Wednesday, January 27, 2016

Bernie-Bashing Backfires Badly

As quickly as the pundit posse of the neoliberal establishment took up their leaky pens, as furiously as they began typing en masse with their limp little fingers, they have just as suddenly decided to hold their fire. (Oops. I think I was indulging in a little wishful thinking there. Because all those wascally wacky "no, we can't" wonks are back in full force after giving their exhausted little typing fingers a much needed respite as they coordinated their anti-Bernie Sanders talking points.)

Their audiences have not been buying what they're selling. Economics pundit Paul Krugman of the New York Times is even is reduced to whining that he's being called "evil" for denigrating Bernie Sanders supporters as "happy dreamers." (He provided no proof of the actual existence of any evil-accusers, however.) 

Meanwhile, the anti-universal health care diatribes of Democratic Wonker Ezra Klein of Vox have been compared to those 90s right-wing Thelma and Louise ads from the Clinton era. Matt Yglesias has been castigated as a hypocrite for defending single payer health care during the first Obama campaign, but now belittling it during the first Sanders campaign. Etc, etc, etc. By far the worst of the worst of the Bernie- Bashers is centrist pundit Jonathan Chait. Gawker calls his "case against Sanders" not only dishonest, but dumb. Chait's latest gambit is to claim Sanders has no political experience, despite his long record of service in municipal, state, and national government.

  That is only the backlash against the pundits, who operate with relative freedom. Surrogates for Hillary Clinton have definitely been put in their places. Chelsea Clinton has already gotten the Barbara Bush muzzle treatment, banished to private fundraisers among friendly members of her own social class. Attack dog-in-chief David Brock of Media Matters was chained and choke-collared  by the campaign when he demanded Bernie's health records and accused him of not caring about black people.

Hillary Clinton herself has suddenly let up on her own direct attacks. This isn't because of any sense of human decency, but because focus groups were not reacting kindly to either her unfair Bernie-bashing, or her running on the fumes of the Obama administration as a way to pander to black voters.

The most powerful Bernie-Basher still left standing is President Obama, who really only succeeded in denigrating the progressive base, rather than the candidate himself, when he called Sanders a "bright, shiny object" -- as though voters are a bunch of shallow rubes instead of thoughtful citizens hungry for some basic human dignity in their lives. His smarmy paternalism and adherence to the status quo of unfettered capitalism could not have been made starker.

 I suspect that Obama was just as ticked off about Bernie's Senate hold on the White House nomination of a Big Pharma shill to head the Food and Drug Administration as he was about Hillary's slide in the polls.

Obama might also have been reacting to last week's withering speech by his other nemesis in the Senate: Elizabeth Warren.

Warren as much as endorsed Bernie, and blasted both Clinton and Obama: (h/t Gaius Publius.) 

Hillary Clinton has thus been duly forced ("shamed" would imply an actual moral compass) into postponing a couple of Wall Street money-grubbing events scheduled for today. Her tryst with the billionaires will just have to wait.  So in that respect, the Sanders-Warren wing has already won. It is beginning to nudge the big money out of the political process. It's already making the pursuit of greed uncomfortable for both corrupt politicians and the wealthy donor class. 

And as for Bernie's scheduled Oval Office meeting with Big Guy himself today, what is Obama going to do? Threaten to cut off Bernie's DNC funding? Threaten to not join him on the stump if he doesn't cede the nomination to Clinton, or tone down the populist rhetoric?

If Bernie Sanders has proven anything, he's proven that he can't be bought.

And really: can you picture Barack and Michelle joining Bernie and Jane Sanders on the campaign trail? I kind of doubt that the Obamas are going to be calling for a political revolution, and the break-up of the banks, and universal health care any time soon. They've got their own future careers and "initiatives" to worry about.

But back to that outbreak of Bernie-Bashing by media insiders last week, as well as its apparent hasty and probably only temporary retreat. How did Krugman, Chait, Klein and the rest belch out nearly identical anti-Sanders polemics all at the same time? Political philosopher Philip Mirowski has a great explanation about how this process of agnotology works in his book "Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste":
"It ventures far beyond the discrediting of this or that individual; it seeks to destabilize the things we were predisposed to take for granted, and insinuate a sharply targeted narrative explanation as one of those default presumptions, 
"This does not appear to the public as overt strident propaganda; rather it presents itself as liberating, expanding the cloistered space of sanctioned explanation in an era of wrangling and indecision. There are two steps to this procedure: one is the effort to pump excess noise into the public discussion of appropriate frames within which to approach the controversy; the second is to provide the echoic preferred target narrative as coming from many different sanctioned sources at once; ubiquity helps pave the way for inevitability. To make this work, one must do both: amplify the impression of indecision and doubt on the part of the elect, while sharpening the preferred narrative as making a demand upon our attention. Doubt is their product, but eventual manufactured consensus is their profit."
What Chait, Krugman, Yglesias, Klein and the affinity fraudsters of the Neoliberal Thought Collective have just attempted to accomplish for the Democratic Party is to destabilize and shoot down the growing public consensus that health care is a human right, and that the free market is harmful to our collective well-being. That they acted in unison, writing essentially the same words to denigrate both Sanders and his supporters, is proof of the inherent motivation of the establishment: to lower the expectations of progressives and supporters of Bernie Sanders. The neoliberal pundits' "excess noise" and fear-mongering about high taxes being worse than high payments to insurance companies came out all at once, in one very highly orchestrated, cacophonous neoliberal bellow.

The only trouble is, they have failed miserably to convince. They didn't get their reward of "manufactured consent." They have failed to gaslight us, just as Charles Boyer ultimately failed to convince Ingrid Bergman that she was the crazy one.

Single Payer is Way Too Expensive, My Darling

Their expected profits have turned into a monumental loss of their credibility and damage to their reputations. 

They counted on the stupidity and party tribalism of the masses, and all they got was ridicule. They were sorely disappointed.


On that theme, here are a couple of my recent New York Times comments.

The first was on the blog-post by Krugman (linked above) in which he hilariously used Obama's endorsement of Clinton and insult to Bernie supporters to bolster the agnotological point of his thought collective buddies. He pretended to be absolutely stunned -- even paranoid -- at the criticism he's been getting, going so far as to churlishly accuse his critics of calling him "evil." (Actually, he is merely banal. And not as cute as Charles Boyer.)

My response:
Krugman again attacks the straw man who insists that anybody not in the bag for Bernie is a monster and pure evil. I think that the pejorative term being bandied about is "Bernie Bro."* Although rumored to be roaming the landscrape, the existence of this Chimera has yet to be proven. No photographs are known to exist.

The Bernie Bro of Plutocratic Nightmares
 Also, the term Pragmatic Progressive, or "pragprog," is an oxymoron. (this is a reference to the meme of Clinton as a "progressive who gets things done".) The word is commonly used to describe an extreme centrist (socially  liberal, economically free-market conservative, usually wealthy). It first became fashionable to be a PragProg back in the day when Obama was playing his mythical game of 11-dimensional chess with his Grandiose Bargaining pawns of austerity and safety net cuts.
Anybody wanting universal health care is an airhead these days, according to the PragProgs. People wanting to survive and get paid $15 an hour are considered radical.
Frankly, I am getting sick of hearing about all the battles that Hillary has fought, how battle-scarred Hillary is, etc. I keep getting this picture of Saint Sebastian in drag. Oh, those arrows of outrageous multi-millionaire fortune.

Saint Hillary of the Scared, Scarred and Sacred Heart
 This is not about the hurt feelings of pundits and wonks -- much to their chagrin, apparently.
How about showing some concern about the 99%, who are not only scarred, but still bleeding copiously from their many wounds? (wage stagnation, underemployment, poverty.)
That is what should be making you furious. That is the true evil. 


In his "Hillary Clinton Stumbles" column published on Monday, Charles Blow implicitly chides his media colleagues, and directly blasts the candidate herself, for the recent mindless frenzy of Sandernista sucker-punching. Although he, too, casts doubt upon the Sanders agenda, he at least stays comparatively civil in his criticism of it. He doesn't lie like other liberal pundits and accuse Bernie of wanting to rip away health care from millions of people.

My comment:
 When Hillary was asked on camera if she'd release the transcripts of speeches she gave to Goldman Sachs, she just laughed sarcastically. The millions of dollars she's taken from banks, insurance companies and the private prison industry simply expose her new=found populism as a cynical campaign tactic in the mildewed playbook of triangulation and corruption.
People aren't stupid. People are mad as hell, and justifiably so. People are attracted to Bernie Sanders not because they believe he'll bring change overnight, but because they know he's the real deal. Simply being honest and sincere is enough of a winning ticket in this crazy election year.
Bernie Sanders now deservedly owns the national bully pulpit, and we aim to keep him and people like him there, regardless of how this election turns out. He's a master of the Art of the Possible. He brings into high relief the ongoing failure of the political imagination. Don't count out a landslide victory - with more progressives riding into Congress on his coattails -- just yet.
Charles Blow, by the way, is to be applauded for not joining his media colleagues in the ongoing vicious attacks on both Sanders and his "pie-in-the sky" supporters. Mr. Blow's observation that Hillary Clinton is now hypocritically wrapping herself in the mantle of Obama (her erstwhile nemesis) is right on target.
Who cares if Hillary thinks she's battle-tested? We're sick of war, and that includes the class war.
*Update: I spoke too soon about the neolibs temporarily holding their fire. Because Krugman is back on the attack, this time attacking.... Bernie Bros! (I guess he didn't read my comment to him last time, about how Bernie Bros are figments of the Clinton camp's imagination.) In any event, Krugman again wails about the punditocracy being unfairly attacked by rabid proponents of health care for all, rather than railing about the desperate 30 million people not getting any health care at all. He really is starting to sound unhinged. Here's my latest riposte to him, to which I added the link to Warren's speech at the end. (I really don't know how much longer I can keep this up):
I made fun of the term "Bernie Bro" over the weekend in a comment on this blog. It's a stupid pejorative being used by lazy thinkers to describe people who support the policies of Sanders. "Bernie Bros," as the name implies, are a group of oafish sexist pigs out to defeat Hillary for the sole reason that she is a woman.
Bernie Bros do not exist. If there are any soundbites or film of these boors heckling Hillary at her campaign events, I haven't heard or seen them.
Therefore, it is very sad to see Krugman joining in this infantile smear campaign. Since I support Bernie myself, does that make me a Bernie Ho? Do tell.
Painting us all with the same broad brush is a sign of desperation.
Contrary to Establishment belief, we don't want single payer health care now, now, NOW!!!!! If you actually listened to Sanders, you would have heard him say that the best way to accomplish our goals is to elect him, elect more progressives, give him the bully pulpit for two presidential years, and then hopefully vote in a Democratic majority in the 2018 midterms to start transitioning to single payer. Sure, this might not work. But just giving up and not even trying would be plain suicidal for the vast majority of us. Of course, to hear the neoliberal thought collective tell it, our demand for not only a decent life, but for bare-bones survival, is a radical pipe-dream.


Nasreen Iqbal said...

This sort of thing backfired on them 8 years ago, and now they seem to be less ashamed of doing it.

Tim Berry said...

So HRC cancelled the two financial industry fund raisers. Guilty as charged. I wish Senator Sanders was a little more aggressive on this issue.

annenigma said...

President-Elect Sanders, First Lady Jane O'Meara Sanders, and two staffers met with Obama today. Lame Duck President Obama claimed it was a meeting requested by Sanders back in December, but if so, why did Sanders feel the need to bring along two staffers? Busted, Barack! Quack, Quack!

I believe the timing of this meeting was directly related to Obama's endorsement of Hillary through the conveniently timed interview he gave Politico. Obama knows you can't un-ring the bell. He can later claim all he wants that he wasn't endorsing Hillary, but press covered it as an endorsement so in effect and by intention, it is. If it quacks like a lame duck...

Wise old Bernie brought his First Old Lady with him, but it shouldn't surprise us that Obama didn't give the First Couple a photo op with him, at least not a public one that might help Bernie, lest Lame Duck be perceived as not being as neutral as he claims. Quack!

Ok, so now that their target has been softened up by coordinated attacks of Bernie Bashing (that failed and likely backfired), they can proceed to the more subtle process of building reasonable doubt in the mind of voters.

Heads up, compatriots! This is where we come in. We must convey CERTAINTY about Bernie. Hillary has Mr. Lame Duck saying that she'd be ready on Day 1. Ha! We can beat Day 1. We can start referring to Bernie as President Sanders today, as if he's already won the Presidency. Beat ya, Hill!

Bernie's Director of Volunteer Speechwriters now has this message to the Bernie Brigade:

This is OUR political revolution. Bernie has his job and we have ours. You are urged to begin humming 'Hail to the Chief' whenever you see Bernie in person or on screen. Act as it he is already the President. Start practicing now.

We can only make this happen if we all do our part. Special thanks to Karen Garcia for carrying on through Sardonicky and NYT comments for so long. Participation and suggestions from everyone welcome in this noble effort to save the soul of our democracy - of, by, and for the people.


annenigma said...

Oh, no! I just read that Jane Sanders wasn't in on that meeting. That couldn't have been her decision. Why drag herself to D.C. when she could have stayed in Iowa? She didn't go to hold his coat or to get a tour of the White House (she's already been there) and neither did the two staffers, especially with the Iowa caucuses just days away.

If Jane didn't get in on the meeting, did the two staffers? If they did, why not Jane? Nice power play, Barack. Score another one for Hillary. Btw, Obama didn't even invite them for lunch at the White House. Evenhanded treatment, Bernie? Why sound like a common politician now when you're rising in the polls?

I've read that Jane's the most politically involved spouse of a candidate that's ever been - other than HillBillary - so she had to be expecting to be in that meeting. What a personal insult. It's proof that Barack is sexist as well as secretive. I can also conclude that Bernie didn't insist on including Jane (and staff) in the meeting. The Lone Ranger rides again.

That's another reason we've got to grab the horse by the reins, mount this political revolution ourselves, and ride it like the wind. Bernie is just a man, after all.

Btw, if anyone hears Bernie still using the words 'Political Revolution' after his meeting with Obama, or any other addition, change, or omission to his usually standard stump speech, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Considering that he gives the same speech almost word for word at every event, it should be quite obvious.

Anonymous said...

I am sorry; I don't get it. How do we progressives rule out what Chris Hedges,Ralph Nader, Jill Stein (all likewise real deals) posit-- that Bernie is merely enhancing his standing with the DNC and Senate as socialist in residence by delivering the base to Hill? Why does he promise to endorse whomever the Democrats nominate; where was he when they snubbed Larry Lessig? What is his plan to get past the superdelegates installed to ensure that George McGovern does not happen again. Why not do a Trump and withdraw from debates until the DNC behaves? etc.

I am new here and an old man. Be gentle!

Jay–Ottawa said...

I hear you, Anon. (By the way, read the fine print at the bottom of the page and please get a handle.)

Jane wasn't the only element missing from the Oval Office at high noon. Are we to believe that Sanders, otherwise busy sprinting to the finish line in Iowa, took an afternoon off to meet with Lame Duck merely so he (Bernie) could emerge from the Oval Office to say LD was/is/will be even-handed? Doesn't add up. What a momentous nonevent. Transcript, please.

As for Bernie's not lunching at the White House, I've told him never to swallow anything put forward by LD.

Revolution means revolution. Bernie has to remain as infuriated as the millions of commoners who've been sending him checks. Otherwise, he loses credibility. He needs to make it clear there's lots of light between him and LD and Hillary, the people who infuriate us. Where's the Berne today?

annenigma said...


Welcome. Next comment you should click on Name/URL option and come up with any kind of name so you're not just Anonymous.

You asked the questions that we've addressed here in the past, so I'll give you my take although I obviously don't speak for everyone. First of all, we've been round and round here about whether Bernie is sheepdogging for the Democratic Party and herding us to Hillaryland. For awhile I wasn't sure, but now I don't think that's ever been his intention, although it's the hopes of the DNC and the only reason they allowed him to run on the Democratic Party ticket. He's not putting himself through all this for anything but what he says it's for - to turn this country around through a political revolution that requires our participation.

Bernie supporters are too astute to fall for bait and switch, so sheepdogging wouldn't work anyway. If Hillary becomes the nominee, it will be like a balloon bursting - why bother voting at all? Let Trump have it and take the chance that he messes things up good and we'll all have to start over. Actually, since he was a Democrat for years, I think his campaign is pure shtick. He's not just making a mockery of the debates but the whole political process, including mocking his own supporters. It all deserves mockery! Personally, despite all the trash talk, I don't believe he's anywhere near the danger that Hillary is. I actually fear the lasting harm that Hillary could do, from signing the TPP, which Trump is against, to starting even more wars. She's a belligerent, corporatist warmonger.

I/we don't necessarily agree with all Bernie's stands on issues, but enough so that most of us can heartily support him. I had my doubts, but think he's serious about going the distance while recognizing that he's too much a gentleman for the nasty, dirty world of Presidential politics. This isn't going to be an easy win or an easy go of it afterwards if he succeeds. But since Bernie has admitted that he's already started working on his inaugural address, I suspect he not just serious but feels destined. He must, considering that he's fully aware of all he's up against.

We'll gladly put our chips down on Bernie and we're grateful for having the choice of a politician who's proven that he's as authentic and as honest as they come. He wants to move us in the right direction, however long that takes. Most importantly, he expects us all to play an important role instead just using us to win an electoral numbers game and then throwing us under the bus. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that he won't want and need our active involvement even more later.

I just hope he wins and names a running mate who is even more of a passionate fighter than he is, like an Elizabeth Warren.

Valerie said...

I laughed and laughed, Karen, and kept running to where my husband was reading to read aloud paragraphs from this post! You are on fire!

I hear you, Annenigma! I have had a lot of doubts about Bernie but I do believe he is sincere - and he has a decent voting record, unlike Obama and Hillary. Is he my perfect candidate? No, but he certainly is miles ahead of anyone else.

I DO maintain the obvious - there was no way Bernie was going to get the press attention or a shot at the White House running as an Independent. Of course, he had to say he would endorse Hillary - I'm sure there was a price he had to pay to be able to run as a Democrat. But I agree with Annenigma (again), Bernie supporters are not sheep. Most of us will go over to the Greens if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.

And I, too, hold out the hope that Warren will serve an important role in the Sanders presidency.

Kruggie - along with Nicholas Kristof and Thomas Friedman - is a total sellout and party man. Only Bob Herbert remained true to his convictions.

Valerie said...

Good post by Yves Smith on Naked Capitalism on Bernie and all those who support him bashing by Kruggie.

Valerie said...

Sorry - the link to NC is

Pearl said...

Meet the woman who broke down and cried at that Bernie Sanders rally [Video]

From the Washington Post

Pearl said...

But will Bernie make it to the Oval Office, Karen? Current statistics as to the final outcome do not indicate this.

Taking into account the power of the establishment plus the ignorance of so many plus the message of the media and the fear of a Trump presidency may well have the final say.

I can only hope that those he is educating will be the leaders of tomorrow. I write this with great sadness. How do others feel?

annenigma said...

My biggest concern about a Sanders Presidency is that our movement to change the system would be operating through the Democratic Party which is corporately corrupt. All the names and info of Bernie supporters will go into the Democratic Party databanks and they'll take over. DWS is still in charge of the DNC and she's not the only problem.

I'm an Independent and since I live in an open primary state, I thankfully don't have to affiliate with the Democratic Party, nor do I ever intend to join their ranks. I'd like to vote third party if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, but I can't do that since the Green Party isn't on our state ballot due to low past performance. That's a reason to vote third party if you can, to get them in the mix by reaching the minimum threshold.

I'd like to see Bernie set up an organization now so the movement doesn't get folded into the Democratic Party with it's entrenched millionaire power players, probably still led by Obama in his post-Presidency. People like him don't give up power willingly.

Or maybe Bernie doesn't have to form this entity. Maybe WE do. It should start now.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Following up on Annenigma's idea of keeping Bernie's backers from being swallowed by the DNC and Hillary––

What if Jill Stein were to step aside to declare Bernie the Green's Presidential candidate? It's not unusual for a candidate to head the top spot of more than one party. Stein, or whomever the Greens select, would––in a quiet behind the scenes meeting providing Bernie with deniability––be promised an appropriate cabinet post where they could facilitate the conversion of the US to green energy.

Until now, the Greens have had everything good, strong and true in their platforms. They have had everything except power; that's what's in the deal for them. Additionally, people like me would vote for Bernie under the Green's lever. If enough people vote for Bernie under the Green banner, the party would finally secure it's 5%+ to obtain public funding the next time around. That's also what's in it for the Greens.

Bernie through the campaign could just look surprised, stand back and shrug his shoulders to keep the DNC from throwing him under the bus. Lots of details skipped over here, but this lateral link-up would be Bernie's way of having it both ways until he becomes president. On 20 January 2017, of course, he will sign papers setting in morion the details for the amoeba (Green Party) to swallow the whale (Democratic Party).

Maybe other parties would catch on. People who've come to loathe the Democratic Party might appreciate more respectable venues to support Bernie. They won't sit it out the election in disgust. Main Street is wide and holds many more people than Wall Street.

Karen Garcia said...

The best thing about the Sanders candidacy is that single payer health coverage, financial reform and the anti-democratic influence of big money on politics are getting much-needed prominent play. The big media conglomerates are forced to cover these issues. And thus, cracks are appearing in the neoliberal facade. This is a worldwide phenomenon, by the way.

Just as Trump only gets stronger when he is attacked, so too does Sanders. People like Krugman are actually hurting their own cause as well as Clinton's; Krugman is actually implicitly attacking his own fans, engaging in ad hominem attacks against unnamed columnists (Dave Dayen, for one) rather than engaging in honest policy discussions with them. I linked to Dayen's column when responding to Krugman's "Wankers and Minions" blogpost, because PK did not see fit to do so.

Glenn Greenwald has now joined the fray, pointing out that Krugman has become the same kind of VSP that his "conscience of a liberal" brand specializes in disdaining. (the piece is on The Intercept, in the Blogroll to your right.)

I think I am going to ignore Krugman for awhile. I suspect he loves all the negative attention. He reminds me too much of my late, martyred mother-in-law.

Chuck said...


If Bernie was to be the Democratic Partly candidate, He would not get the Green Party endorsement. The Green party (at least in NYS) have written rules prohibiting cross-endorsements.

Pearl said...

Blow's 'Hillary Clinton's Crucible' seemed to be giving us an even handed report of the choices. A kind of barely more honest version of Krugman but avoiding the real problems and differences.

Some good comments from readers with occasional praise for Hillary. As a black man I would hope for more honesty from Blow on the issues,so both columnists for the NYtimes are not great representatives of the truth.

I wish they had better columnists and reporters on that paper and I don't blame you Karen for not wasting time on Krugman. However, reading the comments are often interesting and give us a feeling of where the wind might be blowing in certain circles. It is indeed a conundrum and an important reason I hope Bernie wins the Iowa voting is that he will still stay in the news for a longer time and remind people of what is truly happening in the country during this contentious next year.

The Washington Post does a better job on reporting and writing the political news with articles showing both sides of the issues. We have to look elsewhere, as you do in your present column, to find believable information. Intercept, truthout, counter punch,etc. are some of the ones to consult.

Pearl said...

It’s Still Bill Clinton, but the Old Magic Seems Missing

My son saw an interview with him recently and said he saw a definite deterioration physically and verbally with him. Another problem for Hillary?

annenigma said...

Obama is directly responsible for my sending my first donation to Bernie 2016 after he endorsed Hillary. I was BERNing with anger. 'Neutrality' my ass!

Jay–Ottawa said...


Thanks for the deflating news that Greens don't do cross-endorsements. No mergers with the impure; may they always stand proud in their isolation. And Bernie will be obliged to ride the same pig home what brung him this far to the dance.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Here's the link to the short Greenwald post (mentioned by Karen) about Krugman's imperious dismissal of (apparently faux) authorities who refuse to "lean Hillary." What's so much fun (and encouraging) is Greenwald's attachment listing 170 kinda serious thought leaders and academics who most definitely lean Sanders. Worth a quick look for people who lean ironic.

Meredith NYC said...

I think Charles Blow is actually joining the centrists, but he's very careful with his wording. To support Sanders is just unfashionable for NYT 'liberals'. But in a country that needs so much, this is no time for the usually forceful Charles blow to be so careful. He wants to remain influential just as Krugman does. Never mind any principals.

My comment to krugman's blog:

Paul, your posts are getting even cuter. And the titles! Like the recent ones with ‘manure’ and ‘stink’. Real attention getters. Now Bernie Bros?

You just keep repeating it over and over.... “there’s no comparison with the reactionary extremism of all the GOP candidates.”

That’s your mantra. But that’s how the Dems can seem to be ‘populist’, while we can’t progress to 21st C standards of representing the majority, common in other social democracies. Even to late 20th C standards.

We are decades, even generations behind other countries in h/c access and affordability, since we can’t balance private profit with majority needs. Keep those comparisons dark?

The US has a built in blockage to representing the majority—it’s simply defined as anti capitalist, anti private profit, thus Anti American. Princeton’s Martin Gilen’s research showed most of our laws are passed per the wishes of the elites, with the masses having no input.

And could you please just explain again about the ‘shadow’ banks, so we’ll grasp why your liberal conscience doesn’t support bringing back the wall between regular retail banking servicing millions of small businesses and home owners, and the wild west risky investment banking? We non economist can’t quite grasp your position on this.

annenigma said...

It's in the best interest of a lame duck President who has (a) secretly engaged in war crimes, (b) secretly violated the Constitution, (c) ignored crimes of the wealthy corporate class by turning a blind eye, to pull powerful strings for the candidate of the same ilk.

So there's another possible quid pro quo in exchange for Obama's tacit endorsement - no charges against Hillary for violating state secrecy laws in exchange for not revealing crimes by Obama, essentially a mutual pre-pardon.

Can you imagine a President with an actual conscience being elected President? We haven't seen that since Jimmy Carter, and we haven't seen so many political and corporate criminals EVAH!

The Corporate-State cabal which engages in systematized bribery and corruption worthy of RICO charges must be feeling very unsettled and uncertain, which means that now is the time for all thumbs on the scale, all hands on deck, and full steam ahead to blow Bernie out of the water before he locks up the nomination.

Their Corporate Commander-in-Chief Obama is leading the charge - in his usual stealth mode.

annenigma said...

I'd like to share my comment to Gail Sheehy's opinion piece about Hillary in the NYT since it probably won't be printed. Bernie fires me up!

"As a boomer woman, I can state without doubt that if Hillary became President, the status quo of the Corporate State would remain intact. Her 'incremental change' approach would be like watching grass grow- grass not being watering or nurtured. All we see are more weeds taking over year after year.

Bernie has many things Hillary lacks, but the most important is his committed grassroots army of supporters of all ages and genders whom he encourages and expects to engage in long-term political activism in the form of 'Political Revolution Fighting For the Soul of Democracy.'

Bernie Sanders will not treat us like chips in a high stakes electoral numbers game of political craps, throwing us under the bus after winning with the help of Wall St. financiers, then putting banksters into vital cabinet positions. We've got our mojo back, now that we've seen what authenticity looks like. We have our purpose back too. Talk about power.

We refuse to keep watching and waiting for neglected grass to grow under a status quo candidate who lets her hired help tend to the grass. We're going with the Master Gardener, Bernie Sanders, who has in his very nature and conscience the ability to nurture a grassroots movement to restore a government of, by, and for the people.

After we get rid of the weeks, we'll plant flowers around us - instead of in graveyards for the war dead.

We'll invest in Peace - instead of just praying for it.

Join the Political Revolution!"

Ste-vo said...

Is very curious if the NYT would ask someone, obviously a male! to write a companion piece titled "Why Boomer Men Like Hillary Clinton?"

annenigma said...


Really. And how would a male candidate be treated if he pandered for the men's vote.

"I've been fighting for the rights and privileges of men and boys all my life! Vote for me and I'll be the first bald male President!"


Ste-vo said...

Or the other way as well: "Why Don't Boomer Men Like Hillary Clinton?" I

It snowed, finally, in Vermont yesterday, only about two inches, but it snowed. And I just got a new Volvo, not a Subaru, VT's State Car. I gave money to the Bernie Sander's campaign in early June, after attending the official launch at Waterfront Park in Burlington. I received a bunch of car decals. I sent one to a friend who lives in "The People's Republic of Takoma Park" and one to my brother in Germany. I am going to put the decal on the new Volvo The car is white, the decal is blue. It will look nice. Long live Bernie Sanders.

annenigma said...


Good idea. I recently bought a pack of Magnetic Vent Covers from Lowes which are 3 sheets of 8"x15" magnetic white flexible material. You can cut them to any size or shape with scissors and paint them, write on them, create drawings or whatever message you want on them. Because I'm not creative or artistic, so far I've only made one rectangular bumper sticker and written 'Feel the Bern!' on it, but with the snow and icy roads lately here in northwest Montana, I haven't been much of anywhere with it. I'd like to cut a circular piece and try reproducing the caricature sketch of Bernie head on it with just the hair and glasses. I love that one!

The great thing about these sheets is not just that you can do so much in the shape and size and message, but you can take them off and on or move them around, which is convenient for me. I only put it on and mingle and message (politically) when I go out of town to somewhere safe (non-hostile, non-armed, and non-partisan) like to Glacier National Park where visitors, local or national/international, are a different breed.

It's fun being involved in a people's political revolution not run by a big corrupt machine like the DNC which is probably eager to get us onboard. We don't need anyone telling us what to do. It's obvious - #1 is to help Bernie win the nomination. The earlier the lead, the better. There's no time to waste!

Pearl said...

From the Observer

Just Who Is Sidney Blumenthal, the Clintons’ Closest Advisor?

Interesting article. no forwarding way but can be found by searching the OBSERVER and the title above. Hope this information makes the U.S. papers.

Pearl said...

My comment to the NYtimes:

The little lingering respect I had for the NYtimes is now gone with the wind. Something is missing with your editorial board when truth, facts, political history does not come to the fore. We are finally hearing the truth from Senator Sanders whom your paper tried to ignore, but many citizens have not. You have also not followed the majority of reader responses to your support of Hillary Clinton, who are informed, knowledgeable and angry as Hell with the NYtimes. And with a columnist like Paul Krugman finally being exposed as a fraud seems to not matter to your Board. No matter whether or not Bernie Sanders wins in Iowa or becomes president, we have finally heard the truth loud and clear of what is happening to our country and the pain of so many citizens living in it. I should not be too surprised, you are the newspaper who loudly supported the invasion of Iraq along with Hillary Clinton. There is interesting information coming out from the Observer about what was in those private e-mails and who was influencing her choices. Hope it hits the other reports. More proof of Ms. Clintons lack of judgment along with a dose of arrogance. For shame, Editorial Board and the nytimes owners.

annenigma said...

Here's your link, Pearl

Jay–Ottawa said...

Oh, Pearl, nice comment, but your hand will get sore if you keep spanking the NYT every time it lies, distorts and omits. Look at it the way "upperatmos" (among others) does in a comment over at the Intercept.

Jan. 29 2016, 12:01 p.m.
We should celebrate the intensification of lies and distortions being propagated by the MSM. It reflects their fear at being thwarted.////

Surprisingly to me, you and the Establishment, voters in the land are getting out of hand. A Times endorsement this early in the campaign––a week before the Iowa caucuses!––tells us the Establishment is beginning to bite its respective nails.

Nader in his election runs (as distinct from his court suits) never made them do that. Stein doesn't do that. But Bernie's doin' it. (And so is Trump on the other side of the fence.) Sit back; enjoy the show.

annenigma said...

Think about it. It's 3 against 1 with Former President Bill Clinton, big baby Chelsea, and former First Lady Hillary all out campaigning; add the entire Democratic Establishment; throw in a big fat corporate campaign war chest; add in a huge, un-auditable entanglement of programs disguising a slush-fund Foundation selling connections and access to government in a quid pro quo for billionaires and kings; then top it off off with lavish fawning coverage of Hillary by corporate media for the past year.

Bernie gets blacked out all year and he's still competitive. He's doing GREAT against all that!

Btw, Pearl's recommended article from the Observer was nauseating to read but shows exactly how deeply and disgustingly corrupt the Clintons are. They and their foundation should be the target of a RICO investigation.