The Clinton Campaign Is Obstructing Change to the Democratic Platform

[Scuba]

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/06/28/clinton-campaign-obstructing-change-democratic-platform

I’ve had a front-row seat to the first round of the process, as 1 of 5 delegates Sanders named to draft the platform. (The Clinton campaign named six, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, added four more.) We spent two weeks listening to powerful testimony from citizens around the country, and then on Friday in St. Louis we started taking votes.

And it was there that the essential dynamic quickly emerged. The Clinton campaign was ready to acknowledge serious problems: We need fair trade policy, inequality is a horrible problem, and unchecked climate change will wreck the planet. But when it came to specific policy changes, they often balked. Amendments against the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement and backing Medicare for all failed, with all the Clinton delegates voting against.

At which point we got (about 11 p.m., in a half-deserted hotel ballroom) to the climate section of the platform, and that’s where things got particularly obvious. We all agreed that America should be operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2050, but then I proposed, in one amendment after another, a series of ways we might actually get there. A carbon tax? Voted down 7-6 (one of the DNC delegates voted with each side). A ban on fracking? Voted down 7-6. An effort to keep fossils in the ground, at least on federal land? Voted down 7-6. A measure to mandate that federal agencies weigh the climate impact of their decisions? Voted down 7-6. Even a plan to keep fossil fuel companies from taking private land by eminent domain, voted down 7-6. (We did, however, reach unanimous consent on more bike paths!)

...

Which is why we need not platitudes but a platform. Not aspirations but commitments. Not happy talk, but the fully adult conversation that Sanders engaged the country in for the past year. Cornel West, with his usual succinct eloquence, said that in the end the platform debate came down to telling the truth. The truth is, we’re in a world of hurt. That hurt—economic, social, environmental—is driving the unsettling politics of our moment. That hurt needs to be addressed.

Disappointing, to me at least, that actual policies are being rejected in favor of platitudes. There are problems to be fixed and the Democratic Party should be on the vanguard of leading the fixes.

[arcane1]

1. This paragraph clearly shows what the priorities are: corporate donors

"We all agreed that America should be operating on 100 percent clean energy by 2050, but then I proposed, in one amendment after another, a series of ways we might actually get there. A carbon tax? Voted down 7-6 (one of the DNC delegates voted with each side). A ban on fracking? Voted down 7-6. An effort to keep fossils in the ground, at least on federal land? Voted down 7-6. A measure to mandate that federal agencies weigh the climate impact of their decisions? Voted down 7-6. Even a plan to keep fossil fuel companies from taking private land by eminent domain, voted down 7-6. (We did, however, reach unanimous consent on more bike paths!) "

[floriduck]

28. But Bernie needs to convince his supporters to vote for her. I think he could use a bit of her help

[arcane1]

30. She needs to convince his supporters to vote for her. It's her job, not his n/t

[floriduck]

31. I forgot my sarcasm emoticon. Sorry.

[arcane1]

32. :)

[NYC Liberal]

38. 81 percent of Sanders supporters are now fully behind HRC.

That number is far higher than the number of HRC supporters backing Obama at this time in 2008.

Not to mention Sanders himself will be voting for her.

So it seems she is doing an excellent job of convincing.

[forest444]

2. I don't doubt it. But to be fair to Hillary,

a lot of those changes would require an alien invasion. Such is the world (for now, anyway).

[NCTraveler]

3. This is one of the reasons reasons Clinton won so handily.

She and here team fully understand negotiations. There were then others who have no clue what the word means. Simply my way or no way at all. The platform is a collaboration.

It is a mindset from top to bottom.

[lewebley3]

4. The platform is meaningless without votes in the House and Senate to pass

it. Clinton nor the Dem's really don't know what is possible until after
the election.

[NCTraveler]

7. That said, there is nothing to "pass" with respect to a platform. nt.

[NCTraveler]

8. I have no intentions of rehashing the primary.

But I believe the country fully got the idea of what we would be looking at with respect to negotiations after the '07 immigration votes were so widely discussed this primary. It was a big selling point for Clinton.

[leftinportland]

9. so the compromise in these negotiations is...

we'll let you voice your concern but don't ask for any actions to fix them and don't ask us to change any of our positions that might harm our corporate sponsors...that will work well going forward...NOT!

[NCTraveler]

13. There is something I never said. Well done. nt.

[leftinportland]

22. With every negotiation there is compromise...

Thought the Hill team knew this...apparently few do. When you have almost half your intended constituency wanting something...one gives a little...That my friend is negotiating.

[NCTraveler]

23. Yup. That is negotiating.

People's confidence in her ability to do so was a big selling point for her. This just highlights how accurate that narrative was and is.

There is also the fact that the loser will have to compromise to a much greater extent. Specially will all of the special considerations that were already given to the losing party in the negotiations.

[CrowCityDem]

16. The compromise comes from understanding you have to give when you have fewer votes.

[uponit7771]

42. +1

[LuvLoogie]

17. Decree via platform? Solutions are actioned in the legislative bodies.

And legislators are not appointed by candidates for office. The would be legislators themselves must be elected.

[joshcryer]

5. "many of us look at the Brexit vote"

The one that striped the UK of EUs environmental regs? The one that was literally argued for because Britain cut back coal in some places?

Bill, please.

[Buzz cook]

10. The author's point seems to be about his ego not wht actually got done.

Notice how frequently it is "his" amendment and how they are the only way to solve problems.

The platform is purposely vague because its intent is aspirational not prescriptive. The author wants the platform to tie the hands of legislators in the face of an uncertain future.

[JudyM]

29. No-action platitudes are facts being reported, regardless of the 1st-person verbiage.

[Buzz cook]

36. No action platitudes are the "opinon" being reported.

Just as with the 15$ minimum wage, it was "reported" as being blocked when in fact it had not been blocked. It was just certain amendments not the thing itself.

I am willing to wait a douple days to see what the facts are.

[CrispyQ]

11. "We need not platitudes but a platform. Not aspirations but commitments."

The democratic party has been giving us platitudes for 35 years & now they're giving us aspirations. What the hell? We've gone backwards! If they'd been a true opposition party for the last 35 years, maybe we wouldn't have Donald Trump now.

In Michael Moore's movie, "Where to Invade Next," he 'invades' countries for their good ideas to bring back to America, and surprise, surprise, some of them are American ideas that we abandoned. Got my copy of the movie in the mail this morning!

Saw this on FB.

[pokerfan]

40. To the victor go the spoils

So to recap, if I have this right, the platform thus far is:

Pro TPP
Pro fracking
Pro continued Israeli occupation of Palestine

Against a carbon tax
Against single payer health care
Against $15 minimum wage

[DanTex]

12. I like Bill McKibben, but he doesn't need to worry about winning an election.

[joshcryer]

20. Yeah, McKibben couldn't even get 100 people to attend...

...Be Free 2016. He should be grateful he was so fortunate to take his ideas.

[CrowCityDem]

15. Shock! The Clinton people voted for the Clinton platform, the winning platform. Shock!

[cosmicone]

18. Bill McKibben's panties got knotted because he didn't get his way.

There is no "obstruction" ... everyone got to debate their view and people just didn't agree with one side.

But, there it is again - high drama about every loss and smears of something unholy happening.

Clinton camp was too generous and gave Bernie 5 seats. Otherwise the decisions would have been 12-2. Let us not forget -- She WON and it is HER convention.

We cannot -- simply cannot -- hobble our candidate with a dream list that is impossible to defend in a GE.

[msongs]

19. dear commondreams, the primaries will not be revoted no matter how much you want it to be nt

[geek tragedy]

21. Amazing that the person who won and has to face a general election

does not just jump through every hoop the person who lost demands.

[JoePhilly]

24. CommonNonsense

[pnwmom]

25. The nominee gets to approve the platform. Hillary gave Bernie much more of a voice

than a losing candidate normally gets, including 5 seats on the platform committee.

[Lil Missy]

26. So, the Platform represents the vision of the winner, Hillary.

I keep hearing the words ........ "the loser does not get to dictate terms."

[arcane1]

27. And here is that vision. Do you agree with the results of these votes?

A carbon tax? Voted down 7-6 (one of the DNC delegates voted with each side).

A ban on fracking? Voted down 7-6.

An effort to keep fossils in the ground, at least on federal land? Voted down 7-6.

A measure to mandate that federal agencies weigh the climate impact of their decisions? Voted down 7-6.

Even a plan to keep fossil fuel companies from taking private land by eminent domain, voted down 7-6.

[Eko]

33. Some info from the other viewpoint.

"The Clinton campaign says its reluctance to accept some of McKibben’s amendments reflects legitimate concerns about the policy implications, not mere political calculation. Not all experts agree that a carbon tax is the most effective way to reduce emissions, for example. Mary Nichols of the California Air Resources Board had pointed out in her testimony to the committee a week earlier that a carbon tax does not guarantee emissions reductions, while direct regulation, such as Obama’s Clean Power Plan, does. Clinton supporters rejected a blanket prohibition on lending for foreign fossil fuel development projects on the grounds that the U.S. relationship with any given developing country may have competing priorities, and they opposed the climate test for energy projects because they worried it could prevent necessary projects like transmission lines for electricity that may be partly generated from dirty sources."
http://grist.org/election-2016/sanders-and-clinton-teams-fight-over-climate-language-in-democratic-platform/

[Herman4747]

44. Excellent, EXCELLENT post. Thanks a lot.

With regards to fracking, Hillary herself has supported exporting fracking to other countries (for example, How Hillary Clinton's State Department Sold Fracking to the World ), so we couldn't truly expect otherwise.

What was particularly striking (and depressing) was this getting voted down: A measure to mandate that federal agencies weigh the climate impact of their decisions

[sufrommich]

46. What is the large scale alternative to fossil fuels right now?

Not sometime in the foggy unexplained future,but right now?

Wouldn't it make more sense to advocate for federal monies to grow the alternative energy source? How do you explain to American voters that we're going to raise gas prices without a less expensive alternative?

[JRLeft]

35. Neoliberalism with bits of progressivism.

[leveymg]

43. Bike paths through a vast strip mine and abandoned factories

That's the platform we're supposed to be cheering. Rah. Rah.

[SaschaHM]

34. If this platform truly is going to be about commitments...

It makes perfect sense that it should read word for word like Hillary's Campaign message. Why on earth would her team allow parts of Bernie's message that she disagreed with govern her or make it into some mandatory pledge to do strictly "xy&z" when she's going to have to govern with a divided congress?

[MohRokTah]

37. GOOD!!!

This is one of the major reasons I supported her.

[TwilightZone]

39. This may come as a surprise, but the person who wins generally has more say in the platform

than the person who loses. Often, the person who loses has none at all. In this case, the person who lost was given representation on the committee - five members - and they obviously had input in the process, as Keith Ellison clearly indicated.

[MaggieD]

41. No, she won and he lost

I and millions more for voted for HER platform over his. It's Democracy. That's how it works.

[Uncle Joe]

45. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Scuba.