DNC 2016: A house divided

Bernie Sanders supporters are joined by other groups as they march towards FDR Park on the first day of the Democratic National Convention, Monday. (Spencer Platt / Getty Images)

Bernie Sanders supporters are joined by other groups as they march towards Philadelphia’s FDR Park on the first day of the Democratic National Convention, Monday. (Spencer Platt / Getty Images)

By my count, just one speaker in Cleveland at last week’s GOP convention– Ted Cruz — was booed. At all. For any reason. Whatsoever.

By contrast, just about everyone who took the stage in Philadelphia for Monday’s opening night of the Democratic National Convention got at least a smattering of boos if they voiced anything but total fealty toward … not the party’s nominee-to-be, Hillary Clinton, but the vanquished Bernie Sanders. For all the talk about Republicans being only united in their disdain for Clinton, Democrats on Monday weren’t even able to manage that much togetherness.

Sen. Al Franken got booed. Comedienne Sarah Silverman got booed, probably because she first joked about support for Sanders being like a health problem (“I felt the Bern … but I got a cream for that”) and then told her fellow socialist-backers they were being “ridiculous” not to get on board with Clinton. Actress Eva Longoria got booed. New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker smartly wove his praise for Clinton into the middle part of his speech, allowing him to end on a high note, but still was greeted with chants of “War hawk!” when he made the case for a woman who voted for the Iraq war and pressed President Obama to intervene in Libya. First Lady Michelle Obama met with some shouts of “Bernie! Bernie!” even as she, much more so than anyone else who took the stage, expertly filleted the position of pro-Sanders holdouts. Even Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, arguably the candidate Sanders’ supporters really wanted all along, found opposition when she endorsed Clinton: chants of “We trusted you!”

By the time Sanders himself took the stage to close out the night’s program, he’d already been booed at an afternoon appearance with his loyalists. He threaded the needle Monday night pretty well, endorsing his own positions more robustly than his erstwhile opponent but making his support for her far, far clearer than anything Cruz managed for Donald Trump last week.

Still, it was also clear to me that Sanders’ appeal wasn’t all that specific to him. He is not the most gifted orator, and his personal appeals for unity only go so far. He was in this election a vessel for the far left of the Democratic Party; it now appears anyone who transparently made the case for socialism was going to win 40-plus percent of Democratic primary votes. Despite all the talk about the extremism of Trump — and regular readers ought to know I’m no fan of his — Sanders’ positions represent an even more dramatic departure from what we have known in American politics and government.

And for that reason, it is hard to tell if the division and disappointment over Sanders’ defeat will go away — or if it will linger in a way that leaves the Democrats at least as torn as Republicans are. The big takeaway from this week may yet to have been written, but that is what the rest of the party is up against if the Philadelphia DNC is to be a success.

Reader Comments 0

252 comments
Denise1130
Denise1130

Looking forward to the day when Kyle Wingfield is replaced by a conservative.  He used to be (purportedly) "on the right", but now his relentless and boring anti-Trump rhetoric has made me a non-reader.  Too bad the AJC chose to balance the Left with an individual who is indistinguishable from the Left.


Adios Kyle.

Starik
Starik

@Lil_Barry_Bailout I think Mr. Wingfield is far to the right of Trump, and is upset about some of what Trump says - things that are liberal or just stupid.

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

Nonsense.

What's "indistinguishable from the left" is the New York Democrat jerk that somehow ended up as the nominee of the once-conservative GOP.

Trump regularly insults and offends conservatives and no one is obliged to support such a candidate.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 To be fair, I agree with him about 10-20% of the time, and have supported him when appropriate.  In return, I have yet to see him support anything I've said, even when I agree with his position.  Very typical of the Libs.

“To be clear, I didn't "complain" about you not acknowledging when we agree, because your agreement means little to me.

Very amusing indeed. Your agreement means little to you, but you looked for it. How did it work? You wrote something, and then you were reading my posts, noticing that there was nowhere expression of agreement with you, which meant little to you. Right?

To be quite clear, I have no idea that you ever agreed with my position in your posts. I do not contest that, I just never noticed. 

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 “As far as me not commenting on Brewer, it's because I expect a little vulgarity whenever political topics are discussed.  If I don't care for what he posts, I just scroll on and let it go.  Is there any reason you can't do the same??”

Yes there is. It is called decency. And respect for the rules, which your praised host has failed to enforce.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@MarkVV @Bruno2 If you can't see the condescension in your posts, then your problem is even bigger than I thought.The bottom line is that you're a small-minded person who has no interest in getting along with folks here, so no more bones for you.  You can get your rocks off arguing with Kyle.

Bruno2
Bruno2

 Mark VV: On one extreme, it can be argued that we, the adults, are also a clump of cells. On the other extreme, if you go for the "potential of intelligent life," even a sperm + egg meet that condition, and certainly a fertilized egg. So what is your definition, in this respect, of a "human being?"

I'm not sure of your background in mathematics, but I'm hoping that you understand the precise mathematical definitions of "discrete", "continuous" and "arbitrary" since you demand precise language from your fellow bloggers.  Biologically speaking, all life, including human life, is "discrete" at the microscopic level since we are made up of cells, which cannot be further subdivided and still leave a living entity. Growth via cell division is "discrete" in nature as well, since only wholly formed cells constitute life (leaving aside viruses for the sake of this argument).

From a macroscopic level, however, life can be considered "continuous" since growth occurs "smoothly", with no discernible breaks.  As such, it is perfectly reasonable to take the view that life begins at conception.  Although only one cell in size, a fertilized egg is no less alive than a fully formed being.  As far as whether one cell is "human" or not, I would have to ask you if it's not human, what is it??  Since a human fertilized egg can only turn into a human and not a chimpanzee or an amoeba, it is more than correct to consider one, two or more cells to be "human" in nature.

The problem with choosing any "arbitrary" dividing line to decide whether a developing fetus should be considered a "human being"  or not in a legal sense is that there really is no true biological dividing line which demarcates "life" from "non-life" or "human" from "non-human".  Thus far, in our legal system, the condition of "viability outside the womb" has traditionally been chosen as that arbitrary dividing line, but it really has no solid biological (or moral) basis since the age of "viability" keeps changing whenever there are additional technological advances.

As I've stated numerous times on this blog and others, I support legal abortion only because the alternative is worse.  My support does not depend on pretending that an arbitrary definition of "personhood" has any real meaning, which seems to be the preferred way of thinking among Libs.  In the end, Truth is not something that can be voted on or subject to the whims of technological improvement.

So, there you go, Mark, I gave you the attention you seek here by composing a well-thought out answer.  I won't hold my breath expecting any acknowledgment, however, since it's not really important to me what crazy people think.

TheBrewer
TheBrewer

@Bruno2

"I'm not sure of your background in mathematics"

That's because Mark doesn't have a background in math. She can't even count to ten. 

Bruno2
Bruno2

@TheBrewer @Bruno2 I'm guessing that Mark VV is an IT guy who gets all hung up on the difference between a "0" and an "O".  I remember mistakenly inserting an "0" in a computer program I had to write while at Harvey Mudd College which crashed the whole thing, since it should have been an "O".  Kind of embarrassing, since we were explicitly warned about that error.

In the imprecise world of human communication, however, we have the ability to discern the programmer's intent, while a mindless computer can't.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 “So, there you go, Mark, I gave you the attention you seek here by composing a well-thought out answer.I won't hold my breath expecting any acknowledgment, however, since it's not really important to me what crazy people think.”

I will write an answer in a little while, when I have more time. I find it both remarkable and characteristic, however, that you finish an answer to a serious question with insults, question which I submitted not looking for controversy, but because I have a philosophical interest in the issue.

Bruno2
Bruno2

Mark VV: Bruno 2, you are yet to show how “inane, pointless, myopic” my arguments are, and so is Kyle, but that is typical for the way some Cons debate

I'll tell you what, Mark, I'm going to have a little time off before I move to Savannah, so I'll give you a little play next week if you wish.  I won't do it in a mean spirit, but I'll be happy to show you how silly your arguments are at times.  Two recent examples were when you tried to nail Kyle on his use of the word "only" a few weeks ago when he said that the Dems "only" focused on one aspect of an issue.  Similarly, you went on and on a couple of days ago about some guy who claimed there were two different "number one" issues right now.

The bottom line is that you demand that people use extremely precise definitions of words, never allowing for the fact that most people communicate imprecisely.  Intelligent people of good will look for the "spirit" of the message and don't waste time with all of the pedantry.  Only goofballs parse words ad infinitum in some needy effort to crown themselves the "winner" of an argument.



TheBrewer
TheBrewer

@Bruno2


Dude, there's no sense in arguing with Mark. She's a very creepy person. My advice to you is to ignore her. I've already pointed her in the direction of match.com.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 “The bottom line is that you demand that people use extremely precise definitions of words, never allowing for the fact that most people communicate imprecisely.”

Your appreciation of the importance of words apparently is quite different from mine, There nothing “extremely precise” about the word “only.” It has one meaning and only one, which means exclusion of anything else. That was the meaning of the expression “Dems "only" focused on one aspect of an issue,” and of what he claimed. Same with writing in the title of an article about something as “number one” issue, and then about something else as number one issue. I wonder if you are so careless in your profession – and this is his profession, isn’t it?

This blog is not a group of guys sharing a beer and swapping stories about their contests. It is, or is supposed to be, a political blog, where opinions and arguments are shared and debated. And that requires some precision in presenting those.

And then your hypocrisy reared its ugly head, when you wrote in a follow-up post:

To be clear, I didn't "complain" about you not acknowledging when we agree, because your agreement means little to me.”

So suddenly the exact meaning of the word “complain” is important to you. That is not “pedantry?”

Bruno2
Bruno2

@MarkVV @Bruno2 I'm truly sorry that you don't understand the nature of human communication.  My guess is that your problems getting along with people extends far beyond this blog.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 @MarkVV Your guesses are just like the rest of your posts - when you cannot respond with arguments, you resort to personal insults. Quite pathetic.

SGTGrit
SGTGrit

Good grief can you take anymore of the left wing hypocrisy from this DNC convention. I just heard some fool ranting about gun control completely disregarding Black on Black crime in places like Chicago where the carnage of young Black lives is staggering.

Bruno2
Bruno2

@SGTGrit In case you haven't noticed, Black Lives Matter only when they are taken away by someone of a different race or by a policeman.  The contribution of the "victim" is never considered, because that doesn't fit the narrative of Black Victimhood that the Left keeps pushing.  The bottom line is there is great power attached to being a Victim in the eyes of the Libs.  Why else would they blatantly lie about the facts surrounding these relatively rare inter-racial killings??

If Hillary is elected, expect 4 more years of fake Victimhood.  One of the reasons I'm hoping Trump wins is that maybe he'll teach some of these folks to ditch the Victim schtick and get out there and improve their lives instead.

TheBrewer
TheBrewer

@SGTGrit


The left is full of stupid people. There's really no other way to put it. These same idiots blame airplanes for 911.

Starik
Starik

@taylor48 @TheBrewer @SGTGrit There are homicides and homicides, and a lot more white people than black people. Drop the domestics and look at murder/armed robbery and murder/rape in particular

TheBrewer
TheBrewer

Trump jumped up to a 7 point lead according to new polls.

Bernie supporters are not going to vote for Hitlery and I applaud them. I mean, who would want to vote for an ugly, fat old white woman who is married to a serial rapist?

TheBrewer
TheBrewer

What's funny is to see the left in total meltdown mode. They can't give anyone a reason to vote for Hitlery which is hilarious to see.

I've decided to vote for Trump just to piss the left off. I was going to vote for Johnson but I really do want to piss off the left.


Oh, and I live in Florida so....

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

Obama interfered with the Israeli election by funneling money to Netanyahu's oppenent, told the British how stupid they were for favoring Brexit, and asked Cameron to come over and campaign for the Iranian deal, so we shouldn't go all wobby over the Russians telling us what our political hacks are saying negatively to each other about the folks, they are supposed to be representing.

Hedley_Lammar
Hedley_Lammar

I never thought I would see the day when Americans would side with Russia and Putin over their own country


Reagan must be spinning in his grave


For shame.

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

And coward Obama talks about Russia hacking the DNC and just shrugs as if there's nothing he can do about it.

Obama: A coward and a failure. Not a man.

TheBrewer
TheBrewer

@Hedley_Lammar

"I never thought I would see the day when Americans would side with Russia and Putin over their own country'

Cool story, bro. You got proof of that claim?

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@Hedley_Lammar Why is it "side with Russia" just because you are interested in what these political hacks/folks really truly think about their voters.  Transparency is finally being obtained, after we have been promised the "most transparent administration ever".   The Russians are just trying to help Barry with his "most transparent administration ever" promise. 


FINALLY, we can see these hacks for what they truly are.


Yes, this hacking is appalling, but Obama hasn't seemed to care much when they were hacking Hollywood, or Target, or Home Depot, etc, but let them hack his buddies at the DNC and it's "America we have a problem here" and the regime starts making threats about reprisals, go figure.


BTW: the Russians did not write even one of those disingenuous emails.

Lil_Barry_Bailout
Lil_Barry_Bailout

Why would anyone care about the emails Hillary deleted being put online?  Other than Hillary, of course, since they were all just personal emails.

RafeHollister
RafeHollister

@Lil_Barry_Bailout 30,000 personal emails?  She doesn't have that many friends and ole Slick says he doesn't do email, too busy chasing broads.  Guess Chelsea gets a lot of forwards, be interesting how many of those are not politically correct.

MarkVV
MarkVV

Bruno2, see my question below (earlier) to you regarding human life.

MarkVV
MarkVV

Even bad opinions and arguments have some value on a blog, because one can counter them with facts and logic. Name calling and personal insults of public figures have none, they only pollute the discussion.

TheBrewer
TheBrewer

@MarkVV

"Name calling and personal insults of public figures have none, they only pollute the discussion."

Obozo loves you, Mark. 

lvg
lvg

Trump says he hopes Russkies hack more of Hillary's e-mails.


Haul this  clown and his sons before Congress with Manaford and lets see their e-mails and tax returns.



I bet Pence will then  become the Presidential nominee and let him find a sane and patriotic VP.

TheBrewer
TheBrewer

@lvg


"Trump says he hopes Russkies hack more of Hillary's e-mails."

Got proof?

anguslee
anguslee

In addition you allow posters to use what it seems to me you should call uncivil names. One gets to enjoy what is clearly a racist reference to the Black Sambo stories. How is that possible? It's transparent. It can only have escaped your standards if you actively endorse that slur.

lvg
lvg

Putin , Trump and Kyle very distressed that e-mail hack did not lead to more dissension and  disruption of DNC convention. (see article above) If anything it brought Dems together clarifying who the  enemy is and what they will do to stop the democratic process.Now they are pushing the BLM angle for dissension. Didn't Ruskies and FBI  try all that with MLK??????

Bruno2
Bruno2

Kyle (to MarkVV)--" If it makes you feel better, I'm this close to doing some equal-opportunity banning."

Kyle, if I may be so forward as to tell you how to run your blog, I believe banning Mark VV would be a big mistake. Understandably, his inane, pointless, myopic arguments are annoying to you, but I think you should let them stand as a testament to the quality of Lib thought.  To be fair, I agree with him about 10-20% of the time, and have supported him when appropriate.  In return, I have yet to see him support anything I've said, even when I agree with his position.  Very typical of the Libs.

Also, I appreciate you giving me a little freedom to post a few "personal" comments along with an occasional song.  I agree with your sentiment about staying on topic, but it's not unreasonable to allow the bloggers to get to know each other through some non-topic discussion on occasion. 

Thanks for being a good host.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 Bruno 2, you are yet to show how “inane, pointless, myopic” my arguments are, and so is Kyle, but that is typical for the way some Cons debate. As for Kyle’s reaction to my comments, they make a mockery of the statement he made when he issued the rules for this blog, stating about criteria for comments,

“First and most important, I will not be based on whether I agree with the comment, or whether the commenter agrees with me.”

While you complain about me not supporting you, I find it more to the point that I have not seen you to condemn the insults, vulgarity and name calling TheBrewer has flooded this blog recently. While you praise Kyles as a “good host,” let me remind you of his own rules, in which he promised not to allow that.

http://kylewingfield.blog.myajc.com/2014/09/12/new-commenting-policy/

MarkVV
MarkVV

@Bruno2 I should add, in view of the initial point of your post, that if Kyle wants to draw any equivalence between my posts and TheBrewer’s, I challenge him to compile a list of my “transgressions,” and I will counter with a list of TheBrewer’s insulting posts.

xxxzzz
xxxzzz

@Bruno2 Well if we get to "vote somebody off the island" (which I know we don't), almost all of what MarkVV is doing lately is complaining about  Brewer.  The "Republicans are Nazis" guy at least is trying to say something and is spewing out the DNC talking points.  Its kind of funny that they are oblivious to Hillary's totalitarian tendencies which are perhaps more scary than the Reality TV star's since she has the mainstream media on her payroll.

MarkVV
MarkVV

@xxxzzz @Bruno2 xxxzzz, aren't you the one who accused me of lying when I reminded you and TheBrewer of a blog rule against insulting public figures? 

TheBrewer
TheBrewer

@MarkVV @xxxzzz @Bruno2

"aren't you the one who accused me of lying when I reminded you and TheBrewer of a blog rule against insulting public figures? 

Geez, your obsession with me is just creepy. You need to grow up.