Over the weekend, Bernie Sanders grabbed three successive landslide victories in Alaska, Washington and Hawaii - all by at least 70 % (AK by 82- 18%). But you'd never know it to read the mainstream media which continues to try to render Bernie an "asterisk" candidate. Even the WSJ editorial ('Sanders Gets No Respect', Mar, 25, p. A12) observes:
"The Vermont Senator and his legions can be forgiven for wondering what he has to do to get some political respect"
Adding:
"Mr. Sanders is showing the kind of electoral strength that gives him every right to fight on at least through April's contests and maybe even the convention in July."
Even a hack rag blog like 'Politico' sneered in a piece headlined “Democrats to Sanders: Time to wind it down,” quoting Hillary hag Claire McCaskill: “If the contrast is about what separates us from Donald Trump, then I think it’s fine.”) If they can’t end the race, they’ll settle for ending the debate."
In other words, Bernie is allowed to continue on his campaign if he behaves himself and directs his ire and fire at Trump. But if he aims at Hillary he needs to stop forthwith. Of course, this is nonsense. He's running against Clinton and not Trump (at least not right now). Of course, Bernie should not halt his "Hill hits" given as he noted in an email received this a.m. she is holding a big NYC fundraiser tonight with financial investment firm Morgan Stanley, at $27,000 a head. This coziness needs to be more widely known especially by her black and brown supporters.
Even Obama has played this game and while not specifically naming Sanders, has opined on the need for Dems to soon "come together". (A NY Times story headlined “Obama Privately Tells Donors Time Is Coming to Unite Behind Hillary” had Obama telling DNC high rollers to “come together.” In it Obama “didn’t explicitly call on Sanders to quit” but a “White House official” confirmed his “unusually candid” words)
It is this yen to prematurely coronate Hillary as the de facto D -nominee that so enrages Sanders' supporters. It even leads them to say - as Susan Sarandon did on 'All In' two nights ago - that they can't be sure they will plump for Hillary if Bernie is not the nominee. Sarandon went so far as to tell Chris Hayes it might actually be best if Trump wins to incite the real political revolution, i.e. a la the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution that overthrew the Czar. The reasoning being it would finally take that level of debasement and ruination for people to wake the fuck up and find the will to change the status quo.
Other pundits, when confronting Bernie in interviews, have asked if he will now "back off" going negative on Hillary as not to do so may damage her run in the general election, Sanders in each case has robustly defended his modus operandi, especially noting the import of campaign finance reform as it drives corrupt government initiatives.
While he may not win the 2016 nomination, he is winning the hearts and minds of Democratic voters and Independents. And with his growing popularity, particularly among millennial voters, it has not been surprising to see some liberals dusting off red-scare tactics from the ash heap of history.
According to the WSJ editorial this is no mere smokescreen and Bernie has a decided advantage over Hillary if either one faced Trump. According to the WSJ:
"In the Real Clear Politics voting average, Mr. Sanders leads Mr. Trump by 17.5 points and Mr. Cruz by 8.4. Mrs. Clinton leads Mr. Trump by 11.2 and Mr. Cruz by only 2.9 "
But Clinton's surrogates are only prepared to try to knock Sanders down, despite the fact this may cost them up to 60 percent of his current supporters, according to a NY Times/ CBS poll. In January, for example, Clinton allies prepared a dossier to paint Sanders as a Soviet-sympathizing communist, while her surrogates have been vocal about his “radical” left-wing politics. “[Republicans] can’t wait to run an ad with a hammer and sickle,” said Missouri Senator and Clinton supporter Claire McCaskill, while Clinton surrogate and former Republican attack dog David Brock spoke plainly: “He’s a socialist… He’s got a 30 year history of affiliation with a lot of whack-doodle ideas."
This is the thanks Bernie gets for not raising the issue of her emails, and a possible future indictment. It is also what alienates his supporters to ever throw their weight behind Hillary no matter how Bernie may plead for them to do so. It is now convenient for most of these attackers to conveniently forget, as Bill Curry wrote:
According to the WSJ editorial this is no mere smokescreen and Bernie has a decided advantage over Hillary if either one faced Trump. According to the WSJ:
"In the Real Clear Politics voting average, Mr. Sanders leads Mr. Trump by 17.5 points and Mr. Cruz by 8.4. Mrs. Clinton leads Mr. Trump by 11.2 and Mr. Cruz by only 2.9 "
But Clinton's surrogates are only prepared to try to knock Sanders down, despite the fact this may cost them up to 60 percent of his current supporters, according to a NY Times/ CBS poll. In January, for example, Clinton allies prepared a dossier to paint Sanders as a Soviet-sympathizing communist, while her surrogates have been vocal about his “radical” left-wing politics. “[Republicans] can’t wait to run an ad with a hammer and sickle,” said Missouri Senator and Clinton supporter Claire McCaskill, while Clinton surrogate and former Republican attack dog David Brock spoke plainly: “He’s a socialist… He’s got a 30 year history of affiliation with a lot of whack-doodle ideas."
"Social reforms enacted throughout the 20th century in “liberal” states would have never come about without strong popular movements, made up largely of socialists and Marxists.
The other issue with the doltish Red scare mongers that pisses me off, is their lack of historical knowledge that Socialists have already successfully governed in this country! If more Americans knew about this history fewer would get hernias on hearing the S-word. Indeed, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where I lived from 1946 -1956, the level of public benefits and amenities would never have emerged without the election of its 3rd Socialist Mayor Frank Zeidler. (Emil Seidl became Milwaukee's first Socialist Mayor in 1910, followed by Daniel Hogan who lasted from 1916-1940 keeping the city out of debt during the Great Depression).
Zeidler in his mayoral election campaign noted the problem of ethnic division in other parts of the country and how this was exploited – especially by wealthy Republicans- to keep working class people divided. Zeidler vowed that if elected he’d ameliorate these divisions and ensure all Milwaukeean Working class folks benefited – whether Croatian, German, Polish or whatever. Zeidler ended up winning three terms, enduring from 1948 until 1960 and turning Milwaukee into a prosperous post-war city.
Jobs proliferated, especially in major manufacturing (Allis –Chalmers etc.) while the Breweries hired thousands with excellent pay and benefits, including health care. Housing abounded as well, affordable housing off of Greenfield Ave. and Teutonia and in other suburbs to the north and west. Parks, meanwhile, were the envy of many other cities for their beautiful layouts, amenities and services.
Crime was almost non-existent, despite Milwaukee reaching a population of 747, 000 by 1960. Zeidler also provided health care through the city, so no one needed to go broke to get any treatment. Like all REAL Socialists, Zeidler believed health care was a right, not merely having health insurance!. Education also benefited, and Milwaukee’s schools became some of the fin
All of which leads one to concur with Bill Curry when he writes:
"Bernie Sanders must stay in the race not only till the convention but till the end of whatever ballot nominates him or Hillary Clinton. He must do so because he and not she would make the stronger candidate and the better president. Regardless of how the next primaries, he should do it because his campaign isn’t just a revolution, it’s a movement that must outlast this election."
See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gaius-publius/66651/tom-cahill-democratic-party-is-in-for-a-shellacking-if-they-nominate-clinton-heres-why
The other issue with the doltish Red scare mongers that pisses me off, is their lack of historical knowledge that Socialists have already successfully governed in this country! If more Americans knew about this history fewer would get hernias on hearing the S-word. Indeed, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where I lived from 1946 -1956, the level of public benefits and amenities would never have emerged without the election of its 3rd Socialist Mayor Frank Zeidler. (Emil Seidl became Milwaukee's first Socialist Mayor in 1910, followed by Daniel Hogan who lasted from 1916-1940 keeping the city out of debt during the Great Depression).
Zeidler in his mayoral election campaign noted the problem of ethnic division in other parts of the country and how this was exploited – especially by wealthy Republicans- to keep working class people divided. Zeidler vowed that if elected he’d ameliorate these divisions and ensure all Milwaukeean Working class folks benefited – whether Croatian, German, Polish or whatever. Zeidler ended up winning three terms, enduring from 1948 until 1960 and turning Milwaukee into a prosperous post-war city.
Jobs proliferated, especially in major manufacturing (Allis –Chalmers etc.) while the Breweries hired thousands with excellent pay and benefits, including health care. Housing abounded as well, affordable housing off of Greenfield Ave. and Teutonia and in other suburbs to the north and west. Parks, meanwhile, were the envy of many other cities for their beautiful layouts, amenities and services.
Crime was almost non-existent, despite Milwaukee reaching a population of 747, 000 by 1960. Zeidler also provided health care through the city, so no one needed to go broke to get any treatment. Like all REAL Socialists, Zeidler believed health care was a right, not merely having health insurance!. Education also benefited, and Milwaukee’s schools became some of the fin
All of which leads one to concur with Bill Curry when he writes:
"Bernie Sanders must stay in the race not only till the convention but till the end of whatever ballot nominates him or Hillary Clinton. He must do so because he and not she would make the stronger candidate and the better president. Regardless of how the next primaries, he should do it because his campaign isn’t just a revolution, it’s a movement that must outlast this election."
See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gaius-publius/66651/tom-cahill-democratic-party-is-in-for-a-shellacking-if-they-nominate-clinton-heres-why
No comments:
Post a Comment