece of infected flotsam who thinks he can convince real three dimensional people on this blog and elsewhere that collectivism and redistribution of wealth are bad, spooky things.)
Tim: “Being president is just a touch more difficult than being a legislator from the US’s smallest and by far most homogeneous state, and that state is in a death spiral. Why should anyone expect Bernie to be more effective as president than he’s been as Vermont’s representative and senator?”
(I’m Tim, and what I failed to state is that Hillary has been no more a president than Sanders. And by the way, I also forgot to mention that Sanders has been elected over and over again as Senator of Vermont, so obviously the residents there must really love him. Do you think ANYONE will notice my plethora of omissions whenever I write something? Or will they think I’m a sheer idiot? H-m-m-m-m-m. Nah!!!! I’m TIM, and I’ so wonderful and brilliant, I’ve just GOT to be right!)
(I’m Tim, and one last thing: I LOVE myself SO much, which is a good thing because most everyone else really really hates me. I can’t understand why . . . )
Tim claims ” then there’s the small matter of Vermont’s being the opioid addiction and crime capital of America,”
Not sure where Tim got his “facts” but neither of them is true.
In fact, his claims are total, unmitigated BS.
See Health Care Costs from Opioid Abuse: A State-by-State Analysis
and Vermont Crime rates
Hilarious.
Michael Fiorello posts his perspective of the shortcomings of Clinton’s resume (some of which I actually agree with) but complains that it is out of bounds to ask about his candidate’s qualifications.
I’m not a bitter and angry single-issue voter. I’m concerned about the environment, the economy, and the protection and expansion of civil rights, probably loosely in that order. I believe the contention that there is no difference between mainline Republicans and Democrats is about as preposterous a claim as a person can possibly make.
It is essential that the Democratic candidate win the 2016 Presidential election, and Clinton is far more electable than Sanders—forget meaningless national polls, look at the electoral map, look at individual states, look at what happened in Ohio, look at Sanders’s dismal results in the South, and realize that there isn’t a chance in hell Sanders would compensate for that by flipping the small all-white Republican states whose caucuses he’s been winning.
Clinton is a flawed candidate to be sure, but she will comfortably win the election vs. Trump, Cruz, Ryan, or the animated corpse of Ronald Reagan (well, maybe that last one wouldn’t be so comfortable). The pearl clutching and whining over someone’s pointing out the sharp decline in Sanders’s home state’s quality of life during his time in Washington, or that he has seldom had to practice political compromise because of his state’s homogeneity, pretty much sums up the Sanders campaign in a nutshell. Oh, and telling people of color that they’re stupid for not buying Sanders’s “it’s not race, it’s class” message, too.
Anyone who wants to quibble about Vermont’s place in the pantheon of states most affected by opioid abuse, and the crime that accompanies it, can google things like “Vermont drug crisis” to learn more.
“Anyone who wants to quibble about Vermont’s place in the pantheon of states most affected by opioid abuse, and the crime that accompanies it, can google things like “Vermont drug crisis” to learn more.”
Which is exactly what I did. I came away impressed with what Vermonters are doing.
Vermont is very white if that is what you mean by homogenous. However, that hardly means that they all think alike. You don’t have to spend too long in Vermont to realize that. The world would be so much easier to figure out if we could determine how people thought by the color of their skin and/or their language of origin or even their state.
Quibble?
It’s one thing to say Vermont has an opioid addiction problem, but quite another to claim it is the “opioid addiction and crime capital of America,”
That’s not quibbling. It’s simply false.
I just noticed the link to Health care Costs of Opioid Abuse: A State by State Analysis that I posted above didn’t work.
Anyone who wants to see what BS Tim’s claim is can look at the data on that link.
Let’s make the argument data-based: Vermont is 37th among 51 states in per capita opioid abuse. Timster? 🙂
So Vermont is 37th with $5 per month per capita health care cost. That’s more than $1 per week. Dang, Sanders will lose to Clinton once this secret gets out, and I don’t even dare to think about what Trump can do with this damaging data.
Some DAM Poet,
You’re right. There is no such thing as the opioid capital of the US. Is it accurate to say, then, that Vermont has been one of a handful of states most profoundly affected by opioid addiction, and the violent and property crime that accompanies it, particularly given the state’s fundamentals (no large urban areas, high levels of education, diffuse rather than concentrated poverty and very little extreme poverty, and low diversity)?
2old2teach,
The Cook Partisan Voting Index calculates Vermont as D+16. The only states that are more intensely partisan are Wyoming (R+22), Utah (R+22), Hawaii (D+20), Oklahoma (R+19), and Idaho (R+18). It is the second-whitest (94.3), third-least Hispanic (1.6%), and second-least African American (an astonishing 0.87%) state in the country. Its governor is a D and its legislative bodies contain roughly two Ds for every R. There are minimal obstructions to the party’s agenda, and incumbents are shoo-ins. Suffice it to say this stands in stark contrast with Washington, where incrementalism and compromise are necessary to get even the slightest bit of work done.
Tim, I don’t think it is fair to blame Louis addiction in Vermont on Bernie.
I blame it on the Sackler family of Purdue Pharma, who became billionaires peddling OxyContin. If states can sue tobacco companies for contributing to cancer, they should be able to sue Big Pharma for the explosion of drug addiction.
“There is no such thing as the opioid capital of the US. Is it accurate to say, then, that Vermont has been one of a handful of states most profoundly affected by opioid addiction,…”
What number does “handful” is associated with?
Yes, in recent years it has become more Democratic than Republican. It used to be pretty solidly Republican. I am wondering if it has to do with an influx from down country. As to the wealth of the state, I am guessing that the tourist areas have pulled in a wealthier base that pushes those numbers up. I have relatives who live in both more tourist driven areas and back of beyond. There is a definite tension between those who have moved into the state in more recent years especially in areas where it has raised prices and driven out natives. People come for the idylic countryside and then start demanding the same services they got in their wealthy urban/suburban communities further south. The tourist dollars are critical but not always welcome. There are at least two sides to every story, but Vermont with only slightly more than 600,000 people is not the new drug capital of the U.S.
If you use “deaths per 100,000 from opioid overdose”(2014 data) as the criterion to determine “opioid abuse capital”, you can see from this data from CDC that Vermont is nowhere near the “capital.”
In fact, it is in the lower half.
It is interesting to note that (from the linked to page)
“In 2014, the five states with the highest rates of death due to drug overdose were West Virginia, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Kentucky and Ohio. States with statistically significant increases in the rate from 2013 to 2014 included Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Virginia.”
Vermont is not on either list.
Maybe Tim thinks Bernie is from New Hampshire?
Hell, all those small New England states up there in the north are the same, right?
Don’t bother with guessing, Poet. Tim’s data sources are classified, and he is not allowed to reveal actual numbers.
Diane,
I don’t think I was blaming Bernie Sanders for Vermont’s opioid crisis, or its stagnant economy, or its aging population. I do think it is fair to ask what he’s done.
SDP and Mate, take a look at Vermont’s age-adjusted death rate compared to other nearly all-white low-poverty states and see if anything leaps out at you.
“I don’t think I was blaming Bernie Sanders for Vermont’s opioid crisis, or its stagnant economy, or its aging population. I do think it is fair to ask what he’s done.”
Why not explain what you have been doing, then, supporting all your claims with links to reliable data?
Tim claims Clinton is far more electable than Sanders. Ok, let’s ignore the national polls and exit polls which suggest otherwise. Let’s think about this for a minute.
Net favorability. Sanders has a positive net favorability. Clinton has a negative net favorability. Net favorability alone tends to predict who wins general elections. If you don’t know what net favorability is, look it up.
Independent vote. Sanders has the independent vote, no question about it. This is a huge voting bloc.
Youth vote. Sanders absolutely crushes Clinton when it comes to the youth vote. He has something like 80% support below 40 years old.
Trend of support. The entire primary season has shown undecided voters switching to Sanders more than Hillary, and even Republicans and Hillary supporters switching to Sanders. The trends also show that once you go Bernie, you never go back. As time goes on = more Bernie voters. Once again shown by rise in national polls to where they are now tied.
Enthusiasm/voter turnout. Sanders is bringing in massive amounts of voters, in some places beating 2008 Obama turnouts. Volunteers and small donations are unprecedented in our political history. These millions of supporters are actively donating or working for Bernie out of the goodness of their hearts, while Hillary’s volunteers are far fewer in number, and typically mercenaries. Hillary must rely on corporate donations to continue funding her campaign, which will only continue to bring more scrutiny on her allegiances (especially when she uses white noise to drown out her speech at corporate fundraisers.) Sanders has virtually unlimited funding due to his small donor support. Sanders has the nation grassroots support by a huge margin, no question about it, cannot be denied by anyone with eyeballs.
Loyalty. The vast majority of Hillary supporters have indicated that they will vote Sanders if he wins the nomination. Depending on your source, 25% (or more) of Sanders supporters have refused to vote Hillary (which, as someone pointed out, includes lots of Independents who don’t care about the Dem Party, or truly despise it.)
Avenues of attack. The Republicans can (and will) draw on a lifetime of corruption, shady deals, and questionable practices of the Clintons. Trump especially will destroy Hillary on this. Sanders has been very nice. Trump will call out every corrupt thing Hillary every said or did. Hillary is at least as hated by the GOP as Sanders, but probably more hated. Sanders has already made the “socialist” insult close to meaningless, by owning it and explaining it. If anything, this insult, like all others, has strengthened his support. Because he is so squeaky clean, Sanders is virtually unassailable, and seems to only become stronger and his supporters more dedicated every time he is attacked.
Strategy. Sanders’s campaign strategy is superior, and every few days, Hillarys tends to make a mistake and lose voters simply by talking.
FBI. Other than the Republicans being able to attack Hillary on the email issue (she clearly broke the law and put national security at risk, whether she gets in trouble for it or not), Clinton may still get indicted.
Scared of Trump and Cruz? Vote and support Bernie 2016.
Ed D: “Trump especially will destroy Hillary on this.”
I cannot see Trump destroying Hillary. She does have brain power.
It’s also interesting that Vermont was among only 12 states that showed a DECREASE from 2013 – 2014 in drug overdose death rate, and that the % DECREASE for Vermont (7.9%) was third highest overall (though not statistically significant)
As a comparison, the overdose death rate for N Dakota increased by 125% and for New Hampshire (right next to Vermont, for the geographically challenged) increased by 73% over the same period.
That tells me that perhaps (just perhaps) Vermont is actually doing something right to address the problem.
I don’t deny that Vermont has an opioid addiction problem. I’d have to be an idiot to do so.
But it certainly is not the “capital” by any reasonable use of that term.
And the relevance of all this to Bernie Sanders is very tenuous (at best. )
Drug addiction is a very complex issue and to even imply that one person is responsible is just absurd.
Can one person be held responsible when doctors all over a state over prescribe opioids like Oxycodone? Is one person responsible when heroin use increases due to a supply increase coming from NY city?
“Can one person be held responsible when doctors all over a state over prescribe opioids like Oxycodone?”
Sure. A simple addition to the VAM formula can detect single-person liability and responsibility for the wrong doing of any number of people, related to the VAMonized subject or not.
Here is what to add (to the obvious place) http://wd369.csi.hu/apu/vam_mod.jpeg
Mate: Sure, Hillary has brain power. What she also has is a lifetime of scandal and poor decisions that Bernie Sanders will not even touch. Or when he does, it’s just barely.
Bernie doesn’t want to destroy Hillary. Trump and Cruz on the other hand, they wouldn’t mind, and they have a lot of material to work with.
Ed Detective, if Sanders has all those advantages, then why is he trailing Clinton by 2.5 million votes (56-42) and by so many delegates? You do understand that it takes quite a leap of faith for me to see how a guy who is getting drilled by a candidate as flawed as Clinton is going to fare any better in the general.
Tim, once again, let’s think about this.
1. Those 2.5 million votes do not count caucus states. That is a false figure.
2. The early states favored Hillary, as we all know.
3. Sanders gains support as time goes on. He began at 5% in the national polls, and now they are tied nationally with the trend likely continuing, as the initial advantages of Clinton’s celebrity name recognition and money advantage are chipped away. As I stated.
4. Everything I said is still true, including the part where more Hillary supporters will unite behind Sanders than vice versa.
#feelthebern! Too depressing to even think of a Clinton/Trump election.
Brilliant, Jeanette!!!!! As usual . . .
“Accountability”
Let’s hold them all accountable
For vote and other act
Except, of course, on mound-o-bull
Like NAFTA and Iraq
I’m voting for Stein, but would settle for Sanders. Ms. Clinton’s so-called “experience” comprises conduct that should see her frog-marched in shackles to the dock at The Hague. Her trail of victims include those in Haiti, Honduras, Iraq, Libya, Palestine, and Syria. While we all (rightly) fear Cruz and Trump, they only talk about bombing brown people into oblivion, orchestrating coups, and assisting racist, apartheid regimes. Clinton has a proven track record of murder and mayhem. I am terrified at the prospect of her being in power again, as are many peoples around the world. As Lebanese writer-activist Roqayah Chamseddine says: “Clinton: The candidate for when your feminism stops at the border”.
Oh, and Clinton’s education policies are awful too.
Ok, I have just read through all of the comments here, and see that what many still don’t get is this:
MANY Bernie supporters are NOT Democrats! I have been an independent for the last 32 years and calls for party unity mean little to me. If Hillary were the only candidate in the Democratic primary, I wouldn’t have bothered to vote in it! My vote would not have gone to her in the first place….
I wrote in “we the people” at the top of the ticket in 2012. Pay as much attention and spend as much energy on down ticket and local candidates and something may actually change!!
“MANY Bernie supporters are NOT Democrats!”
I think many Sanders supporters just don’t care about the democratic party. And why should they? What does it do for them—or, let’s ask this clearer, what does the democratic party do for 99% of the country?
I’m not sure that is an easy question to answer since the democratic party is not just represented by the federal government office holders who are indebted to corporate paymasters. The closer the office holders get to home, the more likely they are to pay attention to their constituents. We have all, or mostly all, gotten very lazy in our assumption that we could sit back and do nothing other than maybe vote. Now, it is going to take a lot of hard work before “the party” is forced to listen to their base. We are beginning to pay attention to electing progressives who are still more interested in the ideals of the party than their own pockets.
2o2: “The closer the office holders get to home, the more likely they are to pay attention to their constituents.”
Not once have my democratic senator or rep responded to my letters regarding various issues related to public ed. Not once in the last 3 years.
I was thinking even closer which is why grassroots organizations are so important. At the state level it seems to depend on how many people you can get to contact a rep, not individuals. You have to know someone to get a face to face or be part of a group that has enough clout to get them to attend a public forum. As an individual, there is no reason why state officials would to respond to me beyond a roboemail. I would like to think that time spent talking to me wouldn’t be a complete waste of time, but it certainly would not be an efficient use of time. Now at the local level, I can get involved with my community.
… which is also why most people who donate money to Bernie Sanders would probably be upset if he “shared” the money with other Democrats (as some in the very thread have chastised him for not doing)
That’s actually not his call to make, which I is undoubtedly why he has not done it.
The guy actually respects the people who give him money. Imagine that.
Mate,
Excellent points! The democrats – most of them – are just as bad as the GOP. . . They just wear a different toga. Joe Biden and Obama are prime exanples of this.
Calling Sanders “petulant” is highly problematic, although I would never censor anyone from saying almost anything.
Diane should not be attacked for referring to Sanders in this manner. Just because she does not always make the brightest or most astute move should not result in any harshness towards her. After all, this is her living room. And, for God’s sake, Diane Ravitch is but ONE person. . . . She is not the end-all or be-all, and does not claim to be so. We still have others we need to network with and other politicians to hound. We still have our own civic participation to engage in. . . The Ravitch blog is not the pivotal component that will win Bernie or Hillary.
Diane may be far more of an intellect than a warrior or confrontationalist. So what. For what she may lack, so many of us can make up for. Why the vitriol?
How does one define “qualified” anyway?
Morals? Professionalism? Content area specialist?
PLEASE!!!!
Hillary is a great orator, but her words are empty as is her soul, which was snatched up by Wall Street and WalMart a very long time ago in exchange for money.
Tim–really? You are using a quote from Junior Soprano to characterize a serious presidential race? Thanks for the Huff Post links, 2 old 2 Teach (but NOT too old to be a great thinker!). I believe Diane once put up a post “Is Vermont the Best State for Education?” (Correct me if I’m wrong, Diane–it’s quite old & I am, I believe, older than “2 Old,” so perhaps my memory is a bit rusty! However, if I’m right, could you re-post it, Diane?) Also, Mate brings up some really great points–actually, points made by Bernie, himself. He consistently verbalizes his belief that it’s US, not just him. That whoever is elected president needs WE, the people, to help lead this country back to its democratic foundation.
Also, ironic: in this pivotal primary state, NY, someone interviewed on NYC 1 brought up the indisputable (& sad) fact that independents cannot vote in NY. Which, indeed, will lose many a vote for Bernie (& brings up the point that it’s not necessarily a fact that NY loves Hillary, but just that Bernie has lost a lot of Independents who could, of course, put him over the top). & to Ed Detective–I really (& always) appreciate your above comments. “Hillary won her home state by 2 points.” Yeah–& the ILL-Annoy primary results are still under scrutiny (4-5 counties “ran out of ballots,” many African-Americans & young people were given “Provisional Ballots” in Chicago {over 9,000!}, & P.B.s are usually not counted {the Chicago Board of Elections is being challenged to have them counted by voting oversight organizations}; as in MA, Bill Clinton came to a polling place in Chicago & disrupted the voting). Therefore, that “2 point lead” might not even be fact
(stay tuned).
Michael & Robert Rendo–great comments, as usual. Bernie would most certainly agree w/you, Michael–he does not think of himself–or anyone who would become president–as “Superman.” He, too, believes that it’s up to us–again–“we, the people.”
As Thom Hartmann says every night on his show The Big Picture, “Be involved. Be active. Tag, you’re it.”
In 2012, Diane warned about voting for Romney (who would destroy education faster) against Obama (who would do it more slowly). IMO, Obama/Arne (& then, the final knife twist, John King) pretty quickly destroyed public ed. As so many people here have commented, HRC would be an extension of Obama’s DFER education policies–the final blow to democracy in education.
NY & readers in future primary states please look at now & not November (& not at the superdelegates–WE need to work on our states’ “supers” {after all, WE voted for them &, insofar as I know, they need to answer to US, just as Al Grayson, Florida, put the question to his constituents & supporters, “Who do you want me to support?” asking for a vote from the PEOPLE– Bernie won, & Grayson declared himself a Sanders Delegate})–Bernie is our ONLY chance (for once, we are NOT faced with a choice between “the lesser of two evils”–DON’T BLOW THIS CHANCE FOR OUR CHILDREN”S LIFETIME! Each primary vote for him in the remaining states brings him that much closer to victory. (&–like New York–people in California, you must work your butts off for Bernie–HRC is backed by the Big $$$ Hollywood establishment {did you know if you contribute just ONE dollar to Hillary you, too, can be put into a lottery, & may be chosen to have a dinner w/Mr./Mrs. George Clooney in their home?! (Now isn’t that special, not to mention a real reason to vote for Hillary?) Again, let’s be serious, here, folks–this is not the reality show, “Election With the Stars.”
Yes, WE CAN…& WE WILL!! Bernie, 2016.
I agree, RBMTK!
Yes!–I was able to go back & find all the posts about Vermont (for specifics, can look these up & re-read)–5/30/12:”Vermont Stands Up for its Children”; 6/21/12:”Is Vermont the Best State?”; 1/26/13: “Why Vermont is the Best of all States for Education”; 5/3/13:
“What Obama Could Learn from Vermont”; 10/25/13:”I Repeat: Vermont is the Best Education State in the Nation”; 11/17/13: “Bill Mathis on the Vermont Success Story”; 8/24/14: “Vermont to the Nation: This is What Good Education Looks Like”; 3/10/15: “Vermont: the Heavy Fist of the Government Demands Testing”; 3/21/15: “Wendy Lecker:if Only Connecticut Leaders Were as Wise as Vermont’s.” Some excerpts & comments from/on these posts: “Vermont is different. VT still has leadership that wants to improve its schools & support teachers. VT decided to turn down the NCLB waiver…”
“A reader sent this comment, ‘VT is one of the only states that refuses to get on the bandwagon for corporate education reform…Burlington is beginning to focus more on equity & creating a system similar to what they have in Finland.” (Note: Of course, Bernie was long gone from being Burlington’s mayor, but–gasp!–Democratic Socialism, anyway, in VT {probably started somewhere–?}). 10/25/13: “…it is a state where people have a powerful sense of community…Vermont is smart. They did not apply for Race to the Top.” 8/24/14: “VT State Board of Education…”We will not let the federal government bully our children.” 3/10/15: “VT is not only a beautiful state, but it is a wonderful state when it comes to education. State Commissioner Rebecca Holcombe…was earlier named ‘a hero of American education’ by this blog…”
Finally, this comment from the always reliable Robert Rendo (11/8/15): “It figures that the state that is really trying to do things right with public education is also the state Bernie Sanders lives in & represents.”
Bernie Petulant? I think not. Clinton started the negative tactics. Typical underhanded Clinton behavior to which Bernie responded.
Here is what Sanders said about Clinton not being “qualified.” He wasn’t saying that she didn’t have an impressive resume.
“I don’t believe that she is qualified if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don’t think that you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your Super PAC. I don’t think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don’t think you are qualified if you’ve supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which has cost us millions of decent-paying jobs.”
I love this post & ALL the comments (even from Tim, because he gives the rest of us the chance to rebut his oft-times scurrilous comments)!
Once again, thank you, Diane, for this “site to discuss better education for all.”
And–as a respectful Berner* (campaign office training & Bernie’s high standards)–I respect yours & everyone else’s voting choice, & do not criticize that–we recognize that this IS a democracy (should be, anyway–think all of us here are working our best to preserve it as such).
*Stories of the Chicago protests at the cancelled Trump rally/violence being caused by “Bernie’s people” were just that–stories. All the people I know who were there were standing OUTSIDE, in a peaceful protest. Also, I think the “Bernie disrupters” at a recent HRC rally were plants (she very nicely turned them out–made her look good, Bernie bad)–their campaign is always copying from Bernie’s, or things that make him look bad.
Insofar as firewall “breaching” (for which the Sanders campaign fired 2 overzealous {& reportedly young, inexperienced} staffers, after long ago having unsubscribed from HRC e-mails, I–& other Sanders supporters–began to receive hundreds of solicitations (for $1–so they can claim they receive $ from us “little people,” & not PACs). One actually had the subject line,” RBMTK, this is YUGE!” Sorry, there’s only one guy who owns that.
Bernie 2016, because yes, WE can…& we WILL.
The civil rights movement did not have friends in high places, just the opposite, and yet they were able to force change. Hmmm.. Perhaps there is a lesson there…