Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Just a Spoonful of Bernie Helps the Hill Pill Go Down


The rage was everywhere you looked on both the Philly convention floor and out on the steaming streets on Monday. And justifiably so.

Therefore, may quisling Bernie Sanders's pathetic plea for his delegates and fans to behave and not make a mockery of him, personally, fall upon millions of deaf ears. If it's got to be a Bernieless burn, then so be it. A real revolution doesn't begin by falling down insensate and pledging to elect a deeply corrupt politician to (if she is truly as blessed as she constantly says she is) a White House reign that is not cut as short as those of her fellow lying war-mongers, Nixon and Johnson. 

"This is a real world we live in," an abject Sanders told a crowd of booing supporters as he urged mindless public fealty to the Clintonian version of trickle-down capitalism.  This re-endorsement was despite Wikileaks' release of the trove of emails proving that the Democratic Party is a corrupt institution, with  access to money and power for its own ends its only goals. This was despite evidence that party flacks had conspired against Bernie Sanders, personally.

As the saying goes, shit always flows downhill. Bernie took his own generous personal portion and let it flow right down to his millions of fans.

His big speech on Monday night, effusively praising Clinton, left me wondering why he'd wasted all his personal energy in the first place, why he hadn't been loudly and vocally supporting Hillary Clinton all along. His original campaign rhetoric is now lost somewhere in the ozone

 Of course, nobody should have been surprised. Least of all me, who warned from the outset not to put all our eggs into one Bernie Basket, lest the "sheepdogging" role ascribed to him by Black Agenda Report turned out to be all too true. I'd stopped feeling the Bern altogether during one of this spring's interminable town halls, when he blandly supported President Obama's drone assassination program and promised that it would continue under a Sanders presidency.

After that, god forgive me, the sound of his voice sounded like fingers across a blackboard. But yes, I still would have held my nose and voted for him.

 From the start of his campaign, of course, the writing was right there on the blackboard. He'd vowed from the outset to endorse Clinton when and if she seized the nomination. I think what happened then is that the throngs of adoring fans and their millions of small donations went to his head. His true, initial purpose of herding more cattle into the party corral was temporarily lost in a cash deluge of historic proportions and the seductive glare of the stage lights. He played the part of lonely outlaw for so long that even he started believing in his fictional character, especially once he won New Hampshire by double digits.

Meanwhile, there are about a hundred more days to go to Election Day. The manipulators of public consent would like nothing better than for us to put our struggling lives on hold for the duration, to root for a greater or lesser evil.  And then the whole thing will get started again on Inauguration Day 2017, if not before.

So let the revolution continue in the Bernie-Free Zone. At this point, he is only an impediment.

Let's give Jill Stein a look. A protest vote today can always lead to a meaningful vote in the future.

And next time an annoying Hill Pill tells you to grow up or shut up for wanting Medicare for All and a living wage law, congratulate them on their affordable pragmatism and then hit them up for a donation to a medical charity, a food bank, or StrikeDebt.


Opposition Pearl said...

If Bernie had denounced Hillary and encouraged his supporters to not vote for her, his name would be mud and never seen or heard from again in the media. He has everyone's attention and praise now and most of all for his reminders of what has to change clearly and strongly. He is forcing Hillary to pay attention to a more progressive agenda more and more and praising her makes it more difficult for her to ignore his agenda. This is political reality and he is playing it to the hilt.
The TPP issue is alive and well with his supporters and will continue to be removed from the Democratic agenda.
Should he have backed off from supporting her and she lost the election to Trump his name would be worse than mud and would join the ranks of booed democrats like Debbie. And don't tell me I am a sheepdog supporter and an excuser for Bernie's desertion. He has kicked the door open for people like yourselves to get inside the system and push for change which will never happen with third parties in this lifetime. Watch his real activities on 'Our Revolution' which will force a Hillary presidency to move toward him rather than vice versa. There are many ways to skin a cat and he needs help to do the skinning. He is a very clever politician and knows how to manipulate the opposition to a meaningful agenda. Time will indeed tell.

Reality Pearl said...


I am not voting for Hillary. Probably for Jill Stein.

Pearl said...

And joining his 'Our Revolution'.

annenigma said...

The fix was in for Hillary to be nominated from the moment she conceded to Obama. How did she manage such a sweet deal after losing to him? Not only did he pay off her campaign debts but he named her as Secretary of State. She wasn't the most qualified for that office, but she got it. Let's back up a bit to those days.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz was chosen at that time by Obama to succeed Tim Kaine as Chairperson of the DNC even though she was very unpopular. I can't find the video of it anywhere, but I recall there being a big brouhaha when the DNC had their meeting to confirm Obama's (Hillary's?) choice. They held a voice vote and Debbie actually lost as evidenced by the Nays, similar to the Boos we heard whenever Hillary's name was mentioned yesterday. However, Tim Kaine I believe (I only recall it was a man) declared she was the winner and immediately gaveled the meeting closed before a roll call vote could be taken. Delegates were furious and frustrated but there was nothing they could do at that point, kind of like the feeling of Berniebros over the email hack.

So Debbie was rammed down the DNC throat just like Debbie has rammed Hillary down ours. I don't believe anything is a coincidence when it comes to the Clintons. As a matter of fact, I strongly suspect their opposition research from the 2008 dug up some dirt on Obama that was too personal or toxic to use publicly without it blowing up in their face, but had great value privately as leverage, and Billary used it to great effect.

Hillary is now at the White House door standing hand in hand with her loyal, faithful servant Tim Kaine, waiting to be ushered back into power thanks to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz and her backroom machinations along with a complicit corporate media.

No one knows power like the Clintons!

Jay–Ottawa said...

So.... Contrary to the old maxim, the revolution was indeed televised, mainly because that was no revolution.

It was surreal. Bernie repeated many of his campaign lines on economic issues, assuring us that he had assurances that his reforms had assuredly been grafted onto the donkey's hide. He did this before convention leaders whose every effort has been, is and will continue to be dedicated to furthering the neoliberal agenda. The Democratic Party has always been a big tent, so big that stark contradictions like this can live together in peace under its canopy.

Bernie went further to assure us that the chief water carrier for Wall Street and the pirate world of corporatists, Hillary Clinton, had heard his resounding message and would enact a substantial portion of his program. I'm sure she will try, really, with bills one after another going from the White House to the Congress. Unfortunately, the gerrymandered Republican majorities in Congress will bury such proposed legislation. And, somewhere around 2019, Hillary will be reduced to a sigh and say, "Well, as Bernie knows, I tried. Now, excuse me. I have a lunch date at the Four Seasons with Jamie and Lloyd."

The TV cameras panned the hall often during Bernie's speech. There he was, Bill Clinton, front-row gallery, applauding, smiling, looking great for a guy who got a quadruple bypass twelve years ago. The camera also panned the pit. Lots of Bernie supporters still cheering him. Is there a point beyond which loyalty ceases to be a noble quality? Then other Bernie supporters sitting silently with a blank stare through the whole thing. Then a few young women with lots of tears running down their cheeks, but still holding up "Bernie" cards as if they referred to someone else than they guy who let them down.

I heard and saw no booing after each of Bernie's strange utterances. A fault of old ears, perhaps, or a bad connection? Or had the DNC by then done an excellent job of wearing down the true believers of the Berne? In any event, in a spirit of unity that surpasseth all things, Bernie finished the job he set out to do many months ago.

Pearl said...

Jay your comment about not being able to get bills through Congress even if Hillary sends them in, will change if people support Bernie's efforts to bring in better more progressive representatives and Senators. He is already involved in that shift financially and politically. Again I mention Tim Conova who is battling to remove Debbie from her congressional seat. If he gets financial and supportive help from voters the chances for that effort may pay off. Instead of complaining if progressives would donate to Conova it would help us all.

Kate Flannery said...

I am with you on this Karen, and I know only one Sanders supporter who is going to vote for Clinton.

I refuse to play this self-defeating ugly game any longer - won't vote for any kind of evil.

If HRC loses and it's President Trump, the Democratic Party has only itself to blame. From what I see and hear around me, an awful lot of people are voting for Stein or not voting at all. The establishment is utterly clueless as to how people are feeling and what motivates them. I've had HRC fact-free, supporters tell me - but what about Trump? I tell them, well, then you should have voted and supported the better candidate in the primaries...it's not my fault you helped nominate the worst Democratic candidate in history - that's on you.

I'm just so tired of this whole, idiotic, rhetorically vapid, phony crapshow the elite are trying to shove down our throats. I hope - for once - the people don't obediently get in line and do their mindless part to maximize their own self-destruction (as usual). I'm probably hoping for too much, but a gal can dream.

Jay–Ottawa said...

"Instead of complaining if progressives would donate to Conova it would help us all."

Pearl, you correctly point out that the vital ingredient is money. In that case, we've already lost. The little dollars of the hopeful, even when smartly massed on a dream candidate, may pay off once in a while; but taking into account the big picture, our little dollars can never compete with the big money endlessly flooding the scene and buying the majority of corrupt and near-corrupt politicians.

If the few good people left in the Democratic Party were to leave and begin to add backbone to a third party, the Duopoly might better be recognized for the stinking thing it is. A few good hairs don't swing a poodle back on the path. If Dante were around to day, he'd tack his sign of despair over the entrance of the DNC: Abandon All Hope, Ye Who Enter Here.

Anonymous said...

"Let's give Jill Stein a look. A protest vote today can always lead to a meaningful vote in the future."

Right, time to stop people saying they 'will sit out the election' or that voting third party is 'throwing away your vote'. Third party voting at this time is a protest vote, and it will be arithmetically factored into the total vote and thus dilute the portion of the total popular vote going to the two commercial candidates. If enough people vote third party it can lead to the winner not having a popular mandate just because the electoral college selects them. If enough people would leave the false notion that they have to vote for one of the two commercial candidates then a third party may sooner than later become a reality. After all, the only thing the two parties absolutely agree upon is that they don't want a strong, viable third party.

Ken Wallace said...

I have to take issue with Karen on this one. Bernie had two choices, take his voters and break away as a 3rd party (maybe merge with the Green?) or join the unholy alliance and work it from the inside. He chose the later. With the former, he would have lost some in the break away, greatly increased the possibility of a Trump win and eventually dried up as his $27 dollar donors can't outlast the billionaires. Now he lives to fight another day. Give him a break, he's not a dummy. If Hillary abandons progressives this first term, it will be her last.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Pearl, Whatever you do today, don't––DO NOT––read the 'morning after" essay of Chris Hedges. It's opener has a lot to say about Bernie and it's not nice. You have been warned.

Pearl said...

Jay: If I read Hedges, read Ken Wallace's comment above yours. By the way does anyone know him, and thank you Ken Wallace. I feel less lonely.

Neil said...

Nothing personal, but see this story about Sanders. It explains a lot.


Anonymous said...

Hi Pearl,

Tired Bar Girl here,

Can't stand to see you write that you felt lonely at all. If you are a Sanders supporter who will be voting for Stein or Clinton, you are not at all alone. Regardless of whether you are in a swing state or not, you have lots of company on both sides.

I listened to the debate on Democracy Now! between Hedges and Reich. I love them both, and thought they made great points.

I have the luxury of voting for Stein because I'm in California. After watching the RNC sh*tshow, it was a hard decision. The GOP is a scary bunch, and the inclination is to vote against them, regardless of the fact that the choice is only a lesser evil.

As for the animus demonstrated here toward Sanders, well, it is what it is. I have found it dismaying, but not surprising. Much as I admire Karen Garcia, when she describes Sanders as "quisling" after the Nazi collaborator, I wonder how little personal skin in the game her family had in the debacle that was the Nazi Holocaust. In my family, which barely survived WWII, we do not use the names of Nazi collaborators to describe many people, much less a Jewish civil rights activist like Sanders. I guess because it just seems so execrably stupid. (Sorry, Karen, you're great, but that line wasn't.)

That said, Karen always writes what she thinks at that exact moment, and while I might disagree with her on many points, I do in general admire her skills and her passion. She is right a lot more times than she is wrong.

This has been a bruising primary in a frankly terrifying era. I hate to quote a scum like Cruz, but it brought a smile to my face that the guy got booed for saying something as innocuous as "Vote Your Conscience." So, Pearl, we all gotta vote our individual consciences, and I know however you vote, you do it with strong, clear thinking and a lifetime of supporting the right issues, at no small cost to yourself.

Keep the faith, Pearl. I'm with you, however you vote.

Jamie said...

When you project socialist aspirations onto someone who gifts 700 billion to the F35 fighter, who supports global drone wars, who repeats imperialist lies regarding Russia and the Middle-East, who actively watered down the Fed audit bill, who voted to send Vermont nuclear waste to a poor Texas community, and who has unwavering love for two war criminals that destroyed Libya and Syria... you are bound to be disappointed.

Pearl said...

Neil: Shame on you for sending in a column calling Bernie a bum with other ugly insinuations. Could have come from Trump's entourage. I am surprised it was printed in Sardonicky.
I knew many fine people who struggled financially in their lives while upholding their visions of a greater country which would have jobs for everyone.
You don't have to agree with Bernie, but this is beyond decency. I wish you had censored it Karen. Calling people slobs who have limited means and possessions through no fault of their own is what Trumpites do and exposes you for the snob you are.

And to Jamie: ditto: which accuses Bernie of having unwavering love for two war criminals etc. He was not involved in the decisions of various presidents and Secretaries of State and spoke out about it in his work as a Senator as well as condemning the U.S. destruction of Iraq. We have descended into an ugly mood on our website which anger belongs for the likes of Clintons etc. but not people trying to change the system. This is destroying opportunities for progressive activists who offer our only hope for real change.

Anonymous Bar Girl: thank you for a thoughtful article: you are a breath of fresh air and I can breathe more easily knowing you are around to remind us of how to evaluate the bigger picture and not choke off the work of well meaning courageous citizens.

Carol S. said...

Pearl, I agree with you on your assessment of Bernie Sanders' strategy, and that he's a very clever politician who knows how to manipulate the opposition in hopes for a meaningful agenda. I also think HRC (I can't bring myself to write her name in full) will do precisely as she chooses if she becomes President, but because of everything he's done in his run for President, Bernie Sanders will be there in some capacity to denounce her on every Military Industrial Complex decision she makes, and this time, after all these years of service to the people, everyone will know who he is.

Also, Karen, unless I'm mistaken, when he announced his candidacy as a Democratic Presidential nominee, Bernie Sanders stated he would ultimately support the Democratic candidate, whoever that may be, so I don't believe he betrayed his followers in that respect.

Even Ralph Nader praised him for running as a Democratic and becoming eligible to debate in the Democratic Primaries.

Bernie Sanders has worked harder on this than any of us will ever know. That said, I will not heed his advice but write in his name when I vote for President. I'll never vote for HRC; I want to continue to feel clean as a human being. I will not vote for the very esteemed Jill Stein either, despite my great respect.

While this may be slightly off the subject, I just have to say that I think maybe Bernie and the most admirable and brilliant Chris Hedges may not clearly grasp just how jaded many people in the United States are, with their slave owning (mine included) and/or Puritan roots, and today, the enormous role the media has played to strengthen that corruption. There is not a large enough percentage of people here that unbiased for a successful revolution.

Karen Garcia said...

Carol S,

Yes I have written early and often about Bernie Sanders's vow to support the nominee, including in my most recent post.

The betrayal, in my view, came when he admonished his delegates to sit down and shut up, stop booing, so as not to bring any Establishment opprobrium down upon him, personally.

In May, when asked by the AP about the potential for upheaval and strife at the convention, he condemned the possibility of violence, but he also hastened to add:

"Democracy is not always nice and quiet and gentle."

His de facto denial of loud, messy democracy was the betrayal... just in my own opinion, of course.

I still give Bernie credit for bringing the "socialism" word into the public discourse and getting young people excited about politics. I've said this many times.

As blog readers know, I have always had ambivalent feelings about Bernie Sanders.

Right now I am just royally pissed off at him, I totally admit it, because I care more about the people he let down than I do about the political future and fortunes of Bernie Sanders.

And to what Pearl said - no, I do not believe that an "ugly mood" has descended upon this blog just because Bernie's halo has lost some of its sheen.

Karen Garcia said...


Just for your own edification, I do not "censor" comments here. I do check the section regularly for ads, spambots, ad hominem (ahem)attacks, links to weird sites possibly containing malware and the like... and I, as blog administrator, will remove them as I see fit. (The link you complained about was to an article on a conservative aggregation site that was mainly a rewrite of a Politico piece. I'll let MY blog's readers decide for themselves how much stock to put in it - they're intelligent people.)

Recommended reading: Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury.

Elizabeth Adams said...

It appears that Bernie has already reverted to Independent and won't be raising money for HRC (I can't say her name, either).

The delegate walkout yesterday emptied about half of the seats during the convention. Philadelphia Craigslist has an ad for seat-fillers at $50 per warm body per day so that the mainstream media won't have to limit themselves to close and/or tight shots for the remained of the convention. These people are required to cheer constantly and dress nice while also possibly holding promotional materials.

annenigma said...

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

I know how hard it is to kick the hopium addiction. I'd suffered relapses too, so you all have my deepest sympathy.

Thoughts and prayers,


Neil said...

Pearl, your comment July 27, 2016 at 12:03 PM "By the way does anyone know [Sanders]" is telling in light of your shaming me. I made it clear this was not personal. The story is also found on Politico. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/07/bernie-sanders-vermont-119927

For some time I had read Sanders was not a nice person when dealing with others. Demanding, intemperate, and nasty. A comment by Mike Siroky said "he was a "red diaper" baby". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_diaper_baby

Sanders’ personality is a disaster. He would be a terrible president and get little done because he could not work with people. What successful legislation has carries his name? And why all the secrecy about his past? He struggled financially? So what, many of the readers of this blog struggle financially, including me. If Sanders were smart, he would have spoken about his past, his life and struggles would have humanized him, beyond his cranky old fart image.

Clearly you have lost all sense of reason blindly following Sanders, like this for example: "Calling people slobs who have limited means and possessions through no fault of their own is what Trumpites do and exposes you for the snob you are." I did not call Sanders a slob. Why do you make up this stuff?

Sanders is a one-trick pony. He can rail against the rich and preach socialism, but he is short on details or solutions. How does he plan to deal with the banks? By running up his credit cards to $65,000? (that actually might work if enough people did it, and stopped paying).

I have not heard any of the candidates talk about the only solution for the banks: End the Federal Reserve System, repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 (12 U.S.C. chapter 3). Only the U.S. Congress is authorized by the Constitution to coin money. But Sanders, Trump, and HRC all cower before the privately-owned Federal Reserve, which has hijacked our monetary system. Read Ellen Brown and Web of Debt http://www.webofdebt.com/

And your friend Tim Conova is a lawyer, he should not be running for elected office outside the judicial branch of government. Read the Constitution Pearl, and understand the separation of powers. Listen to the Gettysburg Address, the last part, "and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." Government by the people, Pearl, not government by officers of the court.

BTW, your apoplectic fear of Trump is misplaced. HRC is the evildoer. Trump is a loud-mouth asshole, which accounts for his popularity outside of liberal snowflakes.

Elizabeth Adams said...


Breaking up the big banks: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/04/06/fact-sanders-has-very-clear-plan-how-break-too-big-fail-banks

What has he accomplished: http://addictinginfo.org/2016/02/19/heres-a-long-list-of-bernie-sanders-accomplishments-with-citations/

I haven't heard what you have read regarding his temperament, but it seems like he has had quite a career for someone who has such a purportedly nasty demeanor. Maybe he appears nasty to those who can't corrupt him. And the fact that his name isn't all over the legislation he has assisted with is more a testament to his lack of pretentiousness than a lack of activity or accomplishment.