Maybe he should do something in public.

Who cares?

I recently heard Obama talk about the "circular firing squad", where perfect is the enemy of good and progressive forces tear each other down for the smallest ideological differences.

Okay, this single sentence entirely changed how I was going to answer you. I need to ask: do you think that Obama is a good source on wisdom for actually making a change as big as the US ceasing to support a genocide? Like, you think he has a point here? This "perfect is the enemy of good" is used by Democrats to gather support for the genocide, which is the implicit "good" there. Like, I'd like to explain to you the futility of supporting the Democrats, but I feel like I need to start in a completely different place.

zionism is not a "small ideological difference" and Obama cut black wealth in half

I liked Bernie in 2016. I was reluctantly willing to give him a pass when he endorsed war criminal Hillary Clinton and then again war criminal Joe Biden. The pass was, "I'm disappointed in this grampa but he is an old liberal, I guess I shouldn't have expected more from him. We'll move on without him."

But then he has refused to call the genocide a genocide and has steadfastly supported the genocidal Democratic Party. This isn't a matter of throwing the baby out with the bathwater or a "circular firing squad". Refusing to oppose genocide marks someone as a bad person. He's not on the Left's side, he's just interested in whitewashing the US's image.

This thing he's doing now? Would have been great if he did it right away and denounced the Biden Administration for committing genocide. But now, and when he still refuses to use the g word, it's way too little way too late. This is just an empty PR gesture.

And the thing is, principled people have to reject these empty gestures because they aren't just pointless, they're part of the Democratic Party's long-standing pattern of supporting as awful and reactionary an atrocity as it can get away with, then softening its stance and pretending to kind of oppose it a little in order to trick the masses into trusting that this is progress, the Dems will save the day. I saw this with Iraq too and to paraphrase one of the war criminals behind that atrocity: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice -- well, you won't fool me again. If we don't stay focused and condemn Democratic politicians then people will be mislead into thinking they can still achieve a better world by supporting the Democrats, who are totally going to move left.

It's a lie. A ruse. The Left must oppose the fascist, imperialist, genocide-loving Democratic Party and strip away its support.

I could say more but I encourage you to just read the other comments on this page; I see good comments that are older than this one you wrote which can explain more.

Bernie did a lot of good. A lot of people were radicalized by watching him lose, and from learning why we cant get M4A or any other universal program to benefit working people in thr US.

He played his part. I'll always have an appropriate level of good feeling for him because of that. He should go away now, because he's doing more harm than good. Everyone affiliated with that movement went on to become complete opportunists. AOC is just a party hack. Nina Turner was doing a podcast paid for by Goldman Sachs before the corpse of the campaign was even cold. TYT are on an anti-trans grift. Brianna Joy Gray went on a force the vote grift. They all need to be forgotten by anyone serious about socialism.

That is not a circular firing squad. That isn't purity politics. That is not the "the perfect" being the enemy of the good(libs attribute the phrase to Obama and Chuds attribute it to Reagan- either way its bullshit). You can't build a movement with opportunists. You can't build socialism with peoole who are not socialists. And public figures who people think are "socialists" but aren't damage any real movements potential

He endorses a genocidal party, condemns Hamas and both sides everything. He’s a Zionist

The question is how you see this move.

One very politically useful spin would be to say that Bernard is a fundamentally humane congressperson who simply could not fight the entirety of the US estabilishment and AIPAC. After all he's only one guy.

Or you might say that Sanders is simply the latest liberal who gets the spotlight of powerlessness. American politics the way it is disciplines the center left, liberal and left voters with a series of rotations. A rotating villain to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory (Sinema, Manchin), a rotating hero to protest and take exception at the atrocities of Empire - but who is ultimately unable to change any policy because policies are not up for election.

Now I don't believe the latter. At least not entirely. But I can see why someone might. Bernie was as bloodthirsty and pro Israel as anyone in Congress was expected to be. And the reason why I think that was the case was simply because he's a politician and there's literally no room for maneuver in the US political sphere when it comes to Israel.

So there's no baby to throw out with the bathwater. It's business as usual. The best case scenario here would be that some very timid factions in the US State are using a jewish congressman to signal that Israel is going too far. That's the best you can expect from US foreign policy.

Oh don't worry, they also try to paint transphobia as communist thing because some beardy guys 100 years ago weren't time travelling.

it is amazing how perceptions are so damn malleable. this particular great filter is going to be weird.