The Gift That Keeps On Giving

Submitted by Nightprowlkitty on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 6:39pm

All I have to do is remember a little part of Bernie's campaign to feel confident in analyzing what information is coming out of Hillary's campaign.

The first debate, when Bernie tried very desperately to keep it on the issues - his "we don't give a damn about your emails" is still resonating with me as I struggle through this political morass to hold to the real issues, not the political infighting.

Issues in the center of my thoughts. That sounds easy, but it truly isn't. I have an ego as much as the next guy and it hurts my ego when I read the Brockian mindfucking jive, and when my ego hurts, I start thinking about me, not us. Because that's what the issues are - NotMeUs.

So the Clinton camp attacks Trump and tries to scare the left flank of the body politic into falling in line.

I'm not that rigid, I'm fine with falling in line.

But there is no line, see that's the problem.

They talk about privilege. Bernie spoke of privilege, too, but never used the word. He spoke about the privilege of the "One Tenth of One Percent" who are so captured by the privileged bubble they've pursued that they are incapable of feeling real compassion. That's the harm of privilege, that you stop caring about others. It's the definition of hell, imo.

And then he spoke about the rest of us, each one of us, with a clear moral grasp of what dignity means to brothers and sisters.

Anyway, I digress.

What are Clinton's issues? Shaun King is trying extremely hard to support Hillary, and I find reading his tweets to be instructive, as he has yet to find any of her issues compelling. Best he can say is that she "really knows her stuff," when talking about the granular aspect of governing and politics.

So what "stuff" is that then? That she's good at organizing her thoughts? What, then, is the goal that her organized thoughts are reaching towards?

We've all heard all the arguments about the Clinton flaws and the flaws of the DNC Clinton Machine. I'm not going to reiterate them, it's why we're here instead of at Daily Kos.

I'm not closed minded. If, for example, I saw Hillary Clinton loudly and strongly lobby against Obama signing the TPP during the lame duck session, that would certainly make me look twice at her.

There are actual issues that I'm willing to swallow my pride over if I believe the talk is leading to the walk. But I first have to see the walk.

Haven't seen it yet.

And I know the walk now, because I've seen it illustrated by Bernie Sanders. So now I have a basis for comparison. At his best, his campaign made me truly forget myself and my ego and really see other people as brothers and sisters and feel real human compassion.

So that's where I'm at this sultry summer Saturday evening.

Tags:

#StillFeelingTheBern

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Nightprowlkitty on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 6:41pm

I believe ...

... the DNC is still misunderstanding what strength is and what weakness is. They believe the liberal Dems on the left were weak and that's why they didn't win elections.

I believe this because I saw their utter incoherence when Bernie didn't back down. I remember well the reaction when Jeff Weaver didn't lay down and die over the DNC computer breach but fought back and got back his data very quickly by threatening to sue.

The Dems just couldn't believe the Sanders campaign wouldn't hold to their script of showing weakness and fearing the Dem Machine.

They were wrong about what is weak and what is strong, they learned the wrong lesson during the DLC years.

—

Beat in the USA.

Submitted by enhydra lutris on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 8:13pm

The DLC years aren't over, only the name has changed. I

think the latest two variants are "New Democrats" and "Third Way". Same shit, different day, maybe a little further to the right, just like the country as a whole, but that's it.

—

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Submitted by sfern on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 8:31pm

I disagree that the whole country has moved to the right.

I agree that our political machine has moved to the right, but if Bernie's campaign has taught us anything, it's that the majority of people welcome his leftist message. Perhaps not the majority of dems, although with the election fraud, even that is not a given. But if we include indies & even some repubs who support him (I know of some personally), then clearly a majority of the people are willing to vote much further to the left of our current oligarch-funded pols.

Submitted by Dallasdoc on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 6:43pm

I finally screwed up the courage

to watch a few minutes of Clinton's acceptance speech, and a few of Gen. Jack D. Ripper's. It was as bad as I thought it would be, maybe worse. I thought the sign-off music at the end of Hillary's speech should probably be "Tomorrow Belongs to Me."

Should we vote for Clusterfuck A or Clusterfuck B? Why neither, thank you.

—

Please help support caucus99percent!

Submitted by Nightprowlkitty on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 6:47pm

I felt no need ...

... to listen to her acceptance speech. I simply don't believe anything she says because as Obama put it, she'll "say anything."

The only way she can convince me to even consider her is by her doing something, not saying something. I haven't seen any of that, not even a hint.

—

Beat in the USA.

Submitted by Dallasdoc on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 6:50pm

Oh, I don't believe anything she says either

A CNN poll taken right before the convention found that 68% of respondents did not find her honest and trustworthy, a record high number in that poll. So you and I have plenty of company. At this point, those who find Hillary honest approximately equal the number of Republican dead-enders in any poll, around 30%.

The tone and direction of her lies was evident in a couple of minutes: phony patriotic flattery, which has never been a good opening gambit in any politician's rhetoric, ever.

—

Please help support caucus99percent!

Submitted by enhydra lutris on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 8:14pm

Wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross - that's her.

—

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Submitted by Big Al on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 7:39pm

She already did do something.

She has caused and supported the deaths of millions basically. Not to mention her other criminal acts.

Submitted by Nightprowlkitty on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 7:43pm

I know.

I'm only speaking of right now. Even with all that, if she acted on any of the issues we hold dear, I'd be willing to consider her. I'm not pure, I'm just not a big enough fool to believe anything she says.

—

Beat in the USA.

Submitted by on the cusp on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 8:08pm

She can't, by definition, "Do anything".

She is a private citizen.
She can say anything.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by HappyinNM on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 8:30pm

Then why does she claim credit for legislation

that was passed when she was a private citizen? Certainly you've heard her claim credit for passing CHIP. It was passed in 1997. First Lady = private citizen. And when she had the power to make change, she voted for Shock and Awe. See. She's got a record. And now we're supposed to TRUST that she'll do better this time. And she's done NOTHING to show that's even a possibility. And few trust her.

Submitted by on the cusp on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 8:43pm

well, DUH

That is my point.
She is powerless unless and until she is.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by Nightprowlkitty on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 8:46pm

I Disagree.

As in the example I gave - if Obama tries to pass the TPP in the lame duck session, Hillary could be very influential in lobbying against it. She has a lot of power as the Dem nominee, not to mention as the now-leader of the Clinton Machine.

—

Beat in the USA.

Submitted by TheOtherMaven on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 10:14pm

Lobby against it? You kidding?

That's the whole reason she was Selected - to see that TPP and other sellouts to the Corpocracy get passed. They own her, lock, stock, and barrel, and she revels in being owned and doing her masters' bidding.

She may pay lip service to "opposing" TPP, but she'll roll over and play dead when her masters give the order.

—

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Submitted by HappyinNM on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 8:47pm

Please, let's not do "DUH" at this site.

I guess I misunderstood your point. I'm sorry.

Submitted by on the cusp on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 9:10pm

Let's do

Really??? Omigod? Srsly?
Back to form over content,Shill is pontificating with no boundaries.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981

Submitted by orlbucfan on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 11:16pm

$hrillary.

I tried to listen to her speak, but her voice grates on my ears. It sounds calculating and canned. When she gets worked up, it gets shrill. UGH! Rec'd!!

—

Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

Submitted by dervish on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 11:22pm

In honor of Allen's speech...

[video:https://youtu.be/29Mg6Gfh9Co]

Scary stuff!

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 10:35am

from which movie is that? When and who made the film? /nt

Submitted by dervish on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 10:49am

Cabaret (1972)

It's a must-watch classic!

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 1:57pm

oh, I don't remember that scene, time to watch the film

again. Of course I had seen it, but much of it faded away.

I do remember though that this movie started lots of follow-up, sorta copy-cat movies which exploited certain themes from the Nazi era that other earlier documentaries didn't.

Submitted by orestes on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 2:13pm

Cabaret is a masterpiece

in my estimation and the most effective indictment of Nazi Germany put on film. Fosse was an artistic genius. I have seen this movie well over 30 times and that scene in the biergarten never ceases to send chills down my spine.

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 2:21pm

on my way to get it and watch it again ... ;-) /nt

Submitted by Dallasdoc on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 2:27pm

Agree with you wholeheartedly

Cabaret is far and away my favorite musical, and one of my favorite movies ever. That biergarten scene ranks up there with Psycho's Shower scene as one of the scariest ever put on film.

—

Please help support caucus99percent!

Submitted by orestes on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 2:46pm

Interestingly

I think Cabaret is one of the best crafted films I've ever seen (and I've seen my share). I put Psycho in the same category. Every shot is so planned that it is truly a moving picture. You could stop the film at any spot and see the richness of the framing and the contents of the image.

Submitted by dervish on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 3:04pm

I love the construction

It starts innocently enough, with this blonde kid singing what at first appears to be an innocuous song, and then the camera pans down to his brown shirt and swastika! Classic!

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by orestes on Tue, 08/09/2016 - 11:33am

Yes

and the attendant riling of the crowd, shot harshly in the sunlight without make-up. Sends shivers down my spine.

Submitted by joe shikspack on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 7:00pm

clinton is a competent operator in the political bureaucracy...

she knows how to make the wheels of the whole machine grind and spin as needed to achieve an end.

the problem is that she has used and intends in the future if granted the office of president to use her talents, abilities and experience to benefit the 1% and sacrifice various segments of the 99% to varying degrees - using the level of sacrifice accorded to the various segments as wedges to divide and conquer.

ultimately, her competence and abilities are not a positive since she is playing for the other team.

Submitted by Nightprowlkitty on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 7:07pm

Well said.

Just read another Tweet where someone from the Nation says Hillary's speech "got to" them.

Really, that's fine. I have no problem with being moved by words.

I'm not refusing support to Clinton because I think she can't speak intelligently. As Cass says below, she'll do a great job coming up with an intelligent-sounding policy proposal that will change nothing.

At this point, only actions are going to tell me anything about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Machine. As of now, I've seen zero actions, and I include the Dem Platform struggle in that.

—

Beat in the USA.

Submitted by dervish on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 11:29pm

There is literally nothing

that she could say or do that would ever motivate me to vote for her.

Not a damned thing.

—

"Obama promised transparency, but Assange is the one who brought it."

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 10:53am

when someone says her words moved him/her, imo, it means as

much as nothing. It's just said to acknowledge that she and her speechwriters knew to push some buttons in the listener. I doubt that those who acknowledge that, are moved by those words at all. They use that sentence as an excuse for their own willingness to not risk their professional jobs in ways that would prevent them in the future to deal, report and talk about a President Clinton. They know they will have to do it to make their paychecks in the future, so they say, oh, yeah, it was really an emotionally moving speech. Many people get overwhelmed emotionally by their own words, or the words skilled speech writers come up with for them, in public. So many politicians have shed tears in public over their own damn "emotional wording". So many politicians hire folks to make tear jerking videos to appeal to something in the people they hope will donate and or vote for them. It's so bad I start to like the most boring sounded politicians.

It's all baloney. I am moved by nothing. Actually I hate it if family members are dragged out on the stage, like someone who puts his ducks in line, to make the candidate "honestly believable'. I see a lot of Americans have a knack at using their kids, mamas, grandmas, parents for those purposes. I can't stand it and think it's pretty unethical.

Political activism for a candidate or a cause or a mission should come out of yourself and not as supposed loyalty reasons from a family member. Just my two cents. Nobody is moved. Those words are forgotten faster than they were spoken. The only time they get pulled out of the archives is when they can be used in the next campaign to either destroy your opponent or support your own agenda.

Submitted by orestes on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 2:18pm

The supplication

of the once left press- Nation, Atlantic, Mother Jones (for christ's sake), Guardian- has been one of the major disappointments of this cycle. It confirmed my decision to stop subscribing a few years ago (because I was always behind in reading them). Even NYRB has middlwbrow Tomasky reporting on the election, with nothing but hackneyd common wisdom to share. However, I would not relinquish my NYRB's subscription. I'd recommend the London Review as well. Its reporting on our election has been better and the brexit fallout is quite interesting to read.

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 7:01pm

Here is a piece I saw on Facebook:

https://medium.com/welcome-to-the-scream-room/american-horror-story-ab4a...

It seems to explain the Clinton campaign's message problem really well. Here's the key quote:

So here it is. Here’s the story the Democrats are selling. They cannot persuade America, or the world, that liberalism is plausible, that change will come in a way that makes a meaningful difference to millions of lives; what they are offering, in practical terms, is the vestige of democracy against the certainty of dictatorship. They are offering things not getting quite so much worse quite so fast.

It's richly ironic, in this regard, that the "vestige of democracy" is promoted to us by way of massive electoral fraud, and that the ostensibly-feared "certainty of dictatorship" is not running a serious campaign.

At any rate, from your diary here:

What are Clinton's issues? Shaun King is trying extremely hard to support Hillary, and I find reading his tweets to be instructive, as he has yet to find any of her issues compelling. Best he can say is that she "really knows her stuff," when talking about the granular aspect of governing and politics.

Thanks for pointing this out NPK. Would someone PLEASE refer Shaun King to that part of Doug Henwood's biography of Clinton, My Turn, where it says:

I’ve paid little heed in these pages to Hillary’s policy positions. Hillary is a model of position production, but there’s little reason to trust any of her proposals. I’ve chosen instead to look at her history, which is not inspiring.

See, Clinton's campaign is historic not just because she'll become the first woman President. This is the first major-party Presidential campaign in American history with nothing to offer. You want something? Clinton will whip up a policy proposal for you that will be far less substantive than, say, cotton candy, and about the same size and shape.

—

'French theory is a product of US cultural imperialism." -- Gabriel Rockhill

Submitted by Nightprowlkitty on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 7:09pm

Perfect:

You want something? Clinton will whip up a policy proposal for you that will be far less substantive than, say, cotton candy, and about the same size and shape.

It's like hiring a baker when you need a plumber.

—

Beat in the USA.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 8:15pm

I'm not sure about Trump...

not running a real campaign.

That piece in WaPo is deceptive. It's typical for campaigns to take a breather in June if they wrap it up early, so a lot of what they say is just based on where they were in the calendar.

I think he was just laying low, not giving up.

I also don't buy the lack of ad expediture argument. TV ads don't provide nearly the bang for the buck they used to, and there are a lot of others ways to get a candidate message out that give a much better return. So if Trump isn't buying TV, maybe there's a different reason.

—

The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 9:45pm

Um...

Clinton declared victory in June, remember?

And the electoral college is biased against Trump, remember, so that tiny budget and staff, appropriate for a medium-sized Congressional campaign, should come out as totally appropriate when October rolls around, given that nearly all of the big donors have migrated to the Clinton camp, and that Trump is not the type of guy with the sort of integrity that will overcome a loss in the money and staffing primaries.

I don't think so.

I've been going over this in frontpaged diaries here for the past month or so, and nobody has yet devised a persuasive counterargument. Trump will be alive enough to keep Clinton's "fear Trump" argument going until election day, and then he will lose.

(Unless you WANT everyone here to fear a candidate who won't win...)

—

'French theory is a product of US cultural imperialism." -- Gabriel Rockhill

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 10:35pm

?

Clinton declared victory in June, remember?

Trump won a lot earlier, so didn't need to keep campaigning. What's your point?

(Unless you WANT everyone here to fear a candidate who won't win...)

I want to figure out what is really going on. Your fears are your own.

I don't peg Trump as someone who rolls over for anybody, and as his numbers improved in June, his going dark is looking like a pretty good strategy.

—

Submitted by apenultimate on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 10:52pm

I dunno

You may be correct, but this is a weird year.

Trump received a substantial boost in polling after the GOP convention.

Clinton went from polling at 53.8% likelihood of winning the presidency on the front page of fivethirtyeight a few days ago, to 53.3%, to 51.8%, to 49.9% today. No post-convention bounce (at least, not yet), but a post-convention drop! That's almost unprecedented. People really don't like her. And the week before the convention Clinton was at 66%.

Now, sure, 538 has been less than accurate this whole election cycle, and polls in general have not had a lot of accuracy, and, yes, Clinton might rig everything behind the scenes. So, you might be right.

But, it might actually be difficult for her to pull it off this time around.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 11:06pm

I've said before...

that I don't think Hillary can win without massive cheating, which of course may happen. Not in a four way race and not when half her own base and all of her opponent's hate her guts.

Long way to go, but regardless, if Trump does end up losing, I don't think it will be because he purposefully tanked it.

—

Submitted by Amanda Matthews on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 5:55pm

One BIG REASON I don't think Trump would purposely sink

his campaign is because I can't see him being a good enough friend to ANYONE to make himself so hated, such a laughingstock, and to put himself in such a horrible position with the Republicans for anyone on this planet., What the hell could the guy possibly get out of doing that to himself and his family?

Trump's just a maniacal narcissist who thinks he should run the world because he's smarter than everyone else. IOW, He's totally delusional.

—

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Submitted by Jay Elliott on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 4:03am

I'll Bite

I believe your argument is that Trump isn't serious about winning, that he's fundamentally sheepdogging.

That's possible, of course. The two families are friends, I don't think Bill's calls to Donald have been disputed, etc.

However, I do think he is running to win, and here's why: Paul Manafort. I don't know why he would bring in the one guy who might be able to outsteal Karl Rove. I guess you could counter that Manafort's job is to guarantee Hillary wins. But then what about how hard he is hitting her personally? She can't be enjoying it. He's hitting her in exactly the kind of soft spots that could really damage her in the General and personally enrage her. That doesn't seem like the action of the Washington Generals to me. And Donald Trump does not sound like the kind of man who would enjoy having the entire elite call him the devil. Even more importantly, he is riling up the Republican base against the TPP. Obama and Clinton are counting on Republican votes to pass it, so they get to pretend their hands were forced. How does it help Clinton to do that?

I think he wants to win. I think he's been pretty clever so far, running a lean campaign and getting free air time. Now he's in a difficult situation, because he's sticking a toe in the isolationist, anti-free trade water, and our glorious overlords will not allow it. So he isn't getting the big money Clinton is. He threw a bone to Koch wing of the party by adding Pence, who is also going to be very good at going to funerals and playing golf, but that didn't open a lot of spigots. So he has to conserve his funds. Most people don't pay attention until after Labor Day, and traditional advertising is losing its power, both in the number and type of eyeballs it gets and how well it works. It's kind of a rope-a-dope; Clinton has been outspending him on ads by a ridiculous margin this month, just to stay even with him. Unless the dynamic changes a lot in August, he might as well hold off until September. And I know it's not a big organization. But I also notice that he apparently successfully curried favor with evangelicals, and that's the main GOTV structure for the modern GOP.

I'm not saying all his gambles will necessarily work. I just think he's actually trying to win, and at least some of what he's doing tactically seems pretty smart. It's still probably going to come down to whether the Kochs make Kasich help Hillary rig the machines in Ohio, or Kasich helps Trump do it.

Edited to add: I don't like Trump. Since I'm not a regular here, I feel like I have to say that. I volunteered for Bernie in the primaries. I'll probably vote third party in the General, although if Trump could actually take my blue state, I'd vote for him, because I consider Clinton the greater evil.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 9:38am

Excellent Analysis

As long as he's ahead, Trump doesn't have to go hard in August. As you say, nobody pays attention until September anyway, so why waste precious resources when Hillary's numbers keep going down anyway?

Besides, if he wants a ton of free TV time, all Trump needs to do is hold a press conference, something Hillary refuses to do.

Meanwhile, Trump spends this down time cutting deals with the state parties and evangelicals to give himself a ground game. He already knows he can rely on his base's visceral hatred of Hillary for turn out in November - as Michael Moore says, they'll come out of every nook and cranny to vote against her.

It's still probably going to come down to whether the Kochs make Kasich help Hillary rig the machines in Ohio, or Kasich helps Trump do it.

The wild cards in all this are of course establishment Republicans like Kasich who want to stay on the bankster gravy train. But I think Kasich will come around, perhaps for no other reason that he made such a show out of his opposition in Cleveland, that if Hillary wins Ohio he will be the guy all the Goopers blame for President Hillary.

And no Republican wants to be that guy.

—

Submitted by orestes on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 2:28pm

One other issue- timing is key

I wonder whether clinton's continual hacking at trump will eventually lose its resonance by the time October rolls around. People are already getting tired of hearing it. I think it will lose its efficacy. As a show man, trump knows that timing is key. He continues to spread his message and attacks clinton in the process, but if he waits until early october and starts hitting her relentlessly on her vulnerabilities, it will be more difficult for her to counter all of them effectively and more difficult for the media to treat them as "old news," their favorite ploy to suppress news.

As a side note, I happened to flip by MSNBC just as CLinton's bus was leaving Johnstown. There were the requisite 30 people standing there in support. I wouldn't be surprised to find these were staffers trying to create an image. It looked pathetic. The visual of Clinton's poor attendances will also reinforce the theme that she has little support, notwithstanding the media's and clintonites' constant protests that she has already sewn up 90% of Sanders's voters.

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 10:52pm

WaPo is leading the corporatist media anti-Trump charge. EOM

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by Not Henry Kissinger on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 11:24pm

Politico too...

as revealed by wikileaks.

(the other link Cassiodorus cites)

—

Submitted by orlbucfan on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 11:33pm

Screw WAPO.

They are a totally RW corporate captured media microphone. tRump is a hairballed brained gas bag. He does understand the joke called mass media. He gets plenty of free media exposure/advertising cos of it. If Bernie had gotten 15% of that free exposure, he may have won. Oh well ...:-(

—

Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

Submitted by Late Again on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 2:22am

Hillary Clinton

is next in line to oversee America's managed decline. Of course she "knows her stuff".

The real problem is that the stuff she knows isn't what you think it is and - even if the two somehow converged - the "stuff she knows" isn't going to be utilized to benefit anyone but herself and others in and above her class.

—

"When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained." - Mark Twain

Submitted by riverlover on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 7:04pm

That belief of goodness, of grace, was Bernie's gift to us.

He believed in us, and helped each person he touched to believe a bit more in their fellow brothers and sisters. And that spark got lit, and many carry it forward, look at the marchers in Philly calling out "we love you!" to the cops, and generally making it a non-violent demonstration.

Hillary and Trump both are wielding candle-snuffers. Won't work now, too many are lit.

—

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

Submitted by Nightprowlkitty on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 7:08pm

That's exactly how I feel. nt

—

Beat in the USA.

Submitted by thanatokephaloides on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 9:59pm

lit candles

Hillary and Trump both are wielding candle-snuffers. Won't work now, too many are lit.

And some of those are Roman candles, too! Snuffers are useless against massive arrays of flaming spheres (great balls of fire?)!

—

"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar

"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides

Submitted by rmwarnick on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 7:12pm

Cotton candy

I don’t like cotton candy, so the analogy works for me. In her acceptance speech, Hillary glossed over a lot of the issues we care about, but with a certain lack of substance. It was more than I expected, but not enough to overcome her utter lack of credibility.

One promise that I did not hear - she said nothing about a ban on fossil fuel extraction on our public lands.

—

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

Submitted by Leu2500 on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 7:25pm

I know.

Poor Bernie. One of his major reasons that he believes trump must not become president is because he doesn't believe in climate change.

But even if Hillary does, so what? She actively supports things like fracking (see her pushing it in Eastern Europe while Secretary of State), which make it worse.

So we have a distinction that makes no difference.

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 7:37pm

I don't believe Bernie's "stop Trump" rap.

It doesn't make sense. If Hillary Clinton cannot "stop Trump" when Trump is not running a serious campaign, what makes Bernie Sanders think he can help Hillary Clinton to "stop Trump"?

Does any of this have anything to do with Sanders' disdain for Jill Stein?

—

'French theory is a product of US cultural imperialism." -- Gabriel Rockhill

Submitted by ovals49 on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 8:24pm

Sanders' disdain for Jill Stein?

Can you elaborate on this a bit? Where does this idea come from? It's new to me.

—

“What the herd hates most is the one who thinks differently; it is not so much the opinion itself, but the audacity of wanting to think for themselves, something that they do not know how to do.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

Submitted by featheredsprite on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 8:50pm

I've wondered about that.

I have absolutely no proof or even hard evidence, but he seems to view her overtures with disdain. YMMV.

—

Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.

Submitted by ovals49 on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 9:09pm

Perhaps it's as simple as not wanting to give up

on working within the Democratic Party to reform it. The Green Party, realistically, is unlikely to be a contender at the presidential level for a long time. That and wanting to have his next two years in the Senate productive, with the option of another term if he so chooses could easily explain Bernie's passing on going Green.

Distain is a hard word with a decidedly negative edge. Dismissing Steins invitation to join the Greens might not have been any more negative than 'no thank you'.

—

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 9:55pm

sigh

It's the old self-fulfilling argument again. I won't help the Green Party because

The Green Party, realistically, is unlikely to be a contender at the presidential level for a long time.

because I won't help the Green Party.

See, people didn't talk this type of talk when the Republican Party was being formed in 1854. Nobody said "I'm staying with the Whigs because the Republican Party doesn't stand a chance." Nobody said "The Republicans won't be a contender at the Presidential level for a long, long time." Instead, they elected Honest Abe to the White House six year later, and the Union went on to win the Civil War. Today's liberals would have completely botched the job.

I keep publishing diaries on realignment, and people keep ignoring them. But, hey, I imagine that after the first two dozen primaries "won" through election fraud, the neoliberals dominating the Democratic Party will give in, if there's a civilization left by then.

—

'French theory is a product of US cultural imperialism." -- Gabriel Rockhill

Submitted by ovals49 on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 10:07pm

But I AM with the Green Party, and voting Green in November

**sigh**
Even without any great expectations.

—

Submitted by Cassiodorus on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 10:10pm

And so are plenty of Sanders' staffers.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/07/29/run-bernie-run-open-letter-to-ber...

So why all the "it's going to take forever"? Are you all prophets?

—

'French theory is a product of US cultural imperialism." -- Gabriel Rockhill

Submitted by riverlover on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 6:16am

I will be a hopeful Stein prophet.

She is in early process of name recognition and has much of the Sanders machinery and methodology in place behind her. Her numbers can only go up, probably by many with Demexit and then by what shall be known as the Sanders Method. Clinton has already begun smear attacks, also meaning Team Clinton is fighting on two war fronts. Hell, maybe the Green convention will be televised. [somewhere, Youtube likely] And it will not be the same type of excessive show seen in two back-to-back vomiting-inducing conventions.

—

Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.

Submitted by FuturePassed on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 10:47am

Sanders/Stein

This one isn't hard. Bernie doesn't want the competition. The stronger the Jill Stein movement outside the party, the weaker Bernie's position in the party.

Bernie has achieved great things over a long political career. I've voted for him and contributed to his campaigns many times including this one. But Bernie isn't a sharing kind of guy.

I didn't want to do it during the campaign and I'm too busy at the moment, but when I have time I will write an essay providing more details of the F-35 basing decision than most of you have ever heard.

If anyone is worried that Bernie was threatened with violence to back down, I promise you can relax. I doubt Bernie can do anything to make Hillary happy at this point. But his distinguished colleagues in the senate know he could have made a much bigger issue out of the campaign irregularities. Harry Reid publicly acknowledged as much.

Bernie will get his reward. I'm sure he genuinely believes he will be able to do more good for the issues that matter to him cooperating with the inevitable than what, for him personally at least, would be going down in flames. Who knows? Maybe he's right.

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 12:22pm

[redacted] BS - too bad I wrote this comment

Submitted by FuturePassed on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 11:40am

Truth

YOU are the one purveying your version of truth. I am describing a more complicated reality that conflicts with portions of your revealed truth. It doesn't make Bernie a bad man.

I never suggested that Bernie ran for the presidency in order to get a reward. I choose words with care. I don't appreciate it when people attempt to put their words in my mouth.

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 12:21pm

ok, whatever, I redact my comment, it's not important

enough to talk about it further.

Submitted by SnappleBC on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 11:15am

wut?

I agree on the F-35. You're going to need to provide some solid evidence... very solid... to convince me that Bernie is too selfish to share the stage with Stein or that he deliberately didn't speak about things so that he could "get his reward".

I encourage you to write that post but you'd better have links that go to source material that strongly support your point because your point seems outrageous on the face of it.

—

A lot of wanderers in the U.S. political desert recognize that all the duopoly has to offer is a choice of mirages. Come, let us trudge towards empty expanse of sand #1, littered with the bleached bones of Deaniacs and Hope and Changers.
-- lotlizard

Submitted by FuturePassed on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 1:14pm

Bernie as Human

Thank you for the respectful tone. The comment preceding yours has just about convinced me not to write the essay. I don't mind criticism. I thought it might be possible the have a discussion that would be helpful. People have plenty of opportunities to vent and plenty of things more deserving of their wrath. I don't believe I would be doing anything productive for the community here that I have come to value deeply.

Re the F-35 in Burlington, you can get the basics here:

As part of the effort to keep the F-35 out of the Burlington airport people in the area spend a lot of time on the inadequacies of the F-35 as a plane, a boondoggle. You'll need to look for links talking about the health and economic effects on the community.

You can also look here:

Patrick Leahy had the clout to do the deal. His wife's cousin, Ernie Pomerleau, is a commercial real estate developer. Commercial development has already begun in the dead zone created by the F-16 where South Burlington used a federal grant to buy 200 homes.

There is a growing body of evidence documenting harm to health caused by airport noise. The US government considers an area with an average daily decibel level of 65 or greater "unsuitable for residential use." There are already people living in such an area. A South Burlington School and the entire Winooski School District, grades K-12 are or will be in the area. The government standard for schools is 55 decibels.

I will not take the time to detail the inaccurate information the VTANG submitted about residential development (decades old) that got the Burlington Airport to the top of the list. The most recent medical information in the environmental impact statement was from 2003 if I recall correctly. A study by commercial realtors insisting there would be no negative impact on home values was refuted when the Northwestern Vermont Association of Realtors announced they believed the law required sellers to notify potential buyers of the "unsuitable for residential use" designation.

Leahy was the initiator, but Bernie was in on it and rarely missed a photo op. Most of the sense of betrayal is directed at Bernie because people expect such things from Leahy. The area around the airport has the largest amount of affordable housing in VT. The working class people of Winooski think of themselves as Bernie's people. It's a working class city, with some areas in the middle class.

I had reason to drive through Winooski to a party last night. The Bernie for President signs have not come down. I didn't see a Hillary sign. One of the people at the gathering said what hurts most is that he wouldn't even talk to us. To the best of my knowledge Bernie Sanders has never once sat down with the people in the affected area to listen to their concerns.

The F-35 program is the most expensive weapons program in history. Did Leahy or Bernie request funds to increase sound insulation in area schools? No. They couldn't risk raising any obstacles in their effort to get the Air Force to do something it didn't especially want to do in the first place.

Since you began by agreeing on the F-35 the above is more for others. Bernie had any number of opportunities to hit Hillary Clinton much harder. He could have joined lawsuits of his supporters on voter fraud and raised it as an issue. If anything he tamped it down considerably. Bernie's limited reaction made it easier for those at TOP to dismiss the issue as a CT.

But the big issue is the relationship between Hillary Clinton as SOS and donations to the Clinton family. There was nearly a formula. You have an issue that involves the State Department, say repealing a minimum wage increase in Haiti. You invite Bill to give a 6 figure speech. The State Department acts. And you make a 7 figure donation to the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation. Suppose when Hillary accused Bernie of attacking her integrity and said he couldn't give an example he turned, pointed at her and gave a case where an organization, or sometimes another country, paid Bill to speak; the State Department acted in a manner that benefited the actor; and the actor made a large contribution to the Clinton Foundation.

I know, that doesn't demonstrate a quid pro quo. I read it at TOP. But it would have made his point. As it was the media had a field day with Bernie's baseless charge. He could have built commercials on the same theme.

I have no desire to go on. I admire and respect Bernie. I think Bernie's statement on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most courageous stance a politician in either party has taken in many years. But the picture of Bernie that has been emerging here is less than consistent with the Bernie I have been observing since he was mayor.

Counting my reading before my initial post I've been here for nearly five hours. I need to go. Apologies to those who would like to continue a dialog.

I never tried to insert a link before. If they don't work I'll insert below so anyone interested can copy and paste into a browser.

Peace to all. I'm not here to divide.

Submitted by FuturePassed on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 1:16pm

Text for links

http://www.stopthef35.com

http://saveourskiesvt.org/about-us/

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 4:02pm

Hi, FuturePassed, I am sorry that I have caused doubts in you

about writing an essay about Sanders. I never intended that to happen. Your wording in your first comment had surprised me. I couldn't understand why you wrote them. This second comment you posted now, shows you have insider knowledge of Bernie Sanders as a human being. Most people don't have that privilege or knowledge.

To outsiders and simple folks, who appreciated his messages and his stamina to campaign on them against the Democratic elite, Bernie didn't seem to show what looks a little bit like a character flaw to me in the way you described it.

Please write your essay. I have no idea about Sanders as a human being. So, I don't want you to take my lax comment, which I redacted, as a reason not to write your essay, because I soiled this site with my blabbering mouth and didn't show enough respect towards your first comment.

I happened to be delighted to have Sanders as a candidate and didn't see anything that would disturb me with regards to his character. I might have been blinded, because I may have fallen a little bit too much in love for his campaign. I hadn't seen a candidate like him before in the US. So, I hope you can accept my apologies and do write what you want to write.

Submitted by FuturePassed on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 4:49pm

Thank you, Mimi

Mimi,

I've benefited too many times from your wisdom to accept an unnecessary apology. This trial run gave me the opportunity to think things through. I don't think I can do what I wanted to do. I wanted to put a few indications of what I would be inclined to call Bernie's humanity in the larger context of the huge number of positive things said about him here. My comments would be damaging if not surrounded by that context.

You are as perceptive as any reader here. Given your initial reaction and a rereading of my post, I can see how you reached the conclusion. I have not been able to think of a way I can be confident of ensuring people put what I write in that larger context. Some people, maybe many people, will take what I write as my description of a large piece of Bernie instead of a tiny piece of the larger picture painted here.

You've helped prevent me from doing harm. Thank you.

Submitted by mimi on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 10:18pm

can only say that you are too polite and it makes me feel a bit

uncomfortable, so that I don't know if I should be ashamed.

I can be confident of ensuring people put what I write in that larger context. Some people, maybe many people, will take what I write as my description of a large piece of Bernie instead of a tiny piece of the larger picture painted here.

I seel the larger picture painted here as something to be aware of and question it as a community-made bubble in which many have fallen into without finding a way out of it. I am certain what you had in mind writing would never harm, but only challenge us to view ourselves from another angle. That is always helpful and never harm, imo.

Thank you, I can't express myself more polite or more precise, but I mean well. Good Night.

Submitted by SnappleBC on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 4:31pm

No thanks necessary

Bernie is not my idol or god. I recognize him as a human being who has flaws. His militaristic foreign policy and support for the F35 program were two I'd already had in mind.

I see your point regarding Bernie's behavior during the campaign but I can't draw the same conclusions that you do from the data. Nor do we know what Bernie's going to do next now that the needs of a national presidential campaign are done with. I'd rather not impute bad motive on a man I perceive as good without more solid information. That, of course, won't stop me from looking skeptically at everything he say anyway.

—

Submitted by gustogirl on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 1:26pm

Call me tin foil but

I think TPTB got to him.

He stood firm from Obama, Biden, all other party overtures, stood tall with the (meaningless?) platform. Then, all of a sudden he starts in with the we must defeat Trump schtick. And now that is ALL he says. Did you see how he and Jane left immediately after he called for Hillary to be named? Is that the normal behavior of a supporter? And Bernie people WALKED OUT right behind him.

How could TPTB get to him? I doubt they have dirt, so it can only have been threats. No way I can be angry with Bernie. He shed a light across this land and they might be able to dim it a bit, but it cannot be extinguished.

Submitted by Deja on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 1:52pm

^^^THIS^^^

That's exactly what I think too, gustogirl! I do hope to read his memoire, some day. Hopefully it will shed a light on what happened, and what was said in that meeting with Obama. I can't be mad at him either. Sad for him, yes. Mad at him, never.

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 4:30pm

No one 'got to him.' He knows the parameters within

which he can work, without being at cross-purposes to the Dem Party Establishment. Personally, I don't believe that he is naive--he's spent 25 years in D.C.

I'd 'guess' that this is the primary reason that he made it abundantly clear, from the git-go, that he would support the Dem Party nominee.

As far as the 'Stop Trump' trope--it makes sense, because this is the working theme of FSC's campaign.

David Axlerod just made this perfectly clear on Face The Nation, when he said,

AXELROD: No, it didn't, because I think for her the most important thing is to make him an unacceptable choice, particularly to these college-educated, largely suburban voters who have leaned Republican in the past, they supported Mitt Romney by I think a margin of about 12 points, but she is now even or ahead with him.

She has to hold those voters and she needs to make him unacceptable to those voters.

And I think a lot of her arguments about his lack of balance and maybe preparedness and his impulsiveness, his reactivity were all aimed at those voters. . . .

and, more importantly, Axelrod said,

The political argument that he made I think maybe less valuable. I don't think she's going to win this as the agent of change.

I think she's going to win it on temperament.

She's going to win it on stability, experience and as a -- in contrast to the fears that people have about Donald Trump.

IOW, 'Stop Trump' means to 'fear him.' And, if Axelrod knows anything, that's the Dem Party's primary campaign strategy.

Depressing.

Mollie

“I believe in the redemptive powers of a dog’s love. It is in recognition of each dog’s potential to lift the human spirit and therefore– to change society for the better, that I fight to make sure every street dog has its day.”
--Stasha Wong, Secretary, Save Our Street Dogs (SOSD)

The SOSD Fantastic Four

Available For Adoption, Save Our Street Dogs, SOSD

Cole - SOSD

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by SnappleBC on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 4:35pm

So then... Noam Chomsky

Did the powers that be get to him too? I, for one, am not surprised that some people come to the conclusion that Trump is so awful that he must be defeated. I could argue that case myself... and strongly. Hillary's future actions are very predictable so I can figure out how evil she is. Trump is a narcissistic megalomaniac but he's also incompetent at governance and because of his "lie from the hip" style, he's pretty much a total wildcard. But I would agree that the worst case scenario for Trump is uglier than the worst case scenario for Hillary. I also think the best case scenario for Trump is substantially better than the best case for Hillary. Both are unadulterated evil. That's a nasty situation to sort out and it readily admits of multiple answers. I, for one, am not prepared to say that Noam Chomsky is a fool even if I disagree with his end analysis.

—

Submitted by artisan on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 3:34pm

Bernie hasn't talked to Stein

despite her overtures, including offering him top billing.

“There’s a problem with getting good ideas to him and strategic changes and tactical advice,” Nader says, regretfully. “But that’s part of his charm: I haven’t had a call returned or a letter answered in 15 years.”

“He’s really a lone ranger, and that’s a drawback when you run for president because I’m not the only one he’s not returning calls to,” Nader says.

Submitted by Unabashed Liberal on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 5:09pm

Jill Stein has also said that her overtures have gone

unanswered by Bernie and/or his Campaign.

I think that it's nothing personal toward Nadar or Stein.

In a video posted at EB recently, both Drs Jill Stein and Jennifer Flowers agreed that Bernie has caucused with Democrats for 25 years, and that he's a team player.

(Reports are that he voted with Dems 96% of the time--to my knowledge, his campaign did not dispute this statistic.)

IOW, Bernie appears to have no interest in working outside of the Democratic Party.

I disagree with this strategy, but it's his business, and anyone else's, if they want to take this route.

Mollie

The SOSD Fantastic Four

Available For Adoption, Save Our Street Dogs, SOSD

Cole - SOSD

—

Everyone thinks they have the best dog, and none of them are wrong.

Submitted by rmwarnick on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 9:25pm

Obama tried cap and trade

President Obama tried to get cap and trade, which I suppose he thought the Tea-GOPers would support because they thought it up. Cap and trade actually rewards the worst carbon dioxide emitters. Progressives wanted a regulatory approach plus a carbon tax, but Nancy Pelosi made them vote for the right-wing plan, even though the Tea-GOP (aka Party of NO) flipped to opposition and total denial that climate change even exists. Back in 2009 the so-called ACES bill never got voted on in the Senate, probably just as well.

—

"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."

Submitted by MarilynW on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 5:27pm

It's a boondoggle that will do nothing to decrease

global warming. Where will they put the captured carbon? in tanks in the ocean. Like the ocean needs more crap. It's a pretence that they are doing something. The USA already has tons of captured uranium and it presents a storage problem. Cover the desert with tanks of uranium? THat's what they are planning.

—

To thine own self be true.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 7:42pm

It isn't just about so many people saying that Hillary

is untrustworthy because they think she is only saying what we want to hear, but imo, it goes much deeper than that. I think that the problem with Hillary is Obama's betrayal.
Obama ran on Hope and Change and millions of people believed that he would deliver it or at least try to. Instead we saw who he picked for his cabinet appointments, his increase in the use of drones, more troops in Afghanistan, and more wars in the Middle East.
But what hurt him the most was his betrayal on delivering affordable health care.
Instead of people being able to keep their policies and their doctors, they are seeing their premiums rise by the double digits. And many people's premiums are higher than their mortgage payments.
So now they are struggling to pay their premiums but because they have such high deductibles they still can't afford to see a doctor.
I think what Obama ran on but actually delivered has shown people that what is promised during the campaigns is not what the person is going to deliver.
That's one of the reasons people stayed home during the midterms.
The democrats didn't bother to try to offer legislation that would help the middle class when they were in the majority. People give them a pass because of the blue dog democrats, but that doesn't answer why they didn't even bother to try.
I am not voting for Hillary because I saw what she did when she was FLOTUS, in the senate but especially because of what she did while she was SOS.
And what she is telling her donors behind closed doors, and who she has on her staff as advisors.
People will see that we were right.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by lotlizard on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 2:48am

Like the Japanese mayor who didn’t compromise and saved his town

People will see that we were right.

Dead mayor saves town from tsunami

And the residents of Fudai can thank their lucky stars for the foresight and bravery of one Wamura Kotoku, who said at his retirement party in 1987: "Even if you encounter opposition, have conviction and finish what you start. In the end, people will understand."

Submitted by SnappleBC on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 4:37pm

I don't need an in-depth analysis

to figure out why I don't trust Hillary. Anyone who watched her primary campaign and the structure she built up (including folks like Brock) saw her shit-storm of lies and deceit right there in front of us. I call her a liar because she lied... repeatedly and regularly.

—

Submitted by blue drop on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 8:23pm

means nothing

Best he can say is that she "really knows her stuff," when talking about the granular aspect of governing and politics.

"the granular aspect of governing and politics" means nothing if it continues to move the party to the right and dissolves existing relationships with anything remotely progressive.

Submitted by lotlizard on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 2:50am

That’s an awfully . . . vacuous recommendation, isn’t it? n/t

Submitted by featheredsprite on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 8:53pm

Hillary and Co. may have given us an honest general election.

Not because she wouldn't try to skew the results but because [I suspect] the Republicans will be watching the election like hawks, at every step in the process.

—

Life is strong. I'm weak, but Life is strong.

Submitted by FuturePassed on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 11:05am

Honest election

Dick Cheney is going around quietly saying nice things about Hillary. Robert Kagan, one of the architects of the Iraq War, is having fund raisers for her. I read this morning that the Koch brothers have announced their PACs will not be producing anti-Hillary adds. David Brock got in on the ground floor.

Somehow I don't think Trump can count on the Republicans with the ability to mount and counter the rigging of voting machines.

Submitted by gustogirl on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 1:35pm

Nothing honest about it so far... n/t

Submitted by orestes on Sun, 07/31/2016 - 2:39pm

I wouldn't be so sure

It would not surprise me if republican govs/states actually rigged the election for clinton. trump threatens the republican establishment. They don't want to be tied to him and, more importantly, they don't want the party to have to embrace his policies (esp. on trade). Trump is trouble for the party going forward. Better to nip this in the bud and come back fighting against clinton in four years. I would bet money this is their thinking. The one variable- how loudly would trump scream and fight to uncover fraud. That is the thing that might keep them in check.

Submitted by murphthesurf on Sat, 07/30/2016 - 9:52pm