Wednesday, April 6, 2016

Bernie Blowout in Wisconsin

He won Wisconsin by comfortable, if not yuge, double digits.

And lacking its usual video feed of an empty Donald Trump podium, CNN had no choice but to air Bernie Sanders's victory speech (in Laramie, Wyoming) almost in its entirety. For those of you who missed it, here it is. Unscripted and un-TelePromptered, it's a keeper for the ages.

Combined with this week's revelations of the global greedy gazillionaire money stash in Panama (are there any Clinton Foundation donors among the legions of tax-phobic hoarders?), here's hoping that April 2016 will go down as the time when the Neoliberal Project finally began its long-overdue demise, and moribund democracy got its second (or third, or hundredth) wind.


Jay–Ottawa said...

Look at how the NYT lines up articles in this morning's digital edition. Is it the same for the print edition in the hands of those readers headed for the subway? The top story: Cruz beats Trump in Wisconsin, after which comes the somewhat dismissive story of Bernie Who?'s thumping win.

It's like leading with a story of another fracking-induced Oklahoma earthquake Magnitude 2.5 while putting off to the back page news about the Big One just having yanked half of California into the Pacific. Oh, that earthquake!

Both money parties are being torn apart by their own partisans. We keep looking on because it still isn't clear how this will turn out. What may help Bernie tremendously in the months ahead are names of notable US tax dodgers yet to be revealed in the Panama Papers. However, if the PPs were scrubbed of US names before being passed to Süddeutsche Zeitung, then we can be pretty sure Mossack Fonseca was hacked by the NSA, or one of its subsidiaries. So many stories to be managed; so few journalists on the beat.

annenigma said...

Just think, if Bernie wins the Presidency, he'd end the practice of naming big campaign bundlers/billionaires (like Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker) to offices such as cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, etc. because he doesn't have ANY! Unless... a deal is struck at the Convention where they let him win the nomination but he has to agree to a power sharing agreement and staff his administration, like Obama did, with Clintonoids, Wall St. and DNC power players - the usual suspects. That's how the game is usually played.

Wouldn't it be GREAT if this country finally got an administration of young, competent, knowledgeable, dedicated public servants instead of rewarding the old guard who are obsessed with money and power? I'm thinking of a whole Sanders administration full of Nader's Raiders types. It sickens me to still hear Democratic loyalists demonizing Ralph Nader even though he had every right to run to WIN. He already had a long, proven record of effecting lasting consumer and public safety laws through his army of young, committed legal activists. He has always poured all his money into causes that all (except corporatist) Democrats support, and he's still a relatively poor man as a result.

You can bet that we'll all get the Nader treatment if Hillary is the nominee and ends up losing the general election. "Bernie told lies about her!" "He dragged the campaign on too long because of his big ego and that cost her a lot of money!" "He ran negative ads!" Blah, blah, blah. If she loses, it won't be her fault or the Republicans, it will be ours.

Bernie must win and bring in his own team. I guess that's hoping for two miracles.

Meredith NYC said...

The media’s making a big deal about the nydailynews scolding Sanders for lacking details to regulate Wall St, and break up big banks.
Did the dailynews or nyt ever report that 170 economists signed a paper agreeing with Sanders plans to reform Wall St? And that Thomas Piketty wrote an approving essay of Sanders, that he is part of a trend ending the era of Reagan small govt? Let Krugman explain that, since he reviewed Piketty’s famous book “Capital”.

Or PK may stay serenely above it all on his Nobel, noble pedestal?

Tonight Chris Hayes interviewed the obnoxious Barney Frank, who in a torrent of words had only 1 point, that Sanders couldn’t reveal exactly at what level he’d break up the banks. Like if Sanders was more detailed, Frank would support it? He kept asking, in hostile, breathless tones---at what point are they too big to fail? So maybe Frank thinks banks should be so big, they equal the power of the modern nation state? We wouldn’t want to do the big banks an injustice would we?

Robert Reich kept trying to speak through the steamroller. Frank reminds me of Trump in his manner---those 2 should have a debate.

Reich said it’s not just financial, but also political power that needs to be broken up. And that 2 Fed Chairmen –of Minn, and Dallas, as well as Sandy Weil all say the banks should be broken up. Why doesn’t Sanders use that in speeches, pray tell?

The Washington post said the Sanders interview with the daily news was ‘disastrous’. Democracy Now says he parried the questions well.

At least Sanders WANTS break them up. Hillary and her media fans don’t. He’ll reinstate Glass Steagall, and tax financial transactions—that’s pretty specific.

Where is media’s coverage of the 170 top economists who publicly support Sanders plans to reform Wall St? Why doesn’t Sanders cite this in his speeches???

How specific is Hillary’s plan to avoid another crash? Only that If SHE thinks the banks are getting too risky, she'll tell them to 'cut it out'. She asks for our votes with such a generality. Imagine if Sanders said that. What's her definition of risky? How about legal rules not just her judgment? Where’s Barney Frank on that?

Neil Kashkari the Gop fed reserve chair of MN, said tbtf banks are under capitalized, under regulated, so too risky.
So why isn't he on TV explaining this to voters? Why didn’t Bernie cite him in speeches???
I don’t understand this.

Kat said...

Nicholas Kristof actually has an important column:

Why is so little being said about this in the campaign? This is one of the biggest shames of our nation. Why can't we guarantee safe and stable housing for everyone? As the writer of the book "Evicted" wrote it addressing it would be a health and education program too. And when people talk about the crimes of the Clinton era why don't we talk about his destruction of public housing via HOPE VI (in general, run when you hear the word "hope")

Karen Garcia said...


I read "Evicted" and am happy it is selling well and getting attention. It reads just like a novel. I actually know people like the ones portrayed in the book. As poor as they are, they never fail to help each other out, except when serial evictions achieve the neoliberal purpose of destroying neighborhood solidarity and informal safety nets. The author embedded himself with struggling families. His own parents lost their home through foreclosure.

One revelation in the book I hadn't been aware of is that in many cities, the police have the unilateral, extra-judicial ability to evict "nuisance tenants," who include people who dare to call the police too much to report crimes in their buildings or on their streets.

You're right, housing is not being properly addressed in this campaign. The election is devolving rapidly into a verbal fistfight, which is just how the mass media likes it.

Kat said...

I haven't read evicted. Does he talk about Hope VI? I know here they are selling off the public housing stock. It is my understanding that Desmond calls for a universal housing voucher which is better than nothing but the idea of building more public housing seems to be off the table. It is awful that housing is an opportunity for speculation. I did read an excerpt from the book. I actually liked that it did not shy away from describing some poor choices people made. I think it is important to show that sometimes people don't behave perfectly but that does not make the system right. People should not have to do everything right to be deserving of basic human rights.