Why So Many Are Refusing to 'Go to Hill'

Submitted by mouselander on Sun, 05/22/2016 - 12:14pm

John Atcheson has an outstanding essay on CommonDreams entitled Expecting Sanders Supporters to "Close Ranks?" Definitely a must read. Atcheson very eloquently and persuasively lays out the case as to why so many Sanders supporters see Clinton as a completely unacceptable alternative, and discusses the devolution of the Democratic Party that has brought it to its current sorry state.

Democrats’ share of voters fell sharply after Carter, and continued to fall thereafter, as the DLC brand of corporate centrist Democrats took over the party – something both Clintons embraced whole-heartedly. In short, as the party abandoned the people, the people abandoned the party. The further Democrats drifted from the New Deal, the more ground they lost.
This gives lie to the myth of the centrist majority, which has dominated political calculations since Reagan. The more the consultants and pundits pushed candidates to the center and beyond, the worse the party fared.

But it didn’t matter, because the mythical conservative “center” is exactly where the oligarchy wanted the party to go, and the myth fed their pursuit of power and their accumulation of wealth. And, in her own words, that’s exactly where Hillary has been for her entire political career. The oligarchs controlling the party believed people had nowhere else to go, particularly with Republicans having a protracted psychotic breakdown, and until Sanders, it worked.

What we're now seeing from the Clinton loyalists is something along the lines of "Okay, you've had your fun with your cute little gritty underdog / outsider / insurgent campaign, and it fell short, so now it's time to face up to reality and line up behind the anointed establishment candidate and stop your bellyaching. You'll take what we give you and learn to like it."

It's worked in the past, but in my mind it's doubtful that it will this time, because two fundamental things have changed. One, Bernie has articulated a bold vision of a radically different type of society than the one in which we now live, in which the power of ordinary citizens is given supremacy over the power of the wealth class and corporations. He's not some milquetoast establishment "reformer", a la Howard Dean or Bill Bradley, merely promising to nudge a few policies slightly to the left. This has been not only inspiring, but transformative to millions of citizens.

And secondly, as the oligarchy's grip on the political system has tightened, things have deteriorated so badly for those outside the circle of power that many have completely lost faith in the kind of (so called) incremental reform efforts being advocated by mainstream Democrats like Clinton and Obama. No, we're not really better off than we were eight years ago, and the "Third Way" Democrats' complete indifference towards protecting or promoting the interests of ordinary citizens is a big part of why that is so.

Again, I find myself identifying more and more with the luckless frog in Jean de la Fontaine's memorable poem Two Bulls And A Frog that I posted here last week. It's clear to me I have absolutely no vested interest in the outcome of the battle. Whichever one wins, we (the common folk) lose.

Tags:

#2016 Election #BernieSanders Hillary Clinton

Vote

Comments

Submitted by BlaBlaOligarchy on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 7:33am

[deleted]

Submitted by BlaBlaOligarchy on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 7:34am

[deleted]

Submitted by featheredsprite on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 3:07am

I finally decided that Trump released the ad about Bill and rape

in order to make his polling scores against Clinton even higher, thus protecting his claim on the Republican nomination. The Reps are just as likely to engage in skullduggery at at convention as the Dems are and Donald knows that. He needs to show that he can win.

I wonder if he will kick a few more little morsels out there for good measure.

—

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

Submitted by MsGrin on Sun, 05/22/2016 - 2:02pm

Yup

From the linked article:

Expecting people to “close ranks” around the Democratic nominee harkens back to a time that no longer exists. Today, many people – including many Sanders supporters – vote on values or they don’t vote. The lesser of two evils and party affiliation simply aren’t enough to motivate them.

—

'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Sun, 05/22/2016 - 2:19pm

Did he say lesser of two evils?

Hmmmmm...seems Bernie's not the only one articulating that fact. Love it!

—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by dkmich on Sun, 05/22/2016 - 6:17pm

On the news show that bernie said that,

Donna Brazile complained that Democrats don't call other Democrats evil. No, they just give them the finger like Barbara Boxer did to the delegates in Nevada. If Brazile would get out of her bubble, she would know that Democrats have been calling their candidates evil for at least 40 years.

This election is different for all of the reasons stated. The viel is pulled back. There is no unseeing what we saw. No one will ever convince me that Bernie lost this election. They stole it state by state. I could vote for Trump before I could vote for Hillary.

—

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon

Submitted by reflectionsv37 on Mon, 05/23/2016 - 7:39am

Mrs. R explained it to me quite clearly the other day

She said, there's a gun to your head, vote Hillary or Trump, no other choices. I chose Trump. And I suspect many others feel the same way. If this is what it comes down to... I'd rather go with the devil I don't know, than the one I do! Trump scares the hell out of me. Unfortunately, Hillary scares me even more!

—

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
George W. Bush

Submitted by Wink on Mon, 05/23/2016 - 11:04am

me, too. n/t

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 05/22/2016 - 2:32pm

Reason #3

In Response to their Diminished Status, the Democratic Party Moved to Protect the Entrenched Status Quo, rather than to Assure a Democratic Process. Closed primaries shut out independents -- the largest block of voters -- and in some states, including New York, rules made it difficult for the young or newly interested voters to engage. Corporate media and elite pundits ignored or discounted Sanders; Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic National Committee stacked the deck for Hillary; and many unions and public interest group elites ignored the wishes of the rank and file and endorsed Hillary. All of this left a bad taste in the mouths of Sanders supporters, and a distaste for the pay-to-play power politics of Clinton, the DNC, and the establishment elite.

snip

In short, our country has been taken over as surely as if a foreign army had marched victorious across our lands from sea to not so shining sea. The only difference is that it was an inside job.

Great article, it is a must read.

—

Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?

Submitted by Wink on Mon, 05/23/2016 - 11:22am

bing! Exactly. n/t

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Sun, 05/22/2016 - 2:37pm

The comments are great

She's like Smith-Barney. She makes money the old-fashioned way: murdering children in foreign countries, promoting trade deals that result in jobs disappearing, taking bribes from the oil industry and making secret promises to the corporation that took in billions instead of going bankrupt for its role in creating an economic crisis

—

Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?

Submitted by BlaBlaOligarchy on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 7:31am

[deleted]

Submitted by Bisbonian on Sun, 05/22/2016 - 10:03pm

A little photoshop

putting that slogan across the red arrow would make my day.

—

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Submitted by Vayle on Mon, 05/23/2016 - 4:40am

They hated it over at 'top'

They hated it over at 'top' when I pointed out that proportionally, there was far more red (the established republican color), than blue in the graphic.

Using the graphic, and breaking it into squares and half squares, there are 4.25 squares of red and only 3 squares of blue.

Along with the fact that the arrow points to the right and is red just says so much on a fundamental visual level. It's like one of the few honest things I can attribute to the Clinton campaign.

Viewing the picture as sections from left to right, we see that the Blue is two thirds of the base line of the H. This is about appearances of being one thing (a democrat), and hoping to be accepted as a democrat, but in actuality, the appearance is to be shed at the first convenience as the picture sheds the lie for the honest intent moving into the second section.

The second section is simplistic. In the center, a solid block of red. This the the core of the picture - the central point of who Hillary Clinton is.

On the right hand side, we have the final part of the image. The lie of appearing to be mostly blue on the left portion of the image leads into unintentional honesty and intent on the right as the image portion on the right consists of 2.25 blocks of red, all solid, formed into an arrow striking out beyond the set letter formation.

There is only 1 block of blue and it is split and separated so as not to be shown to have any unity or power.
The blue on the right hand side is divided, subjugated to the edges, split - at the top and bottom (lacking unity, capability to affect the rightward force of the red arrow), and also implying the too honest outcome of intended policy (crumbs, token gestures which are only half measures for the established color for democratic blue, which achieving the conservative ends, again and again.

The image says so much about Clinton. No words. A single letter with colors. The image is way too honest for such a deceitful and corrupt candidate.

Submitted by riverlover on Mon, 05/23/2016 - 6:05am

Nice logo deconstruction n/t

—

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 Wink on Mon, 05/23/2016 - 10:56am

I thought the logo looked

I thought the logo looked rather Hitleresque.

—

the little things you can do are more valuable than the giant things you can't! - @thanatokephaloides. On Twitter @wink1radio. (-2.1) All about building progressive media.

Submitted by BlaBlaOligarchy on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 7:31am

[deleted]

Submitted by BlaBlaOligarchy on Wed, 01/30/2019 - 7:31am

[deleted]

Submitted by riverlover on Mon, 05/23/2016 - 6:14am

I am seeing FB comments, more each day

addressing Clinton supporters, very politely and straightforwardly, to reconsider their H support. Because we will never vote for her, not even against Trump.

They probably won't read or hear that fair warning. The Democratic PTB are now in risky territory. Or they don't care.

—

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 Miss SPED on Mon, 05/23/2016 - 10:40am

They do not care.

Once any of us go on record that we will not ever vote for HRC, we are nonexistent.
I was flagged long before the edict, over yonder, for politely posting my choice.
I became the enemy.

Submitted by lotlizard on Wed, 05/25/2016 - 4:15am

Ted Rall (who it seems was prescient about TOP) explains it well

Why I am #NeverHillary

#NeverHillary. That’s me.

There are millions of us.

Many progressives are baffled by this stance. Trump is a threat to democracy, decency, peace and the economy. He acts and talks like a nut. Why not suck it up and vote for Hillary? She’s experienced, steady and presentable.

Unlike Trump, she understands the issues. Plus: first woman president! That’s 225 years overdue!

Here is my reasoning.

First, a vote is an endorsement. A vote tells a candidate: “I mostly agree with what you have done.”

I agree with nothing she has done. Most egregiously, she voted to invade Iraq. At the time, everyone knew there were no WMDs. She knew. More than a million Iraqis are dead because of that war of choice, a war no one but especially no Democrat should have supported. I will not, cannot, betray those dead. Casting a vote for Hillary says: “I love that a million Iraqis got murdered.” Or, at minimum it says: “I’m cool with it.” Well, I’m not.

Running a close second behind Iraq are Hillary’s vote to invade Afghanistan (another mistake, unjustified, illegal fiasco that left hundreds of thousands of innocents maimed or dead), and encouraging Obama, as secretary of state, to arm and fund crazy Islamist insurgencies in Libya and Syria, reducing two modern countries to failed states. I can’t let those go.

Voting for a politician also tells them: “I agree with what you promise to do.” There is no indication — none, zero, nada — that Hillary wouldn’t continue her every-war-a-good-war philosophy were she to become president. Unlike Trump, she has never questioned the usefulness, legality or ethics of use of force as America’s go-to approach to foreign policy.

I refuse to throw good blood after bad.