The déjà vu flavor of the love affair of Democratic Party lefties with Bernie Sanders

 (Credit: Reuters/Brian Snyder/Dominick Reuter/Photo montage by Salon) (Credit: Reuters/Brian Snyder/Dominick Reuter/Photo montage by Salon)

The current infatuation with Bernie Sanders by the ultra left wing of the Democratic Party has a déjà vu flavor to it. Back in August 2008, I noted here at Katalusis:

Barack Obama gained the rabid support of the Democratic Party’s left wing by promising among other things to first unify the nation and then ride forth to bring peace and harmony to the entire world. He assured his followers that no experience was required to perform this miracle; he would accomplish the feat solely by virtue of his singular personality. As Oprah so eloquently introduced Obama at a rally in South Carolina during the Democratic primary, “He’s the one we’ve been waiting for.”
So far the presumptive nominee, also known as “the one,” has not been able to unify his own party ahead of its national convention this August in Denver – even though his coronation is slated to occur before 75,000 onlookers seated in the Mile High Stadium at Invesco Field.

There are, of course, obvious differences between 2008 presidential candidate Barack Obama and 2016 candidate Bernie Sanders, a registered independent and self-described socialist, currently seeking the Democratic Party nomination. Age and political experience, for one thing – in those respects, Sanders far outweighs the One in his 2008 heyday. But it must be said that Sanders may even surpass Obama in the promises the Vermont senator makes to score big on major Democratic Party issues on foreign policy, environment, same sex marriage, health care, and the economy.

Adding to the déjà vu experience, Sanders, like his predecessor, is taking aim at frontrunner Hillary Clinton. In an attempt to bring giddy left wing Democrats back to earth, a reminder is in order: as soon as Obama secured the Democratic Party nomination, the candidate who presented himself as above politics, suddenly lunged to the center. Obama’s supporters explained their idol’s about face was necessary in order for him to defeat John McCain in the general election.

Does anyone reading this now care that soon after he took office, President Obama, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for his good intentions, ordered drone invasions of other nations. Keep in mind that our president has seemed unconcerned that innocents, who were not on his secret “kill list,” often died at his behest; they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

All of the above is to suggest that if he succeeds in winning the Democratic Party’s nomination, Socialist Bernie Sanders may have to do as Obama did in the summer of ’08. Can’t you just see it? Sanders planting his feet firmly on centrist ground and disavowing his long history as a Socialist. “Well,"  his supporters will justifiably ask, “How else can Bernie win the general election?”

Let me suggest here that the Democratic Party might well stick with Hillary Clinton this time around. With Hillary, what you see is what you get, and no about faces will be required in order for her to win the GE. See, folks? What Hillary has got in full measure is authenticity and unlike Obama and Sanders, she doesn’t claim to be above politics.

Andrew Sullivan’s irrational attacks on Hillary Clinton

Clinton with Masaai dancers, courtesy of New Agenda.

Thatcher, 1981, public domain.

As early as 2007, self-described conservative columnist and blogger Andrew Sullivan zealously supported the candidacy of Barack Obama in the 2008 Democratic primary and on into the general election. And Sullivan continues to make excuses for and defend Obama to this day. Simultaneous to his support of Obama, Sullivan has been unrelenting in his attacks on Hillary Clinton. And like many devout supporters of Obama, Sullivan now appears to be aggravated by Clinton’s consistently high approval rating as secretary of state; whereas, Obama’s rating dips off and on to discouraging levels in his run for a second term as president.

At the New Agenda on Monday, Anita Finlay takes Sullivan to task for his latest vituperative remarks targeting Secretary Clinton:

Per an article in the Daily Caller, last Friday’s “Overtime” segment of HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” featured Newsweek columnist and blogger Andrew Sullivan taking a swipe at Secretary of State Clinton while exalting former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  Wendy Schiller, associate professor at Brown University, argued with Andrew Sullivans’ claims that:

“[Thatcher] absolutely used her femininity, her beauty, her wit [and] her humor to run rings around these stupid men around her” …“But she never — she never said, ‘I’m a woman. I’m being attacked unfairly because I’m a woman.’ She never played that card. She never played the card that Hillary [Clinton] played at some points. She never played the ‘oh you can’t do this to me’ [card]. She played the ‘I’m as hard as nails as everyone, I’m a feminist who doesn’t believe there’s a difference between men and women in the public square and we abide by the same rules and God help you fight with me’ [card].”

Prof. Schiller rightly pointed out:

“[Hillary Clinton] was maligned and abused since the minute she stepped into public life with her husband,” Schiller said. “And in 2008, she took more abuse, and Sarah Palin might be a close second, more abuse than any human being in politics. She never played the woman’s card. She was tough as nails. And she’s running around the world securing peace now.”

Sullivan countered that Hillary rode her husband’s coattails to her current success and put him before herself.  He then declared, “That’s not a feminist.”

There is so much wrong with his statements, it is hard to know where to begin.  But we are dealing with a man who in 2007 said this of then-Senator Clinton:

“…[W]hen I see her again, all my — all the cootie vibes sort of resurrect themselves…I’m sorry.  I must represent a lot of people… I actually find her positions appealing in many ways.  I just can’t stand her.”

Looking through this lens, his statements are suspect, but they are worth discussing because he offers an example of how women are continually trivialized and maligned without cause.

Read more: