Wednesday, June 8, 2016

Hillary Clinches, But the Fist Still Clenches

Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders at least semi-fair and square. Despite numerous reports of fraud and mayhem at polling places and caucus sites, despite corporate press coverage of the Vermont senator which has run the gamut from zilch to negative to condescending, enough genuine human beings apparently liked her, really liked her, well enough to grant her the "presumptive" Democratic nomination. Race and fear and gender identity politics are still highly persuasive selling points, even for people who lack a steady job, are in student debt up to their ears, and struggle to subsist on a pitiful monthly Social Security check. 

"Clinching" is the new winning in corporate journalism-speak. You don't beat, crush, obliterate or trounce your opponent any more. That sounds as tacky as selling tickets to a Lincoln Bedroom sleepover. You delicately clinch whatever you think is owed to you. You substitute merit for meretriciousness. You fake it till you make it. You even do it before all the votes are counted, with a little help from your friends in the press.

Somebody just pinch me. Or punch me.

News reports in the wake of "The Clinch Who Stole Populist Christmas"  are painting Bernie Sanders as even more of a stubborn old grouch than usual. The New York Times sounded particularly aggrieved that he was not yet groveling at the feet of the Empress-in-Waiting, begging for mercy:
And so, despite the crushing California results that rolled in for him on Tuesday night, despite the insurmountable delegate math and the growing pleas that he end his quest for the White House, Senator Bernie Sanders took to the stage in Santa Monica and basked, bragged and vowed to fight on.
In a speech of striking stubbornness, he ignored the history-making achievement of his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, who became the first woman in American history to clinch the presidential nomination of a major political party.
Oh, how dare he keep clenching and denying the fact that Hillary is History Personified as she rides to the White House, bravely clinging to the moldy coattails of her husband.

Figurative jaw clenched in elite indignation, the Gray Lady huffs on:   
Mr. Sanders waited until 15 minutes into his speech to utter Mrs. Clinton’s name. He referred, almost in passing, to a telephone conversation in which he had congratulated her on her victories. At that, the crowd of more than 3,000 inside an aging airport hangar booed loudly. Mr. Sanders did little to discourage them.
Tuesday was, undeniably, Mrs. Clinton’s night, a milestone for women in politics and civic life 95 years after the 19th Amendment guaranteed their right to vote.
Jeeze, here I am a woman and I slept right through the historical milestone. I woke up this morning and the magic that will change my life forever still hasn't quite hit me. Maybe it was because as a New Yorker, I was denied the right to vote in the closed Democratic primary due to my failure to affiliate myself with the big tent corporate party by last year's deadline.
At almost every turn, he was grudging toward Mrs. Clinton, passing up a chance to issue the kind of lengthy salute that many, in and out of the Democratic Party, had expected and craved.
“It’s a blown opportunity to build bridges that are going to be extremely important in the fall,” said David Gergen, an adviser to four presidents, both Democratic and Republican. He worried that Mr. Sanders was becoming “a grumpy old man".
David Gergen, who is the same age as Bernie, is a very relaxed and mellow old man because he rakes in some very serious bucks as a Very Serious Person on CNN.

The Times went on to gratuitously castigate the "Bernie Bros", many of whom it predicts will spitefully and mindlessly gravitate to the next best thing: Donald Trump. 

Are these clinchers sore winners, or what?

Meanwhile, Bernie will meet with Barack at the White House on Thursday. We'll know the jig is up when the next scene will be that of Bernie and Barry mounting the steps of Air Force One together for one of those famous Kucinich-ish mystery rides. Let's hope that movie never gets made.

Obama is expected to make an official endorsement of The Clincher as early as tomorrow. In the interim, the White House has put out an official statement:
 Her historic campaign inspired millions and is an extension of her lifelong fight for middle-class families and children.”
Ouch. That's as good as saying she hasn't and won't fight at all for poor and working class families and children, whose extreme poverty rate has actually doubled since the Clintons did away with direct cash aid to the indigent two decades ago. That's as good as saying that Hillary will limit her charm offensive to the ever-dwindling, but still comfortable, middle class. It does not bode well for the jobless, the evicted, the pinched, and the marginalized.

So it's still all about the struggle and continuing to make history with the extension of a lifelong and bottom-up fight for affordable housing, good jobs with good wages, universal health care, public education and a secure retirement. 

If enough of us make a noise, maybe we can turn Clinching Clinton into Flinching Clinton. No politician, not even FDR, ever improved life for millions of people without a good swift kick or two or hundred from the Left, inspiring them to do the right thing.



Ste-vo said...

I knew all along that the New York Times, by endorsing HRC as the nominee for President of the UNITEDSTATESOFUCKINGAMERICA, was on the right side of history.

Ste-vo said...

You know Karen, I read a few of the comments from one of the articles in the digital edition of the NYT and most of them, those that I read, were praising HRC for being the first woman nominee.

Here is one comment that gave me pause:
"I actually found myself starting to cry just now as I saw Ms. Clinton's crowd waiting to hear her speak. This is such an important, historic moment. I am so emotional and excited to sit here with my two little girls and take it all in. My seven year old will grow up thinking it normal that a woman can be President. She will know her teachers truly mean it could be her one day. This is an incredible moment. Sanders supporters, please honor that. This matters." ~ Dana, Santa Monica

I was so ready to reply with this:
"Yes Dana, this does matter! I remember in another life, sitting in my living room on the 16th floor of my co-op in downtown New Haven, CT, with tears running down my face as I watched Michelle and Barack Obama dance at one of the inaugural balls. I do remember that night, as I remember the day that my wife and I euthanized our almost 14-year-od Golden Retriever a year earlier. And look where we are today. It does not get any better than that."

But I did not.

Now excuse me. I have to get on with my life and process payroll.

Meredith NYC said...

A good letter to editor was strongly critical of the Times banner headline prematurely calling if for Clinton, per the AP. Super delegates are superior to citizen votes, it said. At least they published it.

I was amazed at the several hostile, over the top replies I got from Clinton partisans to my NYT comment to the article on Clinton’s win. I cited the $12,000 Armani jacket she wore for her speech about inequality and low wages. (I posted it to this blog in yesterday’s post)

And I mentioned how all our male presidents wore the same generic suit/tie, costly or not, but our 1st woman pres will have a huge, high priced designer wardrobe and wear a different outfit for every appearance for 4 years. Women must be attractive and they can’t wear the same outfit, but men can.

The Clinton fans are as obsessed as they accuse the Sanders people of being, and with paranoid exaggeration. They won’t hear a word against her.

One asked-- would I want Clinton to wear tattered jeans/flannel jacket at speeches on inequality? Or said that I’m sexist, shallow and jealous of strong women, and don’t care about a long list of issues.

I replied with a sarcastic recap of the crazy retorts:

'Exactly.... I want Hillary to wear tattered jeans & tattered sweater when she talks inequality--it's only right! I'm so jealous of strong, successful women, and don't give a damn about the supreme court, global warming, women's rights, immigration, wars, international relations, the economy. How did you guess? I only care about shallow, sexist issues. Obviously.'

So, more polarization ahead in US politics. If these Clinton fans are so concerned with issues, what standard are they going to hold Clinton to?

Meredith NYC said...

The Times editorial today advises Clinton to work hard to improve her platform and respond to the country’s needs.
I commented:

The Times must follow it’s own advice to Clinton. What about some hard work for the media and NYT in political reporting? If many don’t trust Clinton, they also don’t trust the media and NYT after the biased and narrow range of reporting and opinion in this campaign.

The Times might’ve helped cause voter suppression by printing the AP poll of pro Clinton super delegates with a big headline, before many states even voted. Super delegates now outweigh ordinary voters.

It is the NYT op ed page, as well as Clinton that, as you say, seems to “represent a Washington power structure disconnected” from the struggles of millions. The public editor had to address reader complaints of anti Sanders bias. Please admit this and live up to higher standards.

The Times must broaden its op ed page. Find just 1 columnist that speaks for the main campaign issue---inequality and big money in elections---and to the millions of progressives in many states voting for Sanders’ reforms.

The lack of balance shown by the sarcastic dismissal of one of the strongest insurgent candidates in history took the reputation of the Times down, when it was obvious Sanders ideas never got a proper airing.

The ‘young’ progressives are the under 40s, not just 20s. They’ll be a future majority of voters, and readers buying your paper. Is the Times ready to give them ‘all the news that’s fit to print, without fear or favor’, per the founder Adolph Ochs? Like is HRC ready to work for the majority, not the few?

Pearl said...

After a lengthy article in the New Yorker:

"Bernie Sanders Post California Choice by Amy Davidson

who claimed to be an activist supporting Bernie had this to say and reveals her inability to understand Bernie's purpose in life:

'At the end of the speech, before walking off the stage to the sound of David Bowie’s “Starman,” Sanders raised his fist and declared, “The struggle continues!” It is a slogan that leaves open the question of which struggle, exactly, and against whom.'

So much for so called activists.

Anonymous said...

Tired bargirl here: the odd part of the Davidson article that Pearl referenced is that if you are a Sanders supporter, you will like Hillary even less after reading her criticism of Sanders. Neither can you feel any special fondness for Davidson after reading that.

We should all take a deep breath - and keep fighting.

I can't pretend to know how Sanders supporters will vote in November - I don't even know how I will vote. But in the midst of all this hoopla about how wonderful it is that a woman is finally the presumptive clincher for the Dem nomination, I can't help but think that Hillary's hawkishness makes her a feminist non-starter to me. Quick - someone ask the women of Honduras (whom Secretary Clinton betrayed) how they feel about this feminist milestone. I can't understand overlooking that for the sentimental idea of a feminist moment. Add to that the reality that Hillary's policies are unfair to American workers, half of which presumably are... women. How this is feminist is beyond me, and even beyond my more doctrinaire feminist mother.

As depressing as the news was last night, I felt cheered by the morning news - 1) Sanders isn't quitting (in response I sent the Sanders campaign another ten bucks on my credit card) and 2) the California numbers are closer than they were when I went to sleep.

Those of us who support Sanders can take comfort in his steadfastness against incredible pressure from the DNC and no doubt all sorts of assorted power brokers we don't even know about. His ability to out-raise Clinton with lots of tiny donations from bargirls and repairmen, teachers and nurses, is frankly thrilling. There's no excuse for Hillary to take Goldman Sachs money. None at all. Bernie Sanders has been really brave and really tough. I really admire him. That's a hell of a campaign schedule to take on at 74. I feel tired just thinking about it, but he really proved himself, and I'm grateful he's still in there.

The people I work with who are most viscerally unnerved by the notion of a Trump presidency (and thus most vulnerable to the Clinton song) are my Latino co-workers. Their profound anxiety over the fights that broke out at the latest Trump rally in San Jose last week was reminiscent of the old Jewish anxiety (this can't be good for us!) They're kind of tough guys, but they were genuinely unnerved by the fighting they saw on TV - their nervous in-group discussion about it made me feel like we are really in one of those odd historical moments, kind of like overhearing the guys in the mailroom during the Rodney King riots. They would be the most likely to vote for Hillary, but as much as they have bought into their own version of the American dream, they are not all yet citizens, and thus robbed of a vote. I'm still not sure they wouldn't prefer Sanders.

Jay–Ottawa said...

OK, here's the cynical worm's eye view of what Bernie's game will be at the convention. (Some of this I found in the foreign press but there with a more positive slant.)

Bernie will fight hard at the convention for the abolition, or great diminishment, of the DNC's superdelegate reserve, which now amounts to about 715 delegates or 20% of the total delegates. Yup, he will be allowed to win that one. Cheers, fist pumps.

Bernie will also be allowed to cut loose, but not during prime time, with his anti-Wall Street, anti-corporate rant, God bless him. Cheers, fist pumps. His proposals along those lines will be duly carved into the party's platform of ideals. Hillary will nod in approval, kinda, then, like her predecessor in the White House, she will forget all about that stuff once she sits down behind the big desk in the Oval Office.

Having scored such great reforms within the Democratic Party, Bernie will then interrupt the delegate count just as it is clear it is about to crown Hillary. Bernie will get hold of a mic on a point of order––"the chair recognizes the senator from the great state of Vermont"––to salute her as the party's new standard bearer. Cheers, fist pumps. "We fought like cats and dogs, but, me and Hillary, we're brother and sister in the fight against Trump." (Brace yourself for that kind of talk on the last day.) All sides having been heard and all views having been taken into account, the convention will close with a party united. Cheers, fist pumps.

Anonymous said...


TBG here - that sounds like a likely scenario for Sanders. He's promised from the beginning that he would do everything in his power to prevent Trump from taking power. He duly needs to stand by his word - it's written into his character.

But... what about those of us who continue to support him? You can say the party is united, but those of us who are living just above hand-to-mouth aren't going to fall so easily into line.

What I mean is, those of us who support Bernie also agree with Bernie that "this isn't about him." Just because he's Fated to fulfill his promise to support the nominee doesn't mean WE have to vote for Hillary.

Recently the NYT did an article on the class divide in Silicon Valley. The low-level, college-educated "kids" who toil in the lower positions at the tech firms, and women like me who serve them, aren't going along to get along in this election BECAUSE that's what we have to do every day at work and it has gotten us nowhere.

Name two of the most prominent tech entrepreneurs. (I can't, because I'll lose my bread and butter.) We hosted buyouts for each one of them separately last winter. I wasn't there for the second, but for the first. The ratio of female to male guests, and thereby the ratio of the firm itself, was approximately 5:95. That's right, the firm was 95% male, and the female staff, such as it was, was all 20-something support staff. "Because women don't have the programming skills" for the jobs, I was told by one of the men. Even if that were true, it was impossible not to notice during the conversations at table over the course of the party just how many of the attendees weren't programmers at all but marketing and content people - and they were all men.

Later, one of the women, whose outfit revealed a torso that would put an Olympic gymnast to shame, fell off her barstool. The barstool itself came to a crashing thud on the floor. Everyone laughed, then pretended it hadn't happened. (A very sensible strategy, when you think about it.) But the noise rattled the staff, including myself, as we are charged with insuring guests are comfortable and safe at all times. And we had essentially failed.

What was more rattling was being my age, and female, and serving a nearly all-male party. If I were a stripper, at least I would have known what to expect in terms of ratios. But I have literally never seen such a dramatic gender imbalance at a proper firm. I felt like a black Pullman Porter in the 1950s - glad to have a job that kept my head above water, but slowly gagging on the apartheid nature of the system I served. Hey... wasn't it Pullman Porters who funded so much of the civil rights actions?

The upper echelon tech guys aren't funding Bernie. But much of the staff that serves them does. Forget about how I'm going to vote, but do you really think kids who toil for men like that are going to vote for Hillary in November? How many bargirls and busboys can look at Hillary's record and say, "Wow, she really represents me!" How many teachers and nurses can do the same thing? Not when the housing is this scarce, and the options for work are so meager.

United party? It can be as united as it wants, it doesn't mean we'll stay in it.

Jay–Ottawa said...


I never meant to imply I would vote for Clinton or that I hoped for unity in Democratic ranks. And my own fist pumps are a mocking cover for a completely different gesture.

Of course, I'll never vote for Trump, either as the lesser-of-two evils (which he might well be) or out of revenge against the DNC and Hillary. My point was that for most middle road and left leaners the DNC and Hillary will get away with their con at the con-vention, and Bernie will be allowed some face-saving routine that will also pass the smell test for most people.

Savvy citizens like you and me will not vote Rep or Dem. We'll go Third Party, but with little hope of victory for the good, strong and true. That makes me sad. I feel sorry for young people like yourself who struggle towards justice and still hope in hopeless people and who continue to buy into the side-car con of the Berne with donations you can hardly afford to a pretty nice pol (Sanders) whose definition of "revolution" is much different from mine, and probably yours, and which (his definition) is in no way adequate to benefit the majority of Americans at home--or people worldwide as one keeps an eye on foreign policy.

If Bernie endorses Clinton along the lines I described, he will have sheepdogged many left voters for the Dems, whether he intended to or not. His rants about economic injustice were only a beginning but not enough. Shaming the superdelegate count down is not enough. Nudging Hillary a bit left is not enough.

And the people, like you and me, who reject the con will decide to walk, but our numbers won't add up to much either. The best result I can seriously hope for now, what will hold my interest through the general election, is that the Greens may grow big enough in numbers sufficient to obtain public funding in future elections. After which––maybe––people like Jill Stein will be able to afford a real soapbox from which to reach the citizenry.

That's what Bernie will have accomplished: he will have made it clear to many of the young and the already alienated that they should never again expect a fair shake from the Duopoly. For that I thank him. But it's still not enough, and it's far short of what he should have attempted. And for that I will always blame him.

Pearl said...

Jay: I understand your feelings of despair but I don't agree with your criticism of Bernie. He did the best one can do under the restraints and attacks and loyalty to his followers. He awakened the thoughts of throwing off the yoke of capitalism as practiced in the U.S. which is a giant step forward and he has earned respect from many in the Democratic party whose consciousnesses finally showed them what a real mensch can be (even impressing Obama).
The U.S. will not be the same and even Trump's contributions have stirred others although in the wrong direction.
It is now up to the citizens, young and old like us, to continue the path he has opened doors to and continue the good fight for change.
I urged him to fight to the end and not relinquish his vision under party duress and I think that will happen.
I will miss his presence on my TV and computer which has little
to offer otherwise but hope that the spirit of his work will come forward from some of the others he has asked us to support.
I would like to say I am happy to be in Canada, but recent interactions with the medical system have exposed extreme problems as in the U.S. which has affected my health and which I have informed Karen about. If I get a chance and a suitable article appears, will fill in the facts that exist and which you may know about. Unfortunately Canada is also a capitalist country where the almighty dollar determines who survive and who don't.

Pearl said...

P.S. I am not voting for Hillary and urge others to do the same. Should Trump become president it may further awaken the citizenry and force change sooner.

annenigma said...

Trump should choose his daughter Ivanka as VP. I bet she's perfectly capable given the nature of the VP job and her own experience as a business executive with a degree in Economics. She'll be 35 years old in October and is a woman. How can you beat that? If Joe Biden and Dan Quayle can do the job, anyone can. I'd like to see fresh new blood come into D.C. and I bet a lot of voters would too. They'd be a shoo-in and it would drive the Establishment absolutely nuts!

I'd vote for two Trumps over two (or three) Clintons any day. Bill will essentially have the run of the White House as POTUS while Hillary flies around in her Dr. Evil uniform (ala Mike Myers only with hair) overseeing all her new wars in between attending fund raisers. I'm sure Chelsea will have a major role helping Bill as they groom her for 2024.

Count me as one who will most definitely NOT vote for Hillary Clinton. She doesn't have my vote, never has, and never will, so no one should be labeled 'spoiler' when she loses.

Let her bask in the glory of her media-hyped bogus 'win' of the nomination, because it's going to be all over in 5 months. Then it's Grandma time.

voice-in-wilderness said...

When Hillary is elected, what happens to her role in the Clinton Foundation? Will there be some misdirection to pretend that her new job is independent of it?

Anonymous said...

Hi Pearl,

TBG here. I nearly cried reading your considered defense of Sanders. It really moved me. You're a tough customer (I mean that as a compliment) and anytime you give a politician credit, I know it's carefully assessed. You say he is a mensch - he is that, and more.

I believe that Sanders piggybacked on the Occupy movement in a good way, this is a group effort. He has said the right things for so many decades, and finally the country was ready to listen. He saw his moment, the manner in which he could contribute and even lead, and he seized it. Thankfully!

Is he perfect? No, but he has enlivened the young. I wish I could tell you how important I think passing that baton is. I had to explain who Joe Hill was to some of my younger colleagues, but when they were told, they looked him up on wikipedia, and being involved in the Sanders campaign, they were receptive to his activism. (I just wish "I Dreamed I Saw Joe Hill Last Night" was a catchier song, but you can't have everything.)

As for Jay's comment that I can ill afford donations to the Sanders campaign: There's no movement without sharing. I was so moved by the newsreel that emerged of Sanders' arrest for civil disobedience over school segregation, and so grateful for his voice over the years. $240 in ten dollar donations from me - I was happy to give that. I was honored to give that to Sanders' campaign, especially since it showed the power of small people like myself when we band together. I do believe the shared sacrifice of the Pullman porters is an example. Just because I have to serve an inherently unfair system to survive doesn't mean I can't help people who are enacting change.

(I live not so far from Petaluma, which was ground zero for Jewish socialist chicken farmers in the 20th century. Like the Pullman porters, they could ill afford their donations to all sorts of causes, but IT WOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE NOT TO PARTICIPATE!)

Spartacus didn't win either. Confucius killed himself because he couldn't get people to treat each other better. Medgar Evers was assassinated, and so was MLK and Malcolm X. And yet, without them, the world would be a less inspiring place.

There's not always a clear victory, but for young kids to see a 74-year-old dude saying and doing the right thing for so many decades - and not giving up even though people mocked him from every side. Now they have a model in Sanders of how, even when you are one of the few people saying the right thing, you can persevere FOR DECADES if necessary, and if your numbers are good, you can effect change.

Thank you for your support of Bernie Sanders, Pearl. Today is critical, he is meeting with Obama and the pressure will be intense. I don't know if he will buckle, but I'm so proud and grateful that he made it this far.

Anonymous said...

TBG re-posting comment from RLS on the NY Times comment page on Obama endorsement of Clinton - I didn't know my state hadn't finished counting ballots - other comments on that page suggest that Obama endorsement of Clinton is a tacit message to the FBI not to indict:

RLS is a trusted commenter Virginia 3 minutes ago
It depends on what one’s definition of qualified is. People are sick and tired of corporatists. Sanders is a New Deal Democrat. That’s why he has energized millions of people who feel that Washington does not represent them.

By the way, California is not done counting ballots.

California Primary: Millions of Vote-by-Mail Are Still Uncounted, Will Alter the Final Count:

“Shocking to most of the Americans who were watching the polls Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning, the California Elections Code requires that the official canvass (that will include all valid vote-by-mail ballots) must begin no later than the Thursday following the election. This official canvass of the California primary is required by law to be open to the public and is permitted to take up to 30 days following the day of the election. This year, that final canvass would be due on July 7.

“This canvass is required to include all valid vote-by-mail ballots, provisional ballots that were not already included, and valid write-in votes.”

Anonymous said...

tbg here:

just listening to dana frank on amy goodman:

this needs to be brought to the convention in Philly this July. Secretary Clinton has the blood of Berta Caceres on her hands.

Bill Sprague said...

Even though you shreik a lot, and I once sent you money (the "TIP" jar) I have deleted the button on my browser that goes to your blog. I'm tired of reading your anger. I am not registered as either a Dem or a Repuke and it is WAY PAST TIME for Amerika to have more than just two political parties. I will write in Mr. Sanders regardless of what he does or does not do or whether he is or is not on the ballot or whether he was a disappointment or not. O. is a waste and HRC will be a waste as well - and yet I voted for O. each time - and even though his historical position, just like with HRC, is "assured" it will make no difference to me. Money wins every time, right?

Pearl said...

I hope getting Bernie's consent to cooperate with Hillary means he was offered a reward. Hopefully, he will not accept anything less than Secretary of State and show Hillary how it can be done. I will suggest it to him.

And thank you tbg here for your kind words. Bernie reminds me of my beloved father, a real Socialist, who fought his whole life against the corruption around him and when he was dying said to me, I hope I find a better place out there, and he wasn't talking about Heaven.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Just took a glance at a Wall Street Journal article and then another in The New Republic. It's all about Bernie (and his primary team) indicating that after the DC primary, they'll all link up in the spirit of unity with Hillary to defeat Trump. Meanwhile, from a friend who's more into the news, I understand that the Greens somehow tendered an offer to Bernie, with Jill Stein offering to step aside to support a third party effort led by Bernie––if he cares to go down that road. Which will it be: the Lady or the Tiger?

The wheel is turning, ladies and gentlemen. Place your bets, please. Place your bets.

Will said...

I say there's absolutely ZERO chance Bernie leads a 3rd party effort. Who's a good little sheepdoggie? Bernie's a good little sheepdoggie! Wonder what treats his masters are gonna give him now for a job well done.

In all seriousness, I think he was allowed to help start the conversation about democratic socialism in exchange for his sheepdogging duties. Of course the PTB knew he wasn't truly a threat in our brainwashed, maddeningly idiotic society, so they threw him that bone. My hope--and what I believe Bernie's is too--is that his campaign was the proverbial spark that will set fire to this whole goddamn charade of a participatory democracy we live in, and one day, if we're lucky, we can be a teeny tiny little bit more like Canada. Can't wait.

Will said...

P.S. Here's a video for your viewing pleasure. Our neighbors to the north might recognize the two gentlemen playing the parts of Canadian surgeons, Rush's Geddy Lee and Alex Lifeson.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Oh Look! Bernie's once-upon-a-dream potential VP, Senator Elizabeth Warren, is throwing her own image under the bus. She's Hillary's "new sledgehammer."

Pearl said...

Ah yes, Jay.

"I am ready to get in this fight and work my heart out for Hillary Clinton to become the next president of the United States"

I guess the promise or hope of a vice presidency befuddles one's brain cells.

And reading news headlines assures me I am losing my marbles (until Karen writes her column and Bernie makes a choice comment). We have to huddle together to keep our spirits up and wonder what in Hell comes next?
It is even worse reading Truthout or Counterpunch or Intercept or Common Dreams who are telling us what IS happening next and then plead for donations for their dire predictions.
So Bernie, give us a sign for the future in your comments to members and donors if you have any in mind. And please turn down any offers of Ambassadorships to third world countries. You can do better.

Anonymous said...

TBG here,

Some years back Karen wrote a sensible piece about Warren, acknowledging the possibility that Warren could become corrupted or co-opted, or whatever. I made a mental note, and it's been coming back to me over the last few weeks.

I like what Warren's done, but I never had much faith in her to be able to continue on in that manner. Adulation goes to one's head - maybe I'm being unfair to her, but, well, it looks like being called miraculous for so many years may have had a corrosive effect.

Maybe she's got some larger strategy. I can only hope.

Reading "The Devil's Chessboard" about Dulles, it's helping me put this whole Berta Caceres tragedy into perspective.

C. Wright Mills never seemed so right on when you look at the Clintons.

I hope that Caceres mourners show up in Philly for the Demo convention. Maybe I'll get time off and go myself. Nothing against Hillary, but policy-wise, I can't vote for "Nixon in a pantsuit."

Pearl said...

I just received this response from Bernie's website after making a comment about his future. I hope others received it as well who wrote in.


Thank you so much for you note.

The Democratic National Committee issued a clear statement that it is wrong to count the votes of superdelegates before they actually vote at the convention in July --- and they can change their minds between now and then. This includes more than 400 superdelegates who endorsed Secretary Clinton 10 months before the first primaries and caucuses took place and long before any other candidate was in the race.

A key responsibility of the superdelegates is to put forth the Democratic candidate with the best chance of beating the Republican nominee. Bernie explains this at a recent press conference, which can be found here:

Because he is the only candidate who appeals not just to Democrats, but to Independents and Republicans all across this country, Bernie consistently polls nationally as the strongest candidate to beat Donald Trump in the general election. You can review the poll results here: .

As Bernie and his senior campaign staff have said many times - our job between now and the convention is to convince the superdelegates of this fact. We will actively campaign all the way to the Democratic Convention, where our delegates will continue to fight for the important issues at the heart of this movement.

Along with that sentiment, you may find this recent statement of interest:

This campaign has already made history — and with your help, will continue to do so!

Thanks so much for your support!



annenigma said...

That's an encouraging message from Bernie's team. I was afraid he'd fold up like a cheap tent after mob boss Obama and his henchmen worked on him.

I have a feeling that there's some maneuvering going on, specifically to get Bernie out of the picture fast so that when the hammer comes down on Hillary, Bernie won't be the heir apparent. That role goes to.... drum roll please... Joe Biden.

That early fake 'nomination' celebration? It could have been arranged to give Hillary her moment of herstory-making glory before she gets her new striped pantsuit. They all know what's coming - like "Pig-Pen", the Clintons always have a cloud of dirt swirling around them no matter where they go or what they do.

Bernie had better not drop out, not for love or money. The Clintons will probably offer him both.

Anonymous said...

TBG here, in response to Pearl and Ann's latest comments about how long Bernie will stay in, I saw this in the Times this morning by Allessandra Stanley. Now that they've crushed Bernie, we're starting to get nice stories about his staff - in the fashion section, by a TV writer. Why? Maybe A. Stanley hasn't been body-snatched yet.

Jeff Weaver sounds like a good guy, a fact that the Times wouldn't have made when Bernie was still a threat.

Anonymous said...

TBG Again -

Hate to sound like a neurotically broken record, but I Forgot to add that I really think this Honduran coup story was under-reported, but should be getting more attention. It's not just Berta Caceres - Honduras has assassinated more environmental activists than any other nation (even China?) thanks to the coup supported and sustained by Secretary of State Clinton.

The chilling thing is that Caceres had criticized Clinton's support for the coup in 2014, two years before she was assassinated.

Has Clinton discussed Caceres? Why isn't the media demanding that she address her role in creating the environment that made that assassination possible AND address the fact that Caceres made clear she was under threat of assassination and our state department did nothing, nada, zilch to protect her or the other environmental activists.

I heard Greg Grandin on Democracy Now talking about this, but I really think more people should be pushing on this. If Kissinger in a Pantsuit is to become the next POTUS, we at least deserve to hear an explanation for her inexplicable support for the Honduran coup and subsequent assassinations which she knew were inevitable.

I can vote for Jill Stein, fine, but the reality is that Clinton is likely the next POTUS. If we're not demanding answers now while she is still semi-(ha!)-accountable, then she may never be answerable.

BTW, per Amy Goodman, Clinton changed her memoirs in the paperback edition apparently to cover her epic boo-boo in Honduras.

Karen Garcia said...


Suggestion, instead of posting under "Anonymous" simply use the Name/Url option on the "Choose Identity" menu and type in your handle, TBG or Tired Bar Girl or whatever.

Thanks for joining the discussion with your excellent commentary!

I'll be posting something new on Hillary tomorrow.

As far as the Honduras coup is concerned, the Obama administration's biggest beef with the former president was his move to raise the minimum wage. This might have caused similar wage hike demands throughout Central and South America, which would be absolutely counter to the Neoliberal Thought Collective's agenda of keeping the lives of our neighbors to the south nasty, brutish and short. Luckily the coup did not result in the death or disappearance of the Honduran president. He was merely frogmarched out of his house in his pajamas in the middle of the night. It was a kinder, gentler liberal coup that Barack and Hillary and the global oligarchy could easily live with.

For more insight into the Honduran coup and the Clintons' sordid history in Haiti, I recommend "New Confessions of an Economic Hitman." The author, Perkins, has been trashed by the establishment press for years for his alleged "hyperbole" in describing how the US deliberately indebts foreign countries as an integral plank of its foreign policy. But everything he reported about Indonesia and the CIA antics on Diego Garcia, etc, have turned out to be true.

annenigma said...

I heard that in the revised edition of her book, Hillary also wiped clean all references to her support of TPP.

Jay–Ottawa said...

We have been fooled for so long by "progressives" loosely or tightly linked to the DNC. I know you all love Bernie and are sure he has done more good than harm.

No so. And the harm he and others are doing will continue until you and many others start booing him and them and, at very least, stop applauding and sending him and them money.

Pause for a moment and consider this: Bernie came out of the White House meeting with Obama as if he had been taken behind the woodshed. Bernie should have exited in a rant before a bouquet of mics to unmaske Obama, Clinton and the DNC with fury. Bernie's cave is supposed to make you cave, and I fear it's working for most left-leaning dems.

Below, a link to a brilliant article that tells you in some detail what has been going on backstage in the realm of the Democrats. Even an old cynic like me was surprised at some of the names named, like "The Nation" magazine, and the tactics explained. Progressivism as we know it turns out to be a cash cow for smart, articulate climbers who don't give a damn about reform. They just want a six-figure salary in a nice institution saying nice things and all dependably funded by the superrich.

This article was researched and posted in TruthOut back in 2013. We didn't see this or, maybe, we didn't take it seriously back then. We have more reason to take it seriously now. In light of this information, why waste your hopes and money any longer on so-called Progressive Democrats?

Professional Progressive Democrats spend their time making believe. They and their foundations, institutions, publications and clubs are funded by the 1%. Follow the effing money! What these organizations are doing is creating a market for pseudo-movement leaders who keep the rest of us in line, hoping, trusting, even applauding their empty good works. There ain't no big organized attempt to reform anything. Hasn't been for decades. Here's the article that unmasks the charade.

"To oppose the right in a meaningful sense would put them [Progressive Democrats and their institutions] out of business."

Jay–Ottawa said...

Correction: Not TruthOut but COUNTERPUNCH.

Pearl said...

I am sorry to tell you that I have read many articles by Jeffrey St.Clair wondering why he is considered the last word in progressive politics. And I have felt, even before Bernie ran for the presidency that he is more of a threat to honest progressives and their agendas than he claims Bernie is. Yes, there are many like Howard Dean, or The Nation, and other so called progressives who ran for their egos and backed out when the going got tough who are still asking for donations.

And as for some of the accusations in this article about Bernie and an infamous crime bill, his only way and for others as well, to get any kind of legal improvements has to be tacked onto bills that may create problems. I believe I read or heard Bernie's explanations of how things work in congress and when he is being blamed for creating the results of a Crime bill it is because a comparatively small item of his which had importance in another area which was in it ties him in with the results. Hillary used this also to criticize him.

Now you can say there are other ways of changing current regulations than what he has tried to do but this requires an honest investigation of what the results really are and which I would like to know more about. I remember him showing a long list on TV of his Congressional accomplishments and when published, were quite impressive. Evidently this method of changing things does work to a certain extent and better than if it is left out or singly submitted for a vote.

Besides, I have always reacted negatively to Jeffrey for reasons I don't recall at the moment but may look into. Among other things, an arrogance and superiority which turns me off.

And we cannot change things in the U.S. by even completely throwing out many so called liberals who attack the left wing adding to the animosity among many organizations that should work together. I think Jeffrey's vision is more unreal than anything you can accuse Bernie of and more divisive, imitating the establishment agenda.

I hope this brings up some interesting comments on Sardonicky.

Pearl said...

I have just read Stauber's column of 2013 you mentioned in Counter Punch and find no connections in thought or political base of well funded so called liberal organizations of the past involving Bernie's present thinking or actions since he was an unknown presidential aspirant then.

Bernie has held the same personal views and thoughts throughout his life which are his alone, other than influences from the past which have demonstrated what works and doesn't for the average citizen. I also do not connect with the huge list of such organizations as well and although they fund groups that attract people of all liberal like persuasions for establishment purposes, they do not affect me or what Bernie represents currently.

His amazing attraction to so many people explains the understanding of how he projects the problems and possible solutions of our country without interference with other controlling groups,including the establishment and it is difficult to understand your point of view as a result by using this article for reference.

Stauber's article is truthful on that specific topic of funding so called liberal organizations in 2013, but Bernie was never involved then and I doubt would be today. I wonder if Stauber feels the same way you do presently. His person of criticism at the time seems to have been Obama who supported some of the funding.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Bernie supports Obama, and now Bernie supports Clinton. He always said he would. Obama and Clinton support and are at peace with radical income disparity, war, the ACA, secret trade agreements, and the curtailment of civil liberties, among other things. Therefore, Bernie supports ….(fill in the blank)….

Stauber's article in CounterPunch explained in 2013––not so long ago in practical politics––the mechanism of how progressivism came under the management of mercenaries loyal to big money for their paychecks, and how millions of well-intentioned and trusting people, despite the evidence, historical and in their face, can be mislead into steadfastly looking up to faux progressives. True, the three politicians mentioned above have distinctive markings, differences in size, and they glide along in a different way, but they're all caimans from the same pond.

Pearl said...

Should Bernie, at the Democratic convention, expose all the voting hi jinks of Hillary, which will clearly indict her and the DNC effectively, convince you that Bernie is not in their employ?

And does his recent speech after the California voting when he barely acknowledged her existence indicate love and a pledge of loyalty to her Coronation?

As for his meeting with Obama, could he not have set down terms for his demands for basic changes and improvements in the Democratic party without giving up anything involving his own agenda he has spoken of continuously?

Jay–Ottawa said...

My skepticism is no match for your loyalty. Let's see what happens in Philadelphia in July.

Neil said...

Link to image of Bernie Sanders being arrested at a 1963 anti-segregation protest in Chicago. He was later found guilty of resisting arrest and charged $25.

I could not locate photos of either HRC or Trump being arrested at any civil rights protests.

Also see, Bernie Sanders, Wikipedia

Early political activism

"While at the University of Chicago, Sanders joined the Young People's Socialist League (the youth affiliate of the Socialist Party of America),[33] and was active in the Civil Rights Movement as a student organizer for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.[18][34] Under Sanders's chairmanship, the university chapter of CORE merged with the university chapter of SNCC.[35] In January 1962, Sanders led a rally at the University of Chicago administration building to protest university president George Wells Beadle's segregated campus housing policy. "We feel it is an intolerable situation when Negro and white students of the university cannot live together in university-owned apartments," Sanders said at the protest. Sanders and 32 other students then entered the building and camped outside the president's office, performing the first civil rights sit-in in Chicago history.[36][37] After weeks of sit-ins, Beadle and the university formed a commission to investigate discrimination.[38] Sanders once spent a day putting up fliers protesting against police brutality, only to eventually notice that a Chicago police car was shadowing him and taking them all down.[39]"

"Sanders attended the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, where Martin Luther King, Jr. gave his "I Have a Dream" speech.[18][39][40] That summer, he was convicted of resisting arrest during a demonstration against segregation in Chicago's public schools and was fined $25.[32][41]"

"In addition to his civil rights activism during the 1960s and 1970s,[42] Sanders was active in several peace and antiwar movements. He was a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee and the Student Peace Union while attending the University of Chicago. Sanders applied for conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War; his application was eventually turned down, by which point he was too old to be drafted. Although he opposed the war, Sanders never criticized those who fought and has been a strong supporter of veterans' benefits.[43][44]"