We see some Bernie supporters angry that Hillary Clinton won her electoral race for the Democratic Party's candidate for president and Bernie Sanders did not. Early at the convention yesterday, Monday, Sanders supporters booed at the mention of her name from the podium, and we see images of Sander's supporters with tape on their mouths that read "silence" – a message that's a bit confusing given all the noise they've been making.
Speaking from the podium, Sarah Silverman, a Sanders supporter who is now supporting Clinton, looked at the protesting Sanders supporters and with a slight expression of apology had the nerve to tell them that they were "being ridiculous."
News of this on the Huffington Post this morning has so far this morning 1,856 comments, largely an argument between die hard Sanders backers and those who have switched to backing Clinton. And the arguments are interesting. There are those who suggest that Clinton won electorally fair and square, that Sanders is making a contribution regarding the party's platform, and that it's time to move-on and support Clinton against Trump, as Sanders is doing.
One of those who disagrees, I.P. complains that Sanders "didn't lose. It was stolen." How Hillary did this he doesn't say. It fits with Trump's claim that the system is rigged in Hillary's favor – and, some would say, crackpot anti-establishment conspiracy theory. I.P's comment is followed by a complaint to Sarah Silverman that what is ridiculous is "Rigging the system to favor one candidate over the other than attempting to bully and shame the shorted candidate's supporters into abandoning their principles."
Someone writes that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC chairman, "rigged the system" for Hillary.
Another describes Clinton as a "corporate Democrat" and says he will be voting for Jill Stein, the Green Party's candidate.
A. Z. writes that she stopped watching the convention following Sarah Silverman's comment.
Another, referring to Silverman, sees political calculation as needing absolutes. She writes: "Why can't these celebrities grow a spine and stand up for what is right instead of standing up for something that is a little less wrong than the alternative?"
Someone responds about the above writer's "purity" and says: "Do what you want. Just be honest enough to admit that you will be helping Trump.
Another conspiracy theorist writes of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) having been "whorishly against Bernie."
Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Hillary are close on the political spectrum, but a politically infantile person named Jennifer writes: "What's ridiculous is Debbie Wasserman being hired by Hillary as a chair of her campaign." Why is it ridiculous Jennifer doesn't say except that "it is sending a strong "F" you to Bernie supporters by Hillary so why the hell should I vote for her." Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been DNC chairman since May 2011, and what exactly Debbie Wasserman Schultz did that rigged the system against Sanders remains poorly described by those who appear to be scapegoating her.
My opinion: choosing a political office holder is a calculation regarding available choices and possibilities. It is about what we think of as our best interest or the public's best interest. It is not about the purity of our soul or the purity of a candidate. It's about electing a team player and what he or she can with others accomplish. And, in my opinion, one shouldn't let his calculation be muddied by vague and sloppily abstractions, such as "establishment" or "revolution."
I'm with Bill Clinton's view of Hillary Clinton as president, expressed in his speech to the convention. I'm not with Trump's BS slander, the tabloid slander or with those over-simplifiers on the Left who see her as an appendage of Wall Street and the Corporations.
Copyright © 2016 by Frank E. Smitha. All rights reserved.