i like the fact that bernie brought up libya in the right context. i hope that catches on a little. with all of the talk about benghazi and the emails, it's obscuring how poor of a judgment call it was (and how it was a crisis point in the new revival of the anglo-russian conflict). the media is drawing attention to what is empty politics. but, there's a really serious issue lurking underneath. great to see it coming out.
but, i want to take note of this debate on immigration, as it's obviously of importance in the spanish-speaking [and broadly indigenous] vote. the question was phrased something like:
are you actually concerned about working conditions, or are you really just concerned that they steal jobs from white people?
it has to be the worst debate question i've ever heard. it's meant to imply that sanders is some kind of racist. and, from a passive debate perspective, such an approach is likely to have a bigger effect on a white progressive from oregon than a potential voter in arizona - for the reason that people on the ground know how ridiculous the question is.
do you really oppose war because it's violent, or are you just concerned that it kills people?
the concerns are interchangeable, right. the point is that undocumented workers are not protected by labour laws. so, firms can save money by hiring them. if you enforced the labour laws, you'd create jobs for americans.
so, they might hit him on this: you say one thing to white people and another to indigenous people. sure. but, they're consistent: it's the same argument, from differing experiential perspectives.
but, this is what the media does: it tries to divide people over nonsense. and, by skewing the presentation ever so slightly, they can make it seem like bernie is on the side of the tea party, creating an exaggerated choice between good and evil.
if you're informed, you won't fall for this. if you're not - because you live too far away - you might. he's gotta get this across. he'll never do it in a debate, though - it's too complicated.
this topic also allowed hillary to enrage me once again. they talked about the 2007 bill, which sanders voted against because it created systems with poor working conditions (thereby taking away jobs from americans, who would be protected by labour laws). hillary voted for it. she's throwing this line around:
i couldn't imagine the united farm workers supporting a bill that created slave-like working conditions
i just about snapped - because she knows exactly what she's doing. if you're informed on this topic, that should make you extremely angry. it's the worst level of slime. the lowest kind of sleaze. drop the benefit of the doubt on her: that line made it absolutely clear to me that she knows exactly what she's doing.
i can't get into this here. it's too complicated.
===
see, he touched on this, too, in criticizing the monroe doctrine. this is a huge heart-tugger for me. i actually sampled the good neighbour speech in one of my songs. this is one of those "progress" type things that hegelian love so much.
he's not perfect. don't get me wrong, here. but he's pushing a lot of unexpected buttons.
i'd never have thought i'd be sitting here and watching a serious candidate for the presidency criticize the monroe doctrine. obviously, it happened once before. but, that was before we ended history.
i'm just starting to get that feeling about this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Neighbor_policy
in the end, bernie mighty not pass much himself. who might his vp be? not her. that person has to carry things forward. he'll be 75 in november. 79 in four years. life expectancy is 78.
but, if he can bring back history he'll have done something. i've keyed in on this narrative before. i'll key in on it again.
these are the years we're bringing history back.