The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Is Sanders Done?

Hilary won Super Tuesday in 2008.

Bernie’s best states are still to come. The worst sign is the loss of Massachusetts, but the race is not over yet.

I know this will be an unpopular opinion, but I’ve always felt that Warren was overrated, and I feel that her refusal to endorse a candidate vindicates that view. She may have stayed viable with Clinton as a result, but she will get only scraps on financial reform from Clinton.

The constant refusal of people and groups (like unions endorsing Clinton) to get behind and work for candidates who would actually act on their behalf is one of the reasons that one can often only shrug at what is happening in America. Clearly, based on actions, not words, this is what too many Americans want.

(I am fundraising to determine how much I’ll write this year. If you value my writing, and want more of it, please consider donating.)


Super Tuesday—Clinton and Trump Win as Expected


Trump Is a Consistent Right-Wing, Nativist Populist


  1. LorenzoStDuBois

    I don’t know if it’s what American’s want. As I commented in the last post, Clinton has an effective strategy of capturing and controlling leadership of labor organizations. Labor leadership is where the rot is. The rank and file is not at all on board, but there’s not much they can do.

  2. Ian Welsh

    They’ve been endorsing and working for conserva-dems for a long time. It’s not just Hilary. The excuses I heard for not endorsing Edwards in 08 (and no, none of them said “we believe he has a mistress”)–it was about endorsing a winner (Clinton or Obama) even though those “winners” wouldn’t give them shit.

  3. eaanders

    Warren is a zero on foreign policy, just a “me too” opinion on the neocons and US hegemony.

  4. reslez

    Yes but as Lorenzo points out, this is just another case of elites selling out the membership. When the membership votes on whom to endorse, Sanders wins. Why those rotten elites continue to run the unions is another question — but you may as well ask the same of any other enterprise. Rot at the top is universal, not confined to unions.

  5. The Tragically Flip

    I wonder if the idea occurs to some of the unions that “Sanders would work hard for our issues whether we endorse him or not, Hillary won’t even take our calls unless we do.”

    There seems to be some ugly game theory going on here. Plus the usual “what will I do in this town after this gig if the Clintons blacklist me…” type corruption of the leadership.

  6. LorenzoStDuBois

    I just thought it was important to note the dysfunction of decision-making in labor organizations as a huge problem, not necessarily the political views of workers voting against their own interest. Labor leaders are betraying their constituents in order for the All-Important Seat At The Big Fancy Important People’s Table, not standing in the cold, miserable outside with the grubby lower classes.

  7. John

    Bernie has to do more than turn his supporters over to Hillary at the convention. He has to persuade them to come out and vote for her in November. How enthusiastically he campaigns for her will indicate how much he has pushed her left and what she gives him.
    Instant gratification and short attention span are typically American and why we have so many problems. There is a long game. I think Bernie’s life and history show that he understands the long game. His statement’s about the necessity for a movement reflect this. But most Americans are not in it for the long game and have no comprehension what that is. They need to get into this long game or the shit is just gonna keep on coming.
    Global warming anyone?

  8. S Brennan

    Good one AlanSmithee; funny [black humor] & on point.

    Without Sanders against Trump, we don’t have a populist revolt in the general. Trump won’t be moving left because Hillary is flanking on his right.

    But I have to give the Devil his due, the DNC did a great job in supporting the RNC in distracting the proles from Hillary’s [& DNC/RNC] crimes with the “look he’s Hitler I tell you”. Yes Edith, in spite of Ian’s paean on the evils of torture that has not happened, Hillary’s active organization of the murder of 350,000 innocent civilians is a war crime. But the constant attention, to the exclusion of ALL actual war crimes committed by Obama/Hillary, has allowed Hillary to avoid the scrutiny she so richly deserved which sadly doomed Sanders.

    That’s too bad, because nothing would have served this nation better than an all up, all in populist revolt that a Sanders vs Trump general election would have represented.

    Once again liberals were duped, choosing to spend their energy in preventing Trump from nomination, instead of playing the cards in their hand and making sure that Sanders beat Hillary. Yes, it was a great play by Hillary’s team.

  9. Lisa

    Still early days yet and it still hasn’t sunk into the Dems heads yet that HRC cannot win aganst Trump.

  10. ekstase

    No, it is not over yet. And as Sanders has pointed out, this is a movement that will not go away. It can be very tiresome to go through these defeats, and wonder what in the world media peple are imbibing to make the choices they make. But you know, decent people always were here fighting the good fight, and we need to look at that too.

  11. Hugh

    I can see Clinton running as the SANE Republican. That is she is much more likely to pivot right than left. Important to remember that today’s Democratic Establishment is to the right of Ronald Reagan on taxes, domestic spying, commitment to endless foreign wars, and support of Wall Street.

    So it won’t be much of a pivot.

    I think her attitude toward Sanders’ supporters is the same as Obama’s toward progressives. As someone I know said who talked to the Obama people back in 2008 about what they had to offer progressives, they were all, f*ck you, you have nowhere else to go, we don’t have to give you anything –and they didn’t. In fact, I think most of the Millennials and people Sanders got engaged in the political process will either stay at home or vote for Trump in the general election. So Clinton won’t get them anyway, and this is another reason why she will go right.

    Not saying it will, progressives seem endlessly gullible, but this election cycle should teach them once and for all that change is not possible within the Democratic party. That is perhaps the one service that the Sanders campaign will perform. Say what you will, but Trump has shown that the Republican party, as opposed to the Republican Establishment which is horrified by its loss of control, is far more responsive to its base than the Democratic party is to its.

    I mean look at how corrupt and ossified the Democratic party is. There is widespread discontent in the country and in the Democratic base, but the Democratic Establishment and pols only care about their interests, their privileges, and their positions. They don’t give a shit about either Democratic voters or the independents they need to win. Let’s go down the list.

    1. At the national level, you have the DNC and its head Debbie Wasserman Schultz. She is in the bag for Clinton. She is not out to see that there is a fair process but that there is a single preordained result. While the Republicans had debates out the gazoo, Wasserman Schultz scheduled very few and at odd times because that was what Clinton wanted, and she only added debates when Clinton felt she needed them, and again when Clinton wanted them.

    2. At the state level, it is much the same. This is especially important in caucus states where the state machines can mobilize certain numbers of caucus goers, facilitate or obscure how to get to caucus sites, skew the procedures in the caucuses, and finally hide the popular numbers behind the caucus “results”.

    3. On the merits, you would expect unions, organizatons like Planned Parenthood and the Human Rights Campaign (HRC), and minority leaders to flock to Bernie Sanders. But merit has virtually nothing to do with how these organizations and people operate. The Black Agenda Report out of Chicago has popularized the phrase of the Black Misleadership Class. But we can apply the misleadership tag to most unions and social purpose organizations. Local chapters and members might have more in common with a Sanders’ candidacy, but for the leaders at the national level, it is as Inside the Beltway as it gets. It is not about representing members or the best interests of those members. It is about being a player, the membership and what they want be damned.

    4. Then there is all the corrupt big money behind Clinton in the form of PACs and big donors. This kind of money is not about civic interest. It is a straightforward attempt to buy an election and further the class interests of its donors, again the Democratic base be damned.

    5. Then there are the anti-democratic superdelegates, spots reserved for the pols of the Democratic machine, which account for about one-sixth of all delegates, who can make the candidacy of an individual as corrupt and disliked as Hillary Clinton appear inevitable. You know, resistance is futile.

    6. Then there is the primary schedule. It begins in 4 small to tiny, highly unrepresentative states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina), two of which have easily game-able caucuses, and one of which still calls the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression. This is followed by Super Tuesday which, as I said in a previous comment, is essentially a Southern Primary of states that Democrats are unlikely to carry in a general election, but which will have a disproportionate impact on whom the Democratic nominee will be and which will trend to the most conservative of the Democratic field. I mean if the Democrats wanted to pick a candidate who represented the interests of their base, their primary schedule would be weighted to early primaries in New York, the Midwest, and the West Coast. But then big D Democratic seems to have nothing to do with small d democratic. Naturally not a bug but a feature.

    7. Then there is the Establishment Democratic choice Hillary Clinton herself. She is a posterchild of the corruption and privilege that the country is revolting against. She is the Goldwater Girl who in her Arkansas days got on the board of Walmart, and made a couple hundred thou on some, let us say, curious and timely, futures trades. She is the feminist who stayed with her sexual predator of a husband out of pure political calculation and who now gets her surrogates to slam Millennial women who don’t support her as a bunch of boy crazy ditzes who are going to hell. She is the former First Lady who used that position and its connections to become the Senator of Wall Street from 2001 to 2009 or smack dab in the run up to the crash of 2008 and in the midst of the largest financial frauds in human history, all of which she seemed to miss. Meanwhile she was also an undistinguished Senator from New York, despite her name recognition. She ran against Obama in 2008, lost became his Secretary of State, and now wraps herself in his mantle –at least around African Americans. Her stellar achievement at State was the disaster in Libya waged in contravention of the War Powers Act. How has that worked out? Bill was out making “speeches” and racking up a fortune of a hundred million. Hillary pitched in, delivering her $675,000 ones to Goldman Sachs, which she is so studiously hiding. Then there are the millions from foreign governments to the Clinton Global Initiative to Keep the Clintons Rich. The email server is not so much about the emails themselves but the paranoia and control Clinton demands even when this entails breaking the law. Indeed paranoia and control pretty typify Clinton and the Democratic Party.

    And that is, barring indictments, what the general election is going to be about. Which money hungry, control freak do you want? Clinton or Trump?

  12. S Brennan

    Lisa; all that is needed now is a convenient DBA by the Dulles Republicans [in concerto with the Dulles Democrats] and we are off to the fascist follies.

    Thank God for “liberals” Dulles[R/D]’s will say, instead of promoting Sanders, liberals spent their ammo gunning for a dead man walking. “Ha ha..too bad Charlie Brown” said Lucy for the hundredth time.

  13. kj1313

    People are fed up with the establishment on both sides. It might take longer on the Democratic side but the cracks are there.

    @ S Brennan Trump has outflanked Hillary on the left economically, with him bashing NAFTA, TPP and even some shots at Wall St. He also said he didn’t want to change Social Security, unlike the Grand Bargain Hillary would try to sell to her constituents. If he keeps harping on this he can make some inroads in the Rust Belt states.

  14. MojaveWolf

    I’m assuming the title of this is a rhetorical jab against the constant propaganda drumbeat from the corporate media (& establishment types in general, including non-corporate blogs)?

    A lot of this I meant to say in Super Tuesday thread, but was too tired last night & no time earlier, so putting a general discussion here.

    Tuesday was almost a best case scenario for the Sanders campaign. I never thought we would win more than 4 states yesterday. (um, in case anyone hasn’t seen me post before, “we”=Bernie here. Given that I think the chances of world death go up exponentially if he doesn’t win, & a much worse world is absolutely assured as there are no other good options with a chance of winning–no offense to Green party types, you are my fallback & I like Stein but I don’t have a lot of hope in that scenario–yes, I’m for Bernie). As it turns out, they aren’t the 4 I was expecting but we won 3 of those 4 by considerably more than i was expecting. My happy shock at the Oklahoma result offsets my disappoint with Massachusets.

    And … Massachusets. Why is no one doing/saying anything about Bill blocking 3 different polling locations for HOURS while he campaigned for Hillary????????? This should be a national outrage (of course, so should the behavior of some other asswipe politicians in Atlanta & South Carolina, but at least their slander was not ILLEGAL & in clear violation of polling regulations). Also, thank you Elizabeth Warren. Not. Say what you will about Tulsi Gabbard & Alan Grayson, & I know some people dislike one or both for different reasons, but they stood up at crunch time. Warren didn’t. I know who I’d rather have at my back in a fight going forward. Screw the people suggesting Gabbard was taking a calculated risk for possible future benefits or that she just hated DWS/HRC that much, she took a giant risk with her career and spoke up the day after HRC won big in SC, and as far as I can tell her reasons were genuine. Bernie advocates a sane foreign policy, HRC appears to have learned NOTHING from one predictably disastrous intervention after another & that she’s a vet who was deployed in a couple of HRC supported disasters makes her statement all the more effective. Then Grayson on Monday. That undercut the MSM inevitability cheerleading. We mighta won Mass if Bill hadn’t blocked 3 different polls in low income areas that favored Bernie telling people to vote for Hillary while keeping them from going inside (really, seriously, again, wtf???) but we would definitely have won if Warren had stepped up. Yes, she quasi endorsed him & his policies in a bunch of articles, but most people don’t read those articles; most people would have seen the “Warren Endorses Sanders on eve of Massachusetts primary” headlnes. With even a frigging 1 point win instead of a 1 pt loss, combined with what happened elsewhere he has a staggering ton of momentum going forward (for non-Americans who find this bizarre, yes, who technically won in an essential tie is huge as far as American psyches go). As it is, he’s still won or effectively tied in all the non-GOP states. He is doing very, very well in crucial swing states. Dems should notice that he’s doing this in those states despite the party throwing its full weight behind HRC and against Bernie (not sure if you’ve seen this yet, but one of the Bernie endorsers in CO (Salazar?) said he was told to endorse HRC, and if he couldn’t then to at least keep his mouth shut & stay out of it)

    One interesting thing is that where Trump romps, Bernie usually does less well, where Bernie romps, Trump usually does less well. By splitting the fed up white working class vote Trump has done & continues to do an enormous favor to HRC. I was wndering about this before ST but it seems pretty clear now. So is the MSM by giving Trump a constant drumbeat of publicity while ignoring Bernie except when they say one of his ideas is bad or they announce yet again that he is beaten and start concern trolling about when he should get out of the race or tone it down against Hillary. With all that, he’s still doing better in states the Dems need to win in November, and still doing about as well as Trump among white independents. These two men have nothing in common, except they are both criticizing the establishment & appealing to people who have been fucked over by it. But that is a large constituency–a plurality if they were all on same side. FWIW.

    Another trend is that a LOT of Bernie supporters don’t get the importance of showing up even when you’re going to lose. Delegates are proportional, so margin matters. Much more important than actual delegates at this point are optics. The MSM “Bernie can’t win” shit seems to have worked as far as discouraging turnout in states where Bernie really isn’t going to win, so even tho not that many people are voting for HRC she is still winning by huge margins, and our overall popular vote total is down. Trying to counter that as best I can on twitter, but I work over 60 hrs a week so when I can do this during hrs people are paying attention is limited, & kinda like spending time with my wife & dogs when not working, so … but stil, trying. So are some other people. Hopefully we are starting to get through.

    And back to your title question, Gaius Publius has a great article at Down With Tyranny. The states are frontloaded with places where Hillary does well, backloaded with places where Bernie does well. I still think we’re looking good. I keep telling people on twitter wait for the West, he’s going to sweep the coast and maybe the rest. I live in Cali, biggest state & last voting day, and I gaurantee you guys, if you don’t lose heart and keep showing up and keep us in striking distance, California will put him over. (and fuck the superdelegates. They will go with the majority if we win or we will burn the party to the ground. Ttimes they are a changin. Hopefully fast enough.)

  15. EmilianoZ


    great summary!

  16. Steve

    Trump came out with his crappy healthcare plan today. Of course, it is worse than what we have now. It includes not a single, populist element. It does not include a provision to allow the federal government to negotiate drug prices, though it might include some kind of direct negotiation with hospitals (hint: the government and insurance companies already do this of course). It is not universal and does not subsidize insurance/health care for the poor. And worse of all it turns Medicaid into a block grant program.

    Is that the kind of economic populism you were hoping for, Ian? It’s standard right-wing economics. Why would we expect anything else from my country’s reactionary party?!

  17. different clue

    Too many Americans in p0wer and authority certainly prefer what is happening here. Those Americans without power and/or authority who also don’t prefer what is happening here will have to figure out how to coalesce into multi-million-member battering rams to break through the cinder block ceiling. The Sandernistas are trying to do this in one way. The Stormtrumpers are trying to do this in another way. They will keep trying. If they figure out to succeed, they may start conquering positions of power and authority and staffing them with Americans who don’t prefer what is happening here.

    The MSM narrative of Bernie can’t win is mass-perception-management designed to dishearten and discourage people who might otherwise still vote for Sanders in late and later primaries and/or caucuses. Perhaps they can be convinced to come out and run up the numbers despite their discouragement which they will still continue to feel.

    After the Convention is all over and candidate whomever gets the nomination, the most valuable thing Bernie could tell his supporters is that he will be retired and/or dead semi-soon and they need to figure out how to become a viable self-propelled self-organizing post-Bernie movement.

  18. Jeff W

    MojaveWolf says

    And back to your title question, Gaius Publius has a great article at Down With Tyranny. The states are frontloaded with places where Hillary does well, backloaded with places where Bernie does well.

    That post is here.

    The title gives you an idea: “Clinton Will Build Her Biggest Lead on March 15. Sanders Will Erode It After That.” And the post ends with this:

    Bottom line — Super Tuesday is upon us, and what’s bad for Sanders supporters on March 1 is going to look worse for a few weeks. Stay heartened. Whatever the result in March, this isn’t over until June, after Sanders’ best states have voted as well.

  19. I’m with you on Warren, and am saddened by the drumbeat for her to run for the White House. She is a one-trick pony with her scthick about beating up on Wall Street, but she has nothing else to offer on any other topic. Her failure to support anyone at this point is probably an effort to keep her in the spotlight. (“Will she or won’t she? Inquiring minds want to know.”)

  20. charlie

    Well, I had a discussion with a Hillary supporter recently. My comment about the situation was that people, especially millennials, are sick of getting screwed over. The response? Screwing people over is the American Way. What can one do but shrug and let them eat their lunch? We’re just going to have to hit bottom.

  21. Daize

    As per @Bill H, I am totally with you on Warren et al., but I am still disappointed.

    I still have strong hopes for Sanders, but if the Dems vote in Hillary, America will get what they deserve: President Drumpf. Perhaps everyday Americans (and the rest of the world along with them, unfortunately) just have not suffered enough under their corpo-fascist regime yet.

  22. Erin Gannon

    I’m not sure why I’m the only one suggesting it (and have been for months): Sanders/Trump in 2016. Let’s get this show on the road!

  23. Lisa

    The Dem elites just don’t get it, Trump has far ore tactical freedom. In an election he can go more to the left or the right than HRC on any issue. Because of of her backers she is locked into a very narrow course. Trump can just choose what path gives him he most votes.

    Given the usual patterns of votng it is going to hang on white men (many previous Dem voters), young people in general and women.

    Young people and many women will just not vote for HRC and will not bother voting, without which HRC cannot win. Trump, over and above the usual GOP votes will get the male white vote en masse.

    Sanders can count on the usual Dem votes, he will split the white male vote and will get the kids and the women en masse. A lot of those disaffected men want to vote Dem but feel betrayed by them (and they were). Sanders would give them reason to stay.

    A lot of the pressure groups (Black, LGBTI, Human rights, etc, etc) lobby groups are playng a tactical game right now. They are not stupid, but know how vicious HRC is. If they choose Sanders right now and HRC gets up and somehow wins they are screwed.
    Watch for defections as time goes on and Sanders gets more votes.

    That is one piece of advice I’d give hm, start getting some behnd the scenes work done with them NOW. Don’t leave it too late.

  24. The ongoing FBI investigation of Clinton’s use of emails may come back to bite her in the butt too. In a recent story one official looking into this noted that “There was wrongdoing, but was it criminal wrongdoing?” To the GOP operatives who will use this to cast a pall over her candidacy it won’t make any difference whether it was criminally wrong or not. In a close race this could cost the Democrats the presidency should Hillary be the nominee.

  25. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    The insurgent Right and the insurgent Left in the USA share the delusion that far more of their fellow citizens agree with them than the numbers who actually do agree with them.

  26. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    As for the scandal issue:

    Counting Bill Clinton’s campaigns for governor of Arkansas, the GOP and free-lance Clinton-loathers have been trying for 38 years now to find something on which to indict Bill and/or Hillary Clinton, and all they’ve been able to prove is that Bill lied under oath about unauthorized whoopee with a consenting adult. 🙄

    The people who have faith in the eventual indictment of Hillary Clinton remind me of the people who have faith that UFOs are real, but some unimaginably vast and leak-proof conspiracy is keeping us peasants from communing with our Space Siblings. 😆

  27. Jeff Wegerson

    In the old days when Democrats were moving right to keep up with the Republicans the saying was that voters would pick a real Republican over a fake one.

    Now if Hillary runs as the “sane Republican,” as Hugh suggests, and Trump attempts to out-flank Clinton to the left then we voters are going to have to choose between voting for a fake Republican or a fake Democrat.

    Oh the humanity.

  28. anonymous coward

    Two things I can’t believe in: first, that Obama will allow any prosecution of Hillary Clinton to go forward. He doesn’t have to kill it with a drone, he will just instruct his appointees to slow walk it with procedural roadblocks so that it can’t become a headline before the election. They probably don’t even need to told something like that. Second, Rush Limbaugh instructing Republican voters to vote for Hillary Clinton because Donald Trump isn’t a conservative. Hillary Clinton has been ground zero for Republican’s boundless reserves of hatred since they first learned of her existence in 1992. She killed Vince Foster! She’s a closet lesbian! She’s a Leninist she-devil with a gun-grabbing prehensile vagina! Sane Republicans voting for Hillary? “Sane Republicans” may be a word, or a term composed of words which by themselves are perfectly comprehensible, but there is no corresponding thing pertaining to the term when you put those two words together.

    As for it ever sinking in with the Democratic establishment that Hillary is too much hated to win. I do believe it when people say the Democrats would prefer to lose with Hillary than to win with Bernie. They would rather lose as Neoliberal corporatists than win as FDR Democrats or -gasp- Social Democrats. If they lose, they don’t disappear. Democratic poohbahs will go on collecting their baksheesh from corporate donors, it just won’t be as good a business for them as it would be if Hillary were presiding over the auction from the White House. If Bernie were elected, it would mean civil war within the party during a Democratic President’s term in office. They can then choose to piss off their voters or piss off their corporate sponsors. Obviously they would prefer to piss on their constituents. Republicans would want to lynch Sanders, Democrats would find ways to help. But business conditions -aka the gravy train of bribe money- would suffer either way. The power and secure, reliable compliance they now have to offer Big Money would inevitably be damaged in the struggle. Better to lose now and wait for another turn of the wheel. Flush times will come again.

  29. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    Sometimes I think everyone on this site but me takes it for granted that Hillary can’t win in November.

    Maybe indeed she will lose, but I don’t see why her campaign should be thought of as hopeless.

    I begin to suspect that what passes for a Left in the USA has its own intellectual echo chamber, rather like the far better-funded (and more airtight) intellectual echo chamber of the U. S. Right.

  30. DMC

    Its not that she can’t win in November, its that most of us would prefer she didn’t. She came into the race as the overwhelming favorite but never underestimate the Democrats ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Its also not about some imagined scandal from the fevered brows of Republican operatives(BENGHAZI!!11!) but about being the very embodiment of the neocon/neolib agenda. Her campaign slogan might as well be “More of the same and harder but we’ll respect you in the morning”. And is Trump really doing so well because of the zeitgiest or because the Republicans fielded the weakest line-up in my lifetime? And despite being the very definition of “odious twerp” he has many ostensable lefties stroking their chins and thinking “if this guy scares Mitch McConnell into voting for HRC, there MUST be something good about him(though we’re hard pressed to say what).”

  31. Hugh

    Both Trump and Clinton have really high negatives. I expect Clinton to run as the lesser of the two evils. I don’t think Clinton or the Democratic Establishment realizes though how little force that argument has anymore among independents, millennials, and progressives. She is disliked, and I mean really disliked, by many. She inspires enthusiasm in few. And groups like African Americans where she has strong support have poor turn outs.

    Trump I would say is feared (as a dangerous nutcase) by many, but he does have enthusiastic supporters. And he taps into a current of populism. Clinton is elitist through and through. She hates and has zero understanding of anything populist.

    Both Trump and Clinton have plenty of scandals waiting in the wings. The thing is Trump’s have yet to stick while those of Clinton are like ticking timebombs.

    In a Trump-Clinton match-up, the one sure loser is the American people.

  32. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    Both Trump and Clinton have plenty of scandals waiting in the wings. The thing is Trump’s have yet to stick while those of Clinton are like ticking time bombs.


    The people who have faith in the eventual indictment of Hillary Clinton remind me of the people who have faith that UFOs are real, but some unimaginably vast and leak-proof conspiracy is keeping us peasants from communing with our Space Siblings.


    Mighty long countdowns on those time bombs. 🙄

    But keep the faith, Hugh. Maybe next year will see Hillary being fitted for an orange jumpsuit.

    And then maybe the Mothership will land and Starchild will free our minds and our @$$es will follow. 😆

  33. Hugh

    Maybe you should get out from the cabbage patch more and ditch the rose-colored Hillary glasses. The Clinton Global Initiative and influence peddling, the Wall Street speeches and the exorbitant fees/bribes paid for them, Hillary’s “feminism” and Bill’s “lechery” (since you have some problem with calling it what it is sexual predation), her private email server, and the whole Libyan fiasco which she championed, all and any of these could sink her candidacy without her being indicted on anything or spending a day in jail.

  34. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    How much of what Hugh says is true, versus how much of it is the usual rantings of the Virtual Lynch Mob of the GOP and the Corporate Media (and their honest, perpetual suckers, the “pwogwessives”), which has been yee-hawing for some 38 years and counting? The boys are crying “Wolf!” again; why should I assume that this wolf is real?

    But let’s assume all of it is true. How does Trump call her on any of it without coming off as Elmer Fudd saying “You talk funny”? He’s a member of the elite, too, and as Hugh himself noted, opposition research could find some embarrassing things on him as well.

  35. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    Oh, and I think I’ll stay in the cabbage patch for now. At least I can hear sounds from the real world there, unlike in the Pwogwessive Intellectual Echo Chamber, which increasingly reminds me of the Wingnut Intellectual Echo Chamber–they even believe some of the same things, especially about their Demonic Duo of Bill & Hill.

  36. different clue

    Different people have bitter feelings about the Clinton Legacy for different reasons. The human and social and physical wreckage of ex-industrial Great Lakestan and Rust Beltistan are monuments to Bill’s NAFTA and Bill’s WTO membership for America and Bill’s MFN for China.
    And several million de-jobbed blue-collar middle-class people will be bitter about that. Oh, yes. Yes they will be.

    I remember I was once lucky enough to be part of a group trip for a few days to Czechia and Hungary, with a train trip through Slovakia between them. After trainriding for a while through bunches of ex-communist abandoned industrial ruins, it suddenly hit me why I felt such eerie familiarity with it all. “Hey! It looks like MICHIGAN around here!” Thank you ever so much, Mr. NAFTA Bill.

  37. Lisa

    different clue: Yep, dead right and the same in every country the neo-liberals dominated, UK, Australia, Canada and all the sorry rest.

  38. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    Bill & Hill both made real mistakes, and they have other flaws, too–but the Wingnut Get-The-Clintons Industry does not talk about their real flaws. Instead, the Industry keeps repeating the same old fraudulent scandal tropes and invents new ones every so often, and those tropes even find their way into the discourse of “pwogwessives”, whom I would have expected to know better.

    In the last two decades of the 20th Century, the Democratic Party in general chose to compromise with Big Business, and move rightward in other ways, because it was desperate to get big money for ads and campaigns either to get back the white “blue-collar middle-class” voters it had lost to the “Southern Strategy”, or to get new voters to replace them. The DP might not have felt the need to do that if Diff Clue’s precious blue-collar middle-class whites had not been such racist, sexist, hippie-bashing, flag-waving, stoop-browed, vacuum-skulled, knuckle-walking Darwin Award candidates that they fell for the “Southern Strategy”, hook, line, sinker, and flopping in the boat.

  39. different clue

    The Wingnut-Get-The-Clintons-Industry has effectively immunized, cloaked and shielded the Clintons against any genuine criticism from any genuine sources. They have achieved “discreditation by association”. So because of mass media screaming about “Whitewatergate”
    24/7 for years and years, any criticism of Clinton’s Free Trade Agreements is either not heard at all or is dismissed as some kind of sly bait dangled by the Wingnut Whitewatergate hustlers to bait and switch people over to esthetic distaste for the Clintons and concern with Wingnutty non-issues.

    And so I find serious sensible people defending or excusing or rationalizing the Free Trade Agreements, the Telecommunications Reform Act, the Glass-Steagall repeal, etc. over and over and over again. And despite all my best efforts to keep my criticisms scraped clean of any trace of Wingnut barnacles, many many people only hear the smell of some kind of Wingnuttery behind my condemnation of NAFTA . . . for example. So that now when I say, for example, that I believe a President Clinton will support TTP, TTIP, TISA, etc. based on her persistent support of these things throughout her State Secretaryship; people think I am a mysoginist Bernie BroTroll. And not just me . . . anyone who raises these objections is dismissed as such by numerous Clinton supporters who will be plunged into even deeper reaches of Ukrainian level poverty along with the rest of us if Clinton is elected to pursue her Free Trade Neo-Liberal agenda.

  40. different clue

    @ Ivory Bill Woodpecker,

    Am I correct when I understand you to be saying that because the blue collar middle class were allegedly “racist, sexist, hippie-bashing, flag-waving, stoop-browed, vacuum-skulled, knuckle-walking Darwin Award candidates that they fell for the “Southern Strategy”, hook, line, sinker, and flopping in the boat.” . . . that they deserved and deserve the mass poverty through mass jobicide that Clinton very carefully and deliberately engineered for them?
    And that any of the jobicided who voted for Clinton are acceptable collateral damage?

    ( By the way, I think you are channeling Clinton himself with this description and accusation.
    The Clintons were heartbroken when so many union-member Democrats voted for Nixon over the Clintons’ beloved McGovern. I believe Mr. Bill in particular vowed that he would get revenge on them at some future point. I believe that his lying deceitful forceful advocacy for Free Trade Agreements was partially motivated by his vengeful desire to get revenge on the Union Democrats who voted for Nixon by destroying their lives with Free Trade Agreements. Money is not the only motive in politics. Though of course money is important and I am sure that part of Slicky Bill’s motivation for Free Trade Agreements was the multimillion dollar payoffs he knew he would get after office for securing the Free Trade Agreements. Which he has indeed recieved, channeling them through his money laundry in Clinton-Foundation disguise).

  41. Hugh

    “Bill & Hill both made real mistakes, and they have other flaws…”

    Understatement of the week. Sort of like saying the Titanic had a few rust spots or Al Capone had a few rough edges. The Clintons are grifters. But because these grifters were hounded by the Republicans, to criticize them in any meaningful way is portrayed as akin to cursing in church. It’s just not done. Maybe we should draw haloes over their heads and call them Saints Bill and Hill.

    We used to call the 25% or so of public opinion who supported Bush no matter what MFMs because they were totally impervious to either argument or evidence. But as Obama and the Clintons Redux have shown, this mindless, endlessly justifying phenomenon is not confined to conservatives. Tribalism seems to exist across the political spectrum.

  42. Ivory Bill Woodpecker

    @Diff Clue:

    No, their jobs should not have been shipped overseas to slave and semi-slave labor countries.

    But yes, my sympathy for the right-wingers among us non-elite citizens is limited by the fact that non-elite right-wing citizens did it to themselves.

  43. Blissex

    «because the blue collar middle class were allegedly “racist, sexist, hippie-bashing, flag-waving, stoop-browed, vacuum-skulled, knuckle-walking Darwin Award candidates that they fell for the “Southern Strategy”, hook, line, sinker, and flopping in the boat.” . . . that they deserved and deserve the mass poverty through mass jobicide»

    I think that this is a big misreading of what happened in 1970s and 1980s.

    The «blue collar middle class» split in two: a large number, those who had become prosperous thanks to trade unions, safe jobs, good wages, good benefits, good pensions, became thus rentier middle class caring much more about property and stock prices and voting to keep the losers out and to push wages and benefits down. BTW those newly minted “F*ck YOU! I got mine!” rentier middle classes in the USA have a definite ethnic bias: irish/jewish/italian, who were the bluecollar backbone of the Democrats, and whose descendants still largely dominate the higher Democrat machine echelons; but who are now mostly suburban Republicans.

    These people went Republican or DNC Democrat/Clintonista as soon as they got a tiny bit of wealth. This happened also in the UK, Australia, and other Anglo-American culture countries.

    it is not that the parties of the left betrayed their voters, but most of their blue collar voters betrayed the parties of the left who had put them in middle class.

    There is about this a very good (if biased) speech by the english politician Tony Blair, the equivalent of Bill Clinton:
    «I was canvassing in the Midlands on an ordinary suburban estate. I met a man polishing his Ford Sierra, self-employed electrician, Dad always voted Labour. He used to vote Labour, he said, but he bought his own home, he had set up his own business, he was doing quite nicely, so he said I’ve become a Tory. He was not rich but he was doing better than he did, and as far as he was concerned, being better off meant being Tory too.»
    «Post-war Britain has seen two big changes. First, and partly as a result of reforming Labour governments, there are many more healthy, wealthy and well-educated people than before. In addition, employment has switched from traditional manufacturing industries to a more white-collar, service-based economy. The inevitable result has been that class identity has fragmented. Only about a third of the population now regard themselves as ‘working-class’. Of course it is possible still to analyse Britain in terms of a strict Marxist definition of class: but it is not very helpful to our understanding of how the country thinks and votes. In fact, of that third, many are likely not to be ‘working’ at all: these are the unemployed, pensioners, single parents – in other words, the poor. A party that restricts its appeal to the traditional working class will not win an election.»

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén