Will Boos Erupt Tonight At DNC Opening? Maybe

Wasserman -Schultz, may give intro remarks tonight but look for lots of boos.

The question this morning is whether Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, primary architect of Bernie Sanders' demise via her underhanded machinations (revealed in new Wikileaks-released emails) will have an introductory spiel in tonight's opening of the Democratic National Convention. Some news outlets (e.g. FOX News) believe no speaking roles will be allowed after her execrable efforts to derail Sanders were made evident over the past three days.

Others, like the panel on 'Morning Joe' this morning,  believe she will be granted  opening remarks, and will receive predictable boos from Bernie supporters. They are still incensed over the dumbo Hillary pick of fellow Neolib Kaine, and now doubly enraged after the DNC email dump. (See previous post).

All this is germane as new polls show Trump now ahead of Clinton by 48% to 45% with the latter having endured a 4 point drop and Trump a 5 point gain - likely from a convention bounce. Hillary's drop, meanwhile, I trace to her pick of Kaine and maybe partly from the nonstop Clinton bashing during the RNC.

But hold tight because as Huffpo journalist Sam Stein noted this a.m. more 'shoes' are set to drop with release of more emails. Some may show the actual collusion of Clinton with her pal Debbie, which would be disastrous on top of her Kaine pick.  (Note for those who don't know: Debbie was co-chair of Hillary's 2008 campaign.) We don't know but we will see. In the meantime, Stein observed wary Clintonites have struggled to get Wasserman-Schultz out for months now to no avail. According to him  on 'Morning Joe':

"How do you get her out, right? That's really the thing. And there's not really a mechanism to do that. This has all the signs of a negotiated exit where she says 'fine, I will go but I want x, y and z. Not just to be state director but to do the opening and closing remarks' - where she'd going to be heckled"

And "heckled may be an understatement given the level of rage among Sanders' supporters who've been repeatedly insulted, vilified and dismissed by these Neoliberal Dem apparatchiks.  Stein did leave open she could "change her mind" and at that point reality would sink in that she'd have to sacrifice her ego to the good of the party and her pal Hillary. If the FOX story is accurate this may well be what transpired.

Political strategist John Heileman then weighed in to say the one person who could get her out is Barack Obama. But, he pointed out that the White House attitude to the DNC has always been 'We couldn't care less'.

Stein then chipped in, saying:

"Obama stated in 2012 'Why would I want to pick a fight with the party. Leave her there she can't do much damage'"

But, of course, she could and she did as the Wikileaks emails have disclosed. Besides, all the panel members pointed to Wasserman-Schultz's money making performance for the party and DNC so why turf this little money machine out when they need her the most?

Of course, the Clintonites who have an abiding hatred of the Russians (since Bill continued the expansion of NATO eastward to Russian borders),  blamed everything on them. But as yet they have produced not a scintilla of evidence. Oh, there was a "claim" - still no evidence - by a DNC -hired bunch of "experts" ('CrowdStrike") that the DNC's email system was breached by "Russian hackers". Even if true, and I haven't seen anything to convince me yet, this doesn't mean the Russian government or Putin was behind it. Further, people need to read this before they jump on that suspicious political meme bandwagon:

http://www.csoonline.com/article/3084594/security/dnc-hacker-slams-crowdstrike-publishes-opposition-memo-on-donald-trump.html

So, until the illustrious 'CrowdStrike' team can provide firm evidence that Guccifer 2.0 was in fact Russian or the "Russian hackers" I will withhold accepting the DNC claim. (Wikileaks also denies Russian involvement, though of course there will always be critics who suspect the motives and assertions of any group that leaks emails or files - as they did with the super patriot Ed Snowden.)

The irony in all of this is the Democrats had been determined  - after the chaotic shit storm of the RNC - to show the nation and world they were more unified and positive. Now, the leak of the emails has fracture the party and probably irreparably, with the progressive left wing feeling like the political orphans the new Dems have always regarded them as.  This is not only from the emails but also Hillary's selection of the Anti-Bernie, Tim Kaine. How or why she ever believed that stupid move could help is beyond me, but I suspect Robert Reich has probably given the best explanation, e.g. 

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/68239/does-hillary-get-it

Meanwhile, in a '60 Minutes' spot from last night, Kaine showed he's as ignorant as he is dumb - or maybe he's just another propaganda peddler when he babbled (asked about the bias shown by the DNC with the email release):

"I don't see any effort to put a thumb on the scale, one way or the other. I think the vigorous nature of the campaign and the positive nature of the campaign show these are public servants who are in it for the right reason".

Except one of them had a head start with superdelegates mandated by the DNC, and also likely help from voting counts that definitely had 'thumbs on scales'.   See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/05/election-fraud-voter-disenfranchisement.html


We will have to tune in to see if a mini-shit storm erupts at the Democratic Convention opening tonight. I, for one, predict there will be lots more protests on the outside than in.

Postscript:

Latest word is that Wasserman Schultz has bowed out and will no longer make intro remarks. This spares the Dems initial embarrassment (from boos) but will not quell the fury already aroused, from both the email leak and the middle finger pick of Neolib Tim Kaine.  Wifey is also very upset to see on MCNBC how Sanders' supporters are even booing Bernie for his arguments earlier to support HRC. After what's transpired they don't see why they should. Hillary herself could have mollified the Left with a decent VP pick but she chose, I say CHOSE, to give the middle finger. Thus, must now live with those consequences which may also include a demonstration the night she speaks - against her pick.

See also:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails-fundraising.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=b-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

As Predicted - Hillary Panders To AIPAC And Right Wing Warmonger Netanyahu

Hillary, our "quinoa and kale" candidate, bloviates and panders before AIPAC earlier today.

What is a panderer and can you trust him or her? A political panderer is one who will say anything to any specific audience in order to try to grab its support and votes. It helps mightily as well, if the particular pandering person believes the message being reeled off. In the case of her AIPAC speech, Hillary Clinton - an inveterate war hawk - meant every word. Strangely,  her groupies, especially blacks, seem unwilling to process this dimension, but will if she gets us into a new war (and has to do massive social budget cuts to pay for it). She unashamedly backs AIPAC's Israeli nationalist agenda and even supports the warmonger Bibi Netanyahu who has a thing about taking out Iran.

At least Bernie, kudos and props to him, nailed it by refusing to appear at this right wing Israeli ass kissing fest, despite being the only Jewish candidate. As he related to Chris Hayes, on his 'All In' show earlier tonight, he refuses to kowtow to Israeli nationalists (at the expense of Palestinians)  and the likes of Netanyahu who he described as a "right winger".

Recall that a year ago Netanyahu delivered an hysterical performance on Capitol Hill.  At the invitation of the Repukes, and with fire-breathing rhetoric, "Bibi" blasted any deal apart from total Iranian nuclear disarmament and - effectively -  demanded the only alternative had to be war.

Philip Stephens  in a Financial Times article on Mar. 5, 2015  ('The Answer for Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu Is War Against Iran')  highlighted the total awkward impropriety of it all, in the form of traducing Obama with the Republicans. Of course, the Repugs would lap it up as they're always looking for wars as a means to ramp up deficits to decrease social spending.

What was most puzzling was how this unhinged Irsraeli jackass - who more and more resembles the 'boy who cried 'Wolf!' -  has any creds left  when the EU and most European states "shut him out" (according to Stephens) long ago. His rants became so predictable and the over the top rhetoric so absurd that they basically tuned him out. But not the warmongering Neocons in the U.S.

And as far as trying to upstage Obama, all that really happened is that it backfired in the minds of most sensible citizens. Because no matter the excuse, nobody one- ups the President in terms of attending a speech that he never sanctioned, but which a troll Reepo congress did - just to get back at him for his executive orders on immigration.

Stephens also observed that Israel's own security and political establishment - including former generals and other officials- had been critical of the speech and believed its only effect to be "a clear and present danger to Israel".

While most rational people in the world of realpolitik understand that the only chance to curb Iran is the one now being followed by Obama, the irrational warmongers in Israel and the U.S. demand all out attacks a la Netanyahu. It seems two major conflicts in the last 14 years  aren't enough - they want the whole enchilada. One wonders where they will get the money to pay for such intervention, especially as none of them (including Hillary) want to raise taxes on the Middle class.

My fear is that neocon war hawk Hillary is also itching for a chance to show she's her own "boss" - and can run with the males - so she may well overturn the Iranian initiatives set in motion by Obama (who she professes to endorse and "follow") by helping Netanyahu launch a war against Iran as one of her first acts as President. I could be wrong, but her moves in Libya, and later the Ukraine (to help topple Viktor Yanukovich) are not designed to inspire confidence.

Predictably,  Clinton blasted her principled opponent Bernie, the only presidential candidate to turn down the invitation to speak at the AIPAC conference, for promising to be neutral on Israel-Palestine. Sanders's'  is the correct stance, when you subtract all the hysteria and the only chance for real peace in the Middle East.  Sanders said he would pursue a “level playing field” in negotiations, something Clinton insisted she would never imagine doing.  The question is why not?

Is she a paid representative of the AIPAC lobby? Or is she in Bibi's pocket as a fellow war monger? Do her delirious supporters pay attention to any of this? Or are their heads so far up their fantasy land asses - to try and protect against "the Donald" -  they don't even care?

Thankfully, I am not a lone voice in the wilderness. Numerous progressive organizations and Palestinian leaders publicly condemned Clinton for her profusely pro-Israel remarks. For her shameless pandering. According to one observer:

"The speech that Hillary Clinton gave to AIPAC took pandering to a new level,”

As he continued, quoted in a salon.com piece:

“Clinton promised to never be neutral and yet most Americans consistently express that they want the United States to be even-handed between Israel and the Palestinians. When one looks at public opinion among Democrats alone, this sentiment is even stronger and sympathy for Palestinians is even higher. This is especially true in the progressive base of the Democratic party — indeed the future of the party — made up of youth and minorities.”

Meanwhile, the social justice group Jewish Voice for Peace, or JVP, which is very critical of the Israeli government and its oppression of the Palestinians, blasted Clinton for her remarks. Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of JVP, said in a statement that the discussion at AIPAC “relies on racist and Islamophobic tropes to justify unquestioning support for Israel.”

She went on to say:

"From Democrats to Republicans, the message is the same: more arms for Israel, a stronger relationship between Israel and the U.S., no mention of Palestinian rights, and no recognition of the impossible contradiction of being both democratic and Jewish when the state is predicated on maintaining systems of unequal rights and rule by military occupation,”

I am not certain, but I think Hillary may have just cremated her last chance to get Sanders's' supporters onto her bandwagon if and when she gets the Dem nomination. They have been enraged enough at the rigging of the primaries by the superdelegates but this AIPAC farce may be the last straw.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/john-grant/66533/hillary-clinton-backed-the-coup-shine-the-light-of-truth-on-poor-honduras

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-parry/66577/the-clinton-trump-aipac-pander-off

Did An Anger 'Gap' - Between Dem & Trump Supporters - Lead To Hillary's Rout?

A question that begs for answers after Super Tuesday III is why does such a gulf in anger exist between the Left and the Right? Also, did it lead to Clinton's rout over Sanders last night? We accept that both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are outside their respective establishments, and running highly unorthodox campaigns. Trump's is fueled by his outrageous tweets and anger on the Right - driven by distrust of immigration policy and rigged trade deals.  Sanders's campaign is driven by anger on the Left in reaction to gross economic inequality and social injustice of which a rigged campaign donation system plays a huge part.  Of course, rigged trade deals also enter into the latter, which is why - if the anger was proportionate to that on the Right - Bernie ought to have secured wins in all the Rust Belt states up for grabs, including Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri.

As of 11: 45 p.m. EDT, it appeared the only state Sanders had a minute lead in was Missouri, e.g.


But this a.m. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is saying Clinton "eked out a win"

Indeed, the string of Clinton victories (OH, NC, FLA, IL, MO) had one of her Super Pacs (Wall Street- based, like the others) asserting her victories  “effectively ended the Democratic nomination for president” . Well, ok, maybe mathematically - and as I noted before, given the Dem's rigged system has most of the superdelegates in her pocket -  this is not surprising. But Bernie would be a  fool to drop out now given he still has plenty of cash on hand, and can thus continue to inject his views and voice into the race - keeping Hillary honest if nothing else.

But again, IF the Left anger had matched the Right's against the system, he ought to have taken at least the three northern states Tuesday, so what happened?  Entering even more into this question is that there is little or no enthusiasm for Clinton, who is an awfully unappealing candidate who lacks charisma, and also has a tendency to screech like a banshee at her audience. (Even HRC supporter Joe Klein commented that politicians "only had to yell in the past" at their audiences.)

The attitude of most Clinton voters is downright morose, in stark contrast to Bernie supporters. A typical example cited in one Denver Post article ('Where's Enthusiasm for Clinton?', Mar. 13, p. 15A) quotes Lee Apple, 68, from Shaker Heights, OH, who expressed disappointment she had "no choices to get more excited about" but described Clinton has the "best option", adding:

"She's kind of old news. She's been around for years. She's not fresh and she's not young."

Other voters quoted sounded the same notes, but most comparing her to "an old friend" you've come to know, and the "best bet" to unite Dems, with a "great skill set". The tenor according to one observer was that there was an "eat your peas" attitude adopted by most Clinton voters. Still, many other D-voters (and independents) aren't convinced,  which means although she's basking in the glow of a 5 -state sweep she has a lot of work ahead, especially to win younger voters. (Some of whom have actually said they would either vote Trump or stay home if HRC gets the nomination).

A lot of this reactionary anger is fueled by Hillary's getting most Dem establishment super delegates, effectively rigging the scales in her favor from the outset, see e.g.


http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/66066/have-the-democratic-superdelegates-been-compromised

So in order to make peace Hillary will have to work out a colossally creative excuse for the existence of that shadow system, and why it might not have mattered anyway to Bernie's failure or success.

This still leaves us groping for an explanation for the gulf in anger between Trump supporters and those for the Dems, and especially Sanders. If I had to put a finger on one major difference it would be the typical Trumpie harbors an exceptional sense of grievance and being fucked over by the system which the Dem supporters don't. Perhaps the most succinct explanation was delivered in a recent (Dec. 5th) article in The Economist  (p. 30):

"The anxiety Trump supporters betray by looking for scapegoats says most, of course, about themselves. Typically members of the white lower middle class, they are at once jealous of the small privileges that distinguish them from the toilers below, and bitterly resentful of the faraway government that provides their Social Security, VA care and Medicare.

Remonstrating in hard times, they are the "radical centre" in academic jargon, who turned out before for George Wallace, a populist southern Democrat who ran for President four times in the 1960s and 70s."

Thus, we see the Right has been  "looking for scapegoats" which the Left isn't and also the Right is "jealous of small privileges" they used to have, but now must share with minorities. A grievance which isn't shared by the Left, since we believe if a guy moves up in the world he deserves the same 'toys' we have. In other words, the Right  features bigger crybabies.  These crybabies have even gone on record whining about a "Bernie supporter" rushing their Hitlerite hero at one gathering. Then they whine and screech: "Why doesn't he control them or at least condemn them?" But in an interview last Sunday on CNN Bernie explicitly stated he disavowed violence coming from any of his millions of supporters. He added they might protect violently in his name, and but ultimately his campaign has no control over what any given person or group will do in a given state. Also, he is not running Moveon.org which operates a separate Pac from his campaign.

 He also added that Trump should still be given the right to speak at his rallies. Funny, the pro-Trump whiners missed all that but if they only watch FOX it's understandable.

Most telling about the Trumpies, their "hero"  was quoted in a recent FT piece by Gordon Rachman asserting he always "feeds people fantasies to sell them on the deal".  And "they can believe what they want".   If any real crying should be done the Trump -babies should do it if he manages to get elected and never delivers on any of his inflated promises.

Meanwhile, Sanders has kept his promises more down to Earth and explained exactly how they'd be paid for, i.e. by changing the tax code or taxing speculative trades on Wall Street  While the media has often gone after him for offering "pie in the sky" to supporters it is somewhat incredible they've turned a blind eye to Trump's economic plans - including imposing massive tariffs on any and all goods entering from Mexico and China,  sending 11 million Mexicans back at a cost of over $200b and constructing  a gigantic wall along the Tex-Mex border (at a cost of $3 trillion) and "getting Mexico to pay". These are the stuff of true phantasmagoria.

Bottom line: Trump is taking state after state (exception OH) because his kool aid guzzling supporters believe he can deliver on his vapid promises when anyone with an IQ over room temperature knows he can't.  They also love the potential for violent behavior which Trump actually advertises as "entertainment". The Dems, by contrast, would rather tolerate at least 4 more years of Neoliberalism than risk four years of 'Der Fuehrer'. Trump (aka Drumpf) being in charge.

Hillary's showing on Super Tuesday round III was one indicator that the Dems don't match the anger at the establishment the Republicans have by channeling Trump as their angry Id. No, the Dems are more grown up and would rather win the 2016 election than pitch a nine month hissy fit and soil their collective nappies.

And so it goes.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-lindorff/66513/why-i-won-t-be-voting-for-hillary-in-november-a-neolib-posing-as-a-progressive-vs-a-reality-tv-star-p

So WHY Hasn't Elizabeth Warren Endorsed Bernie?

The interview with Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Rachel Maddow last night was interesting for being basically uninformative. We learned, for example, that the Repukes brought Trump's extremism on  themselves by tolerating extremist obstruction in the Senate. This included blocking every Obama initiative (like the ACA, closing Gitmo and immigration reform) as well as appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and other agencies. And now we have their latest posturing, in the Supreme Court impasse,  another case of the Repuke Senators "refusing to do their jobs" -  e.g. in exercising advise and consent for a soon to come Obama nominee. As many have noted, refusing to even hold hearings is not advise and consent it's delay and obstruct. But we already knew all this and hopefully the extremist Rs will pay at the ballot box on Nov. 8.

Less illuminating was when Maddow asked Warren about the lack of endorsement whereupon  Warren launched into this 7 minute long spiel about "this great democratic conversation" - totally dodging the question while flattening distinctions between Hill and the Bern.  The way Warren seemed to put it: Why should she have to make a choice with two terrific candidates in play? Well, at least  in comparison to the Repuke clowns.  She also left an air of neutrality hanging at the end, almost emulating perfectly the geopolitical strategy of Switzerland. But it doesn't wash, not for Elizabeth Warren.

Anyone who knows anything about Warren and Sanders is aware that Sanders is the inheritor of the same progressive forces and memes that swept Warren to her senate victory in 2012.  I mean they're like two peas in the proverbial pod, They’re perfectly aligned on every issue of consequence. Indeed, at least one salon.com columnist writing a piece for the Jan. 26 web edition noted Warren gave a speech on the Senate floor on Jan. 21. She spent most of her time outlining the steps Congress could take to purge dark money from our political process. Dark money? Like from the Kochs? Where, from whom, have we heard that before? Anyone?

The most relevant takeaway is that Warren's Senate speech already qualified as an indirect endorsement of Bernie.

She said - in part:

“We have a problem: money. Six years ago today, the United States Supreme Court made the problem worse – a lot worse. Thanks to the Supreme Court, our system of elections is riddled with corruption. Money floods our political system. Money that lets a handful of billionaires shape who gets into Congress and may decide who sits in the White House.” 

“Washington works great for a handful of wealthy individuals and powerful corporations that manipulate the system to benefit themselves…It works great for the lobbyists and the lawyers who slither around Washington, day in and day out, but for everyone else, Washington’s not working so well. And if we don’t change, this rigged political game will break our country.”

“We are headed into another presidential election and I speak out today because I’m genuinely alarmed for our democracy…It is time to fight back against a complete capture of our government by the rich and powerful.”

Look over the transcripts of any of Bernie's recent speeches and note  how indistinguishable these remarks are from what you've  heard in his stump speeches. Warren’s agenda is Sanders’s platform, and this speech left no doubt about that. Even the specific phrases Warren uses, like “rigged political game,” mirror Bernie’s language.

The problem with a Senate speech pseudo "endorsement", of course, is that few citizens are likely to see or hear it unless it goes viral. That is about as plausible as aliens landing and kidnapping Donald Trump and hauling him to the third planet in the Zeta Reticuli system for a brain harvest. So, unless the endorsement is public and stand alone - it won't get much media attention or help the candidate who needs it, in this case Bernie.

Some may say, well she is just dithering a bit because she might believe HRC is more "electable" and she'd favor getting things done if even in a more incremental way. But this simply doesn't pass the political smell test. No way.   As the beneficiary of outsized speaking fees from the big banks, Clinton is simply too much a captive of Wall Street. The same Axis of Financial Evil that Warren has spent her entire career battling. To use the analogy of one Boston Globe columnist —" it would be as if an antiabortion candidate like Marco Rubio were giving paid speeches to Planned Parenthood affiliate."

Any putative Hillary endorsement also doesn't wash if one investigates the history of Warren's criticisms of her. For example,  in a 2004 interview with Bill Moyers, Warren accused Clinton, then a senator from New York, of voting for a bankruptcy bill that was sought by the financial industry and that Clinton had previously opposed as first lady.  Asked why Clinton switched, Warren blamed the financial industry donations lining Clinton’s war chest. Of the big banks, Warren said Clinton “worries about them as a constituency.”

Thus, for Warren to endorse Hillary, she’d have to repudiate not only the anti-Wall Street crusade that carried her into office, but also her own words.  She'd look not just like a fool but a malicious, capricious and cynical fool who's been manipulating her supporters all along. Saying one thing and doing another.

This still leaves open why she hasn't explicitly come out for Sanders. Some have said she still truly is of two minds, and cited Warren's signed 2013 letter (with the other Democratic women in the Senate) encouraging Clinton to run for president. Since then, Warren has clarified that it shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement. Given Clinton’s entanglements with Wall Street, it’s easy to see why.

Another possible explanation was offered by  one commenter on reddit.com

"She's keeping her powder dry to use at the convention to helping to bring the Sanders folk on board by getting concessions (whatever those are worth) from Clinton. If she endorses now, that leverage is spent."

Maybe. But now is the time - in the middle of the primary season - when Bernie could really really use her support, especially with key industrial states coming up for grabs next Tuesday. One, unambiguous, no nonsense endorsement for Sanders could be a game changer. It could net him a majority of those states and delegates, and make his chances for later convention gravitas much stronger.

At the convention, the pressure from Hillary's superdelegates and DNC honchos for all to conform (and toe the party line) may simply be too great. It is doubtful that in such conditions Warren's supposed supporting voice would even be heard, especially if Bernie's delegate count is much less than 1,000. If that is so, Hillary will feel she has no real obligation to endorse Bernie's proposals far less use any of them- even in a minor way.

Now is the time to make a stand, which could be more critical than any other speech  - or any interview - that Elizabeth Warren has given.

Will she have the courage or foresight to commit to it? That remains to be seen. For Bernie Sanders's campaign's sake let us hope she commits soon. Like before Tuesday!

Bernie's Surprise MI Win Keeps Campaign On Life Support

Bernie Sanders in the last Dem debate in Flint, MI, gave a devastating account of how free trade policies ripped jobs out of the country, including affecting Michigan. The connection to Hillary was indirect, her hubby was the one who pushed NAFTA - with the Repubs - but there just the same. Evidently his message got through in Michigan despite the elitist filters like factcheck.org claiming the "actual job loss from free trade is negligible". If that were so, then one of author William Greider's most significant books,  (One World Ready Or Not - The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism', 1996). would be fiction. Greider documented how American jobs dispatched to low wage nations overseas not only hollowed out our industrial cities but eliminated living wages.

Auto manufacturing jobs were also sent overseas, because it cost the "Big Three" and others less to assemble them there - saving billions.  A lot of this was traced to Clinton's NAFTA. The Wharton School site (Knowledge@Wharton) quoted Robert Scott, chief economist at the Economic Policy Institute:

“Jobs making cars, electronics, apparel and other goods moved to Mexico, and job losses piled up in the United States, especially in the Midwest where those products used to be made.....By 2010, trade deficits with Mexico had eliminated 682,900 U.S. jobs, mostly (60.8 %) in manufacturing.”

Scott went on to point out that the scuttlebutt that NAFTA helped create jobs was due to false accounting. Other sources cited by Wharton claim the losses would still have occurred without NAFTA but we will never know, will we? The point of historical note is that economies in the Rust Belt all got uniformly worse after the passage of NAFTA and most of the Left who look at this don't believe it was coincidence.

All this had to play with the Michigan audience watching the Flint debate  - which was one of the most heated - with Hillary incessantly screeching and trying to interrupt Sanders, who at one point had to admonish her to "let me finish speaking".

In the end, the result, Sanders 50% to Clinton's 48% of the vote, left the pundits gasping as they had predicted from their polls Hillary winning by something like 11 pts. (Typical polls showed Clinton 55% and Bernie 44% the day before.)

But when the dust settled last night, Clinton had 1213 delegates and Bernie 557. So she is more than half way to the D-nomination. Unless Bernie can blow her momentum up next week with YUUUUUUUGE wins in Ohio, Florida etc. his campaign remains on life support only thanks to the odious DNC  superdelegate system.. Thus, sober heads still regard his campaign as basically 'game over' and he is merely staying in to keep Clinton honest while also seeking to gain some leverage at the convention. What that will be, who can say?

Time to face facts:  even with a string of major upsets by Bernie,  Clinton will still get the secretive state  super delegates to toss their lot in with her. As one angry Denver Post letter writer and Sanders supporter put it 2 days ago: "Why are we busting our butts if all our phone calls and canvassing efforts will just be trumped by hidden party bosses and lackeys?"

Good question! It's because the "Democratic" party believes in undemocratic means for nomination. While they tout voter "choice" in the primaries, this is only a smokescreen to convey the façade of democracy - while the actual wheels for the party heads spin beneath- detached from the voters' will.

Look for Bernie to take a few more contests, but ultimately the superdelegates of the Dem Neoliberals and the Clinton Machine will win.  This isn't pessimistic but being realistic.

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/09/it_should_be_over_for_hillary_party_elites_and_msnbc_cant_prop_her_up_after_bernies_michigan_miracle/

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/gaius-publius/66336/can-hillary-clinton-beat-donald-trump-a-preliminary-look

The Cold, Hard Truth: It's Game Over For Bernie

There comes a time when the most pie-eyed optimist must face reality and concede the battle is lost, and even the war. Since I am not,  nor ever have been an optimist, I have no problem now calling a spade a spade and acknowledging it is game over for Bernie Sanders.  He fought a valiant, uphill battle for the American left - even when its darling (Elizabeth Warren) refused to run - or even endorse him (opting to remain neutral)  But it was  insufficient to conquer the well-oiled Clinton Machine. Not only that, but he had to go against that machine plus the DNC's rigged system of superdelegates. A shadow system in which lobbyists and party bosses could trump the will of actual voters.

This   hidden system alone, which had ratcheted up over 582 total delegates even before Super Tuesday commenced (after Hillary's SC win)  meant that to keep pace Bernie would have had to have taken at least 9 of the 11 states in play, including the biggest - Texas- as well as his neighbor state, Vermont.  

But this he could not do, winning only four states (VT, CO, OK and MN),  and thereby falling so far behind that it is now impossible to catch up - given Hillary's delegate lead- to even compete in a realistic way. Though some might be deluded at what appeared to be about a couple hundred delegate count difference after last night, the actual count (with superdelegates),  is Hillary 1033 and Bernie 387.

Yes, with a $40m haul from February, Sanders can technically battle on until the convention, but it is a total losing wicket and only spells more humiliation as more and more state super delegates follow suit and tilt to Hillary as "Savior" from "the Donald". In Colorado, for example, despite Sanders carrying 51 of 64 counties and winning overall by 19 percent over Hillary, she will likely end up with two more delegates, 40-38.

It is clear from the way this has turned out that Americans, Democrats in particular, are not prepared to give up Neoliberalism and its version of rigged capitalism-  despite the fact it hasn't delivered duck squat to them. Polls also show they are not as angry as Republican voters, but they should be -given how they've been tricked so often.  They are, in turn, the ultimate suckers - especially African-Americans -   who've tilted to HRC in such absurd proportions. (See previous post)

But this was all predictable as the campaign carried on,  with the neolib pundit class interjecting and sowing its doubts on Sanders (including multiple utterances of the s-word)  at every turn despite my skewering them one after the other. At some point, like it or not, the negative PR began to stick as well as the gender card played with good effect by Hillary and her surrogates.

The biggest disappointment for me was Elizabeth Warren - who might have helped enormously in the struggle - but didn't even have the courage to endorse Bernie, despite the fact he sounded the same notes that she had always embraced. That she wouldn't run because of believing she might wield more effective influence in the Senate was one thing, but not to even endorse him was plain cowardice in the service of crass political calculation. (That she'd be less damaged if she kept her mouth shut).

But bravo to Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii who had such courage of her convictions that she left the compromised DNC and came out foursquare for Sanders. She had to leave the DNC in order to escape the shadow of Debbie Wasserman  Schultz (a Hillary surrogate) and do that.

It is clear to this Sanders supporter that Americans simply lack the courage and conviction to change the system they have. Given that, they are in no position to complain about it as it screws them over and over and over again with more bailouts of banks, more corporate mischief (including the TPP), more invasions and occupations and ever higher health care/drug costs and exploding student debt.

If you as a serious voter lack the balls (or conscience)  to change the system - out of fear - then  you lack any claim or basis to complain about it, especially if you approve of those committed to preserving the status quo. Clearly, Trump supporters-voters are determined to change the system however they can, probably in a bad way. (Tom Brokaw said last night on NBC they will 'sadly learn Trump is not a dictator in our system of dispersed power''). But the Dems who settled for Hillary out of a sense of false security and complacency will now have to try to ensure the Trump nightmare -  spawned by a misplaced demand for change- doesn't overtake their own aspirations, e.g. of "the first woman president". Enough said!

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/thanks_america_our_broken_political_system_is_about_to_give_us_a_terrifying_campaign_between_a_vapid_huckster_and_a_war_hawk/


Excerpt:


Thanks for not really paying attention and for misunderstanding pretty much everything and for voting out of fear and incoherent emotion, and for permitting and enabling an engineered, anti-democratic political system.