Greens' Jill Stein: Right About Bernie's Movement Having "No Place" In Democratic Party?

Green party presidential candidate Jill Stein, making a play and plea for Sanders' supporter to come on board.

I was astonished to read in the online Washington Post last night (after the Convention) that Jill Stein was in Philly and making pronouncements outside the Wells Fargo Center to the effect that Bernie's supporters ought to give up on the Democrats.  Jill Stein, of course, is the Green Party candidate for President and she basically said that the Democrats' own actions (including the disgusting  DNC emails) showed that there was no place for a movement such as Bernie's. She then made the case that the more natural place  for "Berners" was with the Greens.

This is a reasonable issue to examine so let's do so. First, IF there is a real place for Sanders' left political movement in the Dem party would they have done everything possible - from the email content and super delegate system- to derail his campaign? I do not believe so! Hence, check off one solid debate point for Ms. Stein.

Next, IF there is a real place for Bernie's energetic supporters in the formal Dem party would Hillary have moved to the center right and named a Neoliberal Wall Street crony as Veep? The answer again must be 'No'.   In fact, I am convinced the naming of Kaine as Clinton's VP pick, a guy known to be against just about every progressive initiative and position, shows the formal Dem Party has zero use for Bernie's people - never mind all the inflated rhetoric last night.

Let's now take a trip back along memory lane to see how and why this distrust of the left emerged and even reached a pinnacle of disrespect during the first Obama term when his aide Rahm Emmanuel sat down with liberals and referred to them as "fucking retarded" for not fully getting behind the Prez' Neolib agenda. See e.g.
https://shadowproof.com/2010/01/26/rahm-emanuel-liberals-are-f-king-retarded/

Real liberals have hated him ever since and also seen Obama for what he really is, a Neoliberal in the disguise of a liberal.

Back to the Democratic Party's genesis of distrust for liberals. This likely commenced with the McGovern presidency in 1972, when the Ds made a big bet and lost to Nixon. They vowed never again to be put in such a position, just as after Mondale's drubbing in 1984 by Reagan led them to confect the center right mutation known as the Democratic Leadership Council, i.e. "New Dems" (read Neoliberal Dems).

To do an end run around future true liberal candidates they implemented a gaming of election rules as well as creation of a "super delegate" system to put a final imprimatur on any "outsider".  True liberals then took stock and decided not to be railroaded by fear ever again. Hence, when Gore showed he disdained liberals by picking the odious neocon Joe Lieberman as running mate in 2000, the most diehard liberals either stayed home or voted Ralph Nader. They are still blamed for "handing the election to Bush" despite the facts that: 1) more than 200,000 Democratic voters voted for Bush in Florida (vastly more than the 57,000 who voted Nader) and 2) Jeb Bush himself knocked over 100,000 black voters off the voting rolls using Choicepoint listing them as felons.

But these election mutations have been minor compared to the rapid move of the entire D Party to the Right which I discussed before, e.g. in my post of May 31. wherein I cited a quote by Noam Chomsky:

“There used to be a quip that the United States was a one-party state with a business party that had two factions: the Democrats and Republicans—and that used to be pretty accurate, but it’s not anymore. The U.S. is still a two-party state, but there’s only one faction, and it’s not Democrats, it’s moderate Republicans. Today’s Democrats have shifted to the right,”

Chomsky's insights are spot on, and as I've posted before, the only reason some perceive me as a Marxist Socialist or "communist" (as opposed to FDR-JFK style liberal) today is because: 1) Their own positions have shifted radically right and 2) they're unaware how the political spectrum shift has been warped by propaganda, revisionist history. (Such as the Rightist trope that JFK was "really a cold warrior" and 'fiscal conservative' when all the evidence indicates this is balderdash,

The Dem mutation toward corporate elitism began when they embraced Neoliberalism via the Democratic Leadership Council  (DLC) in the Reagan era, and 'Fix the Debt' by 2010.  The Party effectively became Republican lite – though they've always tried to make us believe they’re the 2^nd coming of a new progressivism. Which is humbug.

Obama, far from being a true liberal, is merely the latest exponent of this Republican lite thinking, as evidenced by his earlier backing of cuts to Social Security, his support of the TPP, and - his proposal for Medicare cuts (putting more of the expense burden on beneficiaries) in his last budget proposal.

But people, most, are not fooled. I don't know - as I told Janice - whether the fear of Trump will scare enough Sanders' supporters into "getting Dem religion" but Hillary and the Dems certainly haven't helped themselves. Also, as we saw last night with the outpouring of raw emotion for Sanders, when you rope in millions of people - many new to the political system - beware of catching them "on fire" because at the end you may not be able to put all of it out.

The dilemma for the Dems is what to do about Bernie's movement and supporters. If they disrespect them like Emmanuel did then look for them indeed to take their passions to the Greens. Whether they will in this election - pulling the lever for Jill Stein - remains to be seen. A lot depends on how Hillary and her new Veep conduct themselves in the coming weeks and what they say. As one Sanders' supporter put it in the comments following a NY Times piece:

 'Hillary needs to change her policies to cater for them or lose them. It's as simple and fair as that. And yes I know the Trump arguments all too well. But Hillary, if you want Bernie supporters votes, they don't come automatically based on fear of Trump being the alternative. You are going to have to earn those votes with progressive policies (like banning fracking and other critical environmental issues), just as Bernie had to earn his votes."

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/linn-washington/68263/clintonville-reflects-true-horror-of-poverty-in-us-green-party-s-stein-walks-with-poor-while-democr

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/ted-rall/68252/hillary-s-strategy-snub-liberal-democrats-move-right-to-nab-anti-trump-republicans

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/david-swanson/68262/dnc-now-less-popular-than-atheism

DNC Hack Done By "Russians"? Don't Buy It

It figures that the Clinton political strategist and hack Robby Mook, e.g.



 would at some point toss out the BS that "Russians" were behind the DNC hack.  But don't believe it for a second. It is merely an attempt to deflect attention from the content of the emails themselves in order to desperately preserve (or pretend) some sense of unity in the emerging shit storm with Bernie Sanders people at the Democratic Convention. (Some of which we beheld today in various spontaneous protests including one disrupting a DNC breakfast sponsored by the FLA delegation featuring Debbie Wasserman Schultz.)

And, btw, this type of deflection tactic is old hat. Anyone who has spent any time investigating the JFK assassination, for example, has seen it at multiple levels with the disinformationists. For example, the CIA-confected malarkey of "Oswald in Mexico City' which no serious researcher buys.

In this DNC case, numerous other experts (with less air time than the DNC puppets) have already pointed out the sheer difficulty - no matter what the FBI may eventually say - about actually positively identifying the source of the hack. As one expert put it: "Just because you find an AK -47 lying around doesn't mean a Russian was responsible". Same thing with a system hack bearing  "Russian Cyrillic letters in the code". Ever heard of spoofing a hack? When did we see this before? Well with the claimed Sony  hack by N. Korea three years earlier. (Which turned out to be due to a disaffected Sony employee).

Worse, the cyber security firms (like 'CrowdStrike')  and resident "experts" that make these wild claims are often the beneficiaries of   "faith-based attribution"  whereby they skate and are never held accountable when they are wrong. SO pardon me if I don't bite. See also:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160724/17512435054/whether-not-russians-hacked-dnc-means-nothing-concerning-how-newsworthy-details-are.shtml

And:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/news/2016/07/25/experts-hard-prove-russians-behind-dnc-hack/87529230/

Now, back to the Convention!

 '
Postscript.:

Three electrifying speeches, from Michelle Obama, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders mesmerized the Convention crowd but Bernie's was easily the most intense and best. (Finally starting after nearly ten minutes of "Bernie!" chants and much applause). Michelle's speech was mainly for political naifs and spell binding on that score. If you were new to a political convention, the words and delivery were meant to get you ramped up

Waarren''s speech was also good but mainly recycled talking points she's used before, say on her network appearance, including on MSNBC only a few weeks ago.

Bernie's speech was relatively novel, not like his campaign retreads. He noted all the disasters a Trump presidency would bring, as well as the enormous inequality which persists where "the top one tenth of one percent have as much wealth as the bottom ninety percent".  Also of the "grotesque wealth and income inequality" which he believes a "President Hillary Clinton" will address.

Well, one can hope and "hope springs eternal"  as they say. The problem is that with two Neoliberal, pro-market (Wall Street friendly) candidates on the ticket it will be extremely difficult. I will be amazed, indeed, given Clinton's already turned to the  center right (with the selection of Kaine)  that she fulfills any of the promises made to Sanders even if she gets congressional leverage. The Wall Street connections are just too lucrative, which is why one Bernie supporter described her as "having the moral depth of a thimble".

Interestingly, even after Sanders' speech (and an earlier scolding by Sander's supporter Sarah Silverman) many 'Bernie or Bust' folks weren't biting. One said she planned to vote for Jill Stein of the Green Party and another insisted Hillary "has work to do to earn my trust."  This is understandable and with 105 days left until the election she has lots of work to do. Alas, choosing Tim Kaine (who was erroneously described over and over as "progressive" by a number of speakers) only compounded distrust among many Sanders' folks. How she will overcome that political miscue I have no idea.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/ted-rall/68252/hillary-s-strategy-snub-liberal-democrats-move-right-to-nab-anti-trump-republicans

The Dem Convention: Some Quick Takeaways

Timothy Dolan - had NO business giving a speech or "benediction" last night, since he fired salvos at the key points of many of the speakers. Dems need to learn it's not worth cheesy political pandering to try to garner a few crappy votes from troglydytes that have no common cause with your agenda.

First, the not so good. In fact, down right ugly!

Letting RC Cardinal Neandertal Tim Dolan Deliver an ending speech & “Benediction”:

Let me be frank: It was bad enough to witness the Dem Convention punk out two nights ago (after Reepo assholes bitched about no mention of “God” in the party platform- when "faith" was referenced 8 times according to Rachel Maddow) and then suddenly capitulate – actually the WH and Obama did – one reason the Left base still worries about strength of his convictions.

But having the primary “religious” opponent of Obama’s health plan deliver a final speech and “benediction”, just to make a politically pander for a couple lousy Catholic votes, was pathetic. It was the one downside of the whole convention and the only good thing was that most viewers (like me) had already switched off.

Dolan was hastily added to give the benediction at the DNC - probably because the testosterone lacking Dems didn't want to be "Out godded" after he agreed to do the same at the RNC. Sadly this miserable, sanctimonious ratfucker was given pride of place immediately after Obama. WTF were Obama, his campaign or the Dem convention brain trust thinking? Why must you play this stupid pandering game with the Reepos, to try to out-reepo them in religious bullshit?

You stand with those like Sandra Fluke and support her, as well as the mission and funding of Planned Paretnhood, and then summon an asshole like Tim Dolan who opposes all that she and liberated Dem women represent? C’mon!

The twit bloviated (before launching an attack on gays):

”Grant us the courage to defend life,” he said, and added, “Renew in all our people a profound respect for religious liberty, the first, most cherished freedom.”

But as I previously noted, “religious liberty,” is a fiction in the context he's invoking it. He and his retrograde Church have all the "liberty" they could ask for and nothing in Obama's health plan is taking that away. What it's doing is allowing secular and other employees of RC institutions to obtain the care THEY need, which is a different kettle of fish!

The good thing is maybe 20 people watched this reprobate, most switched off after Obama's speech.

Now that's off my chest, let me go on to the GOOD speakers and speeches, and positive observations:

The “Real Americans”:

Watching the Democratic Convention last night with our good friend, Muriah, and as the cameras panned across the arena, Muriah said first what was on our minds:

“Look at that! Look at the diverse people! THIS is the real America!”

Indeed. Black, brown, white faces as well as young and old, all together…as contrasted with the nearly uniform “white bread’ composition in Tampa last week. Despite the snarky Repup narrative that they have “the real Americans” and they will put “real Americans” in the White House in November, the fact remains they are talking bollocks. Their standard bearer is an out of touch venture capitalist who last year couldn’t even estimate the average cost of groceries for a week for the typical American, and keeps nearly $400m stashed in Swiss Bank accounts and Cayman banks – while professing he “loves America”. Yeah, right! You just prefer not to keep your money here, or use it for the positive general good.

The cavalcade of Dem speakers also reflected the diversity of the people:

A young Latina college student, the Hispanic mayor of San Antonio, a firebrand African –American (Deval Patrick) who urged the Dems to grow a spine, a nun, and a young, sensitive woman who was slandered by Rush Limbaugh- and has since been a powerful activist for women’s reproductive rights.

The Best Speakers:

If one had to compare the two conventions to a football game – say a SuperBowl – one would likely invoke the blowout victory of the San Francisco 49’ers over the Miami Dolphins by 38-16 in 1985. While the Dolphins in that game were “one dimensional” – the Niners were multi-dimensional, able to perform on special teams, in the running game and with passing. They featured a star quarterback – Joe Montana – as the Dems featured their own master pilot last night, Barack Obama.

The Repugs meanwhile lacked a comparable depth of game as disclosed by their shallow speakers last week, culminating in an Alzheimers’-like performance by Clint Eastwood which stole Mitt’ thunder.

All the speeches were incredibly powerful, even the ‘minor’ speakers, like Sandra Fluke, and the heads of Planned Parenthood and NARAL. Michelle Obama blew Anne Romney right out of the water with her Tuesday night prime time speech, and even Joe Scarborough admitted on Wednesday morning, Romney likely suffered because she didn’t write her own speech like Michelle did.

Bill Clinton’s speech I already noted, and provided a powerful counterpoint to the GOP criticisms spewed last week. While the Dems had a dynamo in Bill, the GOOPers settled for an over the hill “mystery speaker” in Clint Eastwood who looked like a haggard old guy of 80+.

VP Joe Biden brought the diverse house down last night with his heartfelt acknowledgement of those in service, and his own family’s sacrifices. One saw sincerity because Joe has suffered true losses, including of his first wife and child in an auto accident. Meanwhile, watching the vacant face and smile of Paul Ryan last week, one beheld no sign he’s ever suffered or even sacrificed (though we do know he lived off his parents’ Social Security while he attended college). We got substance delivered with passion from Joe, while we got silliness and lies delivered with supercilious attitude from Ryan. No contest.

Joe also merits kudos for exposing the hidden, deceitful plan of the Romneyites to cut benefits for the existing 30 million Medicare beneficiaries as soon as they assume office, if people are stupid enough to vote them in. I already noted this in at least TWO previous blogs. I didn't use general relativity just simple math....errrrr....arithmetic....to show why it was so. That is, despite what the two shit wads proclaim (they "aren't gonna touch existing Medicare" for those 55 or over) the FACT is that if they propose to add $2 trillion to the Pentagon's budget and $4 trillion in tax cuts, the ONLY way to make that work is to carve into existing Medicare benefits! There is no fucking way they can meet their goals unless they do that, and that means cutting benefits for the existing 30m beneficiaries!

Obama's Speech: The "Top QB":

Obama’s speech was – contrary to talking heads this morning – one of his best two or three. It wasn’t laden with flighty oratory like his Denver speech in 2008, but then it couldn’t have been – given that he’s now endured 4 years of obstructionism from the GOP House, driven by the Tea Party rascals. But the speech, adopting a workman-like basis, was exactly what it had to be. Obama was also on with a number of brilliant and facetious remarks – such as (referring to the GOP formula for success)

“Feel a cold coming on? Take two tax cuts, roll back some regulations and call us in the morning”

Obama also reminded the Democratic base that he was never the focus of change, it was always the voters. “You made that happen!” he reminded them, in terms of the manifestation of his health care law. What he meant is that our driving need for medical care and support, energized him to complete this mammoth task. The irony, despite all the blunder buss from the Reeps, was that his final bill was almost a duplicate of Romney’s plan in Massachusetts but which he now disowns. (The Romney plan or “Romney care” has actually cut medical costs dramatically according to one MIT study)

Carping and Complaints from the REEP Peanut Gallery:

What can I say? The Republican base has always had a decided tendency to pick gnat shit out of sugar to find fault if the sugar belongs to Dem. If I’d been a reepo and witnessed the farce last week which passed for a convention, then watched the Dem’s three day spectacular, I guess I’d feel pissed too! Hence, the tendency to carp, piss and moan about the Dems. Some of the odd complaints I’ve seen which borders on the absurd:

1. The Dems moved the major speeches inside last night because they lacked the numbers to fill the stadium.

This is plain idiotic. The weather projections last night were for a “30% chance” of rain, heavy rain. At the time of her ABC News broadcast last night, Dianne Sawyer noted a “monsoon rain” that evening. Had the Dems not moved the venue inside they’d have looked like real asses for not attending to the safety of the masses. The complainers need to STFU and put a sock in it.

2. Bernie Sanders wasn’t given a speakers’ berth.

This is just plain daft. Sanders, for those who may not know, is NOT a Dem but a Socialist (listed as an ‘Independent’ in the congressional members lists), and only caucuses with the Dems. Hence, there’d be no legitimate reason to include him at all since he’s not registered with the party!

3. Al Gore didn’t show up.

This was mentioned in some righty blogs as the counterpoint to Bush not being at the GOP convention, but there’s no analogy since Gore was never a president, while Bush Jr. was. Again, there’d have been no reason to include Gore in the speakers’ cavalcade any more than to include Dick Cheney for the Reeps. Past VPs are not where it’s at, and new blood is what’s used to ramp up energy. Hence, for instance, the choice of Rubio to speak for the Reepos and Mayor Castro of San Antonio to speak for the Dems.

4. Obama never mentions global warming in his speeches.

Well he definitely did last night, tying it to the need to develop more alternative energy sources. Obama also referred to the most climatically disastrous summer in decades, from the wildfires here in Colorado and throughout the West, to the prolonged heat wave across the nation with more than 7,000 new heat records broken. Anyone who disputes global warming now is blind or brain dead.

At the end of the day, I expect a 3-4 pt. boost for the Dems from their Convention. And contrary to the delusions of some right bloggers (making me wonder what they’re drinking), look for Obama to take the November general election with a 310-228 electoral win. That's conditional on Obama's team and the Dems not giving any more spot speeches to the likes of pigs like Timothy Dolan!