The New York Times has some interesting "letters to the editor" responding to an op-ed about Bernie v. Hillary. Excerpts (in no particular order):
The question isn’t whether or not Bernie Sanders’s goals are reachable, but rather why not reach for them? Have Democrats drifted so far to the point where prioritizing education, universal health care and getting rid of big donors from politics are deemed utopian goals, while endless wars, lobbyist-driven legislation, the offshoring of jobs and corporate tax havens are just the way it is? ...
...Having a leader who truly believes in these priorities is the best way to move us in that direction.
So then we respond, "Yeah. Goals. Impractical!"
Maybe. Here's "practical":
If Bernie would commit 50 percent of his fund-raising millions and his fund-raising staff to supporting candidates for the Senate and the House who share his values, there is a real chance that, whether or not he becomes the nominee, the country will be able to move forward by replacing some of the congressional obstructionists. And making such a leadership commitment would probably also help Bernie garner additional support, attract donors he is not yet reaching and perhaps even cause some superdelegates to rethink who they will vote for...
That's really good. C'mon, Bernie! Do it!
The first letter is from Matt Sarconi in California, the second from Joel Magid in upstate New York.
