The news organization took it upon itself to privately poll those 720 unelected super-delegates (wealthy donors, lobbyists, elected officials and party elders) as the basis for their announcement that Clinton has already clinched the nomination. Therefore, there is no need for New Jerseyites and Californians and denizens of smaller Western states and D.C. to even bother showing up to make their voices heard.
Our free and independent beholden press has informed them that their votes will not count.
This is one more indication, as if we needed any more, that American democracy is well and truly dead. The super-delegates pledging their allegiance to the Empress-in-Waiting were not even required by the news organization to give their names. Their anonymity is well protected. It is a slap in the face to even pretend-democracy. Forget Noam Chomsky's theory of Manufactured Consent. They have taken public consent right out of the equation and exposed the ugly old machine innards for all to see.
The announcement of the Clinton nomination is not only premature, it is highly suspect. It is very poorly sourced, to say the least. Who's to say that the AP really even talked to the people owning the weighted votes? Did they verify identities before they trusted?That's just one of the questions we should be asking.
But the announcement that the primary is over before the fat lady sings has White House influence written all over it. President Obama was scheduled to be in New York tomorrow for a plutocratic buck-fest, and the liberal moguls want to be assured that they'll be getting plenty of Clinton bang for their bucks, especially in light of her unpopularity and FBI investigations into who really knows what chicanery.
The fact that the Democratic establishment felt the need to get Bernie Sanders out of the way as quickly and as undemocratically as possible speaks to the dangerous inherent weakness and desperate aspects of the Clinton candidacy. She can't afford the optics of having Bernie win even one ultimately meaningless state primary. It might hurt her chances against the Trumpmonster.
After last night's chicanery, I really don't foresee legions of embittered Bernie Sanders supporters flocking to Hillary's embrace, do you?
The only question left is what will Bernie do? Even a plea from the man himself to vote for Hillary will likely fall upon millions of deaf ears, Trump or no Trump.
Another distinct possibility: Against all the newest manufactured odds,Bernie could still beat in her California and elsewhere, making her premature coronation look even more corrupt and tenuous.
Here's my published comment on the New York Times banner-headlined article announcing this Pravda-like travesty of journalism:
This smacks of Clintonian paranoia and attempted voter suppression, especially in California. Whoever heard of calling a nomination based solely upon an unscientific survey of the unelected superdelegates?
I fault the AP for jumping the gun with this pseudo-scoop. It's just one more piece of evidence that the media is more interested in access and personality politics than in news-gathering and holding the powerful to account.
Everybody already knew that Hillary (despite her flaws) practically has the nomination in the bag. So would it really have hurt for her to save her victory lap until Tuesday night, PDT? This premature seizing of the crown just puts more taint on an already suspect process. It is unfair to both Sanders supporters and Hillary supporters to essentially inform them that their votes have been rendered moot.
When all the votes are counted, and if Hillary does secure the nomination in late July in Philadelphia, I will graciously congratulate her. Until then, we should hold off on the coronation and let what is still left of our democracy run its assigned course.In other news, Hillary was spotted wearing a $12,495 Armani jacket during a recent event on income inequality. Personally, in light of last night's end run around representative democracy, I think the Kim Jong Il couture suits her much better.
10 comments:
"Tired Bargirl" here. I was too tired leaving work at 1:00 am last night to fully register the bad timing of the AP calling it for Clinton.
I'm registered to vote in California and have waited until primary day, as are my young working-class colleagues at the high-end joint where we serve the vaunted movers and shakers of Silicon Valley, the DNC, et cetera. All the annoying criminal Silicon Valley venture capitalists manipulating major court cases and screwing entire small states? We serve 'em with shit-eating finesse. You can hate us for it (WE hate ourselves for it) but we gotta pay the rent, and there aren't many jobs left. We're on our feet sometimes 12 hours a day to clear maybe 40-50k in a town where the average rent is $3,500/month. You do the math. It ain't good, but as has been said, we live to fight another day.
So, I woke up this morning and was more resolved than ever to get to my local library (my polling place) and vote for Sanders. For me, the AP announcement was the first moment when I realized I could not vote for Clinton in November. I know that my younger colleagues may be dissuaded from voting today because of the AP news. They are all, to a person, Sanders supporters. What other choice do we have?
Why are so many bar"girls" not supporting the first viable female candidate for the presidency? Because we serve the greedy all night and into the dawn. We charge to the master account, and in other cases process credit cards. We know whom we serve. We can research their tax avoidance online - it is reasonably well-reported in the financial press. We don't get to hire judges to decide our bankruptcies in our favor as they do.
We need someone to represent US. We already have someone representing THEM.
The person who best represents us in our daily struggles is Sanders. The person who has the most civilized approach to foreign policy, who spoke out against the insanity of being advised by Kissinger, is Sanders.
So today, I'll vote for Sanders. And it looks like I'll have little choice but Jill Stein in November.
You can thank the AP for that.
I have given hundreds of dollars to the Sanders campaign in tiny bites - if I have a decent night and I get an email from Sanders, then I send in a credit card donation. Now I want to know one thing: Not to get all Thiel-y about it, but can I, a Sanders-donating bargirl, sue the AP for trying to influence the California vote? That would probably be too Thiel-y, but if the rich get to do it, why can't I?
I thought Hillary's favorite outfit was a Dr. Evil suit. It fits her perfectly.
Let's just declare Hillary the winner of the 2016 general election and Chelsea the winner of the 2024 election.
Glad you cited that jacket. I didn't know any jacket could cost that much, naive me. I just sent this to the Times article tonight on her claiming the nomination.
Reports are that Hillary wore a $12,000 Armani jacket during a speech in April on—guess what--economic inequality and how to close the wage gap---the big political issue nowadays.
Clinton, as the next leader of the world’s richest nation, whose politics are dominated by moneyed elites, has to have a wardrobe that lives up to that image. Image is power?
All our male leaders have worn basically the same type generic suit and tie. But women usually wear a different outfit for each public appearance. Expensive designer jackets are status symbols. With our 1st woman pres, expect a high priced fashion show, a different outfit all the time, for 4 years.
As a someone said, if you make $250, 000 for a 30 minute speech to Goldman Sachs, a $12,495 Giorgio Armani Jacket is nothing.
Today, Sanders swept the state that didn't use machines. And there are lots of stories coming out of California about "provisional ballots" being forced on voters for various reasons (such as machines not working or people being registered as No Party Preference).
And thank you, Tired Bargirl, for your well written post.
@Tired Bargirl.....terrific comment ....please post it to NYT if you didn't already, and see what kind of responses it draws.
The most recommended comment to the Times about Hillary’s getting the delegates to win said the “Democratic party’s message to millions of voters is clear: don't bother; you don't count. “
So far it got 2,078 recommends
But
It also got plenty of disagreement---the longest thread of replies I’ve ever seen with 99% of them scolding the commenter, that it wasn’t the Dem party it was the AP that called it for HRC. So don’t blame her or the Dems. Hillary said she wanted everyone to vote.
And they said this happens in past primaries. I don’t remember.
Much disagreement over this in comments. But why, why couldn’t the press have waited until after polls closed? And due to time zones also, this obviously discourages people from voting. And they’re stuck in traffic on CA expressways as it is, trying to get home from work.
Excellent, Karen, really excellent journalism. Great comment to the NYT as well. I tip my hat to you!
And Tired Bar Girl! Great comment! Glad to see you posting here.
I really hope this pisses the Bernie supporters off so much they march to the polls in big numbers to vote in defiance of the AP and the smug Hillary supporters just stay home figuring it is a fait accompli. Wouldn't THAT be a hoot?
I'm thinking the announcement had something to do with the coming FBI announcement that she's under indictment for the unsecured home server.
They hope that if she's already nominated (before the primary, of course) that she'll be able to fight it as the nominee instead of having to immediately bow out.
We'll see. It's a long way to Tipperary (July 25-28, 2016), we've a long way to go.
And if the PTB can shorten the journey, they will.
Thanks for your stellar commentary, Karen and TBG.
Keep the faith.
I like you bargirl! Keep fighting the good fight.
Post a Comment