A Final Appeal to all the Bernie Supporters Who’ve Joined HER Since Philadelphia

We shared a lot when we took on Hillary Clinton this Spring. I remember in particular the frustration we felt at the character assassination campaign her supporters waged against Bernie and us, that despicable effort which ultimately did succeed in denying him the nomination, a dream which once seemed so promising.

But much has changed since then. I know most of you are now supporting Clinton’s campaign because, in large part, Bernie asked you to do so. I couldn’t persuade myself to follow his recommendation for some reasons I’d like to make clear in this essay.

I should point out, first off, that---unlike many of the other Sanders supporters who absolutely refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton---I have always agreed with Bernie’s fundamental strategic premise that the best way to advance the economic progressive cause going forward is through the Democratic Party.

My reasoning is quite straightforward: if you have hopes of one day seeing the economic progressive movement embraced by the majority of the American electorate on a national level, you need to first win over those who are most likely to be receptive to your message, and that means winning over the majority of those who now currently identify with the Democratic Party.

Because I see this clearly, I totally understand why Bernie felt he needed to demonstrate that he is ‘on board’ with the movers and shakers within the Democratic Party by publicly endorsing the woman who treated him with such malice. It may have been the most difficult thing he has ever done in his life, but I honestly don’t believe that he thought he had any other choice.

My current perception is that he has, of necessity, talked himself into ignoring all of the things about Hillary’s ‘dispositions’ that he strongly disagrees with and has tried as hard as he can to demonstrate to the Dem Party leadership that he is on their side by continuing to bad-mouth Trump, just as he has all the past year.

He undoubtedly believed that this tactical move was better than the alternative: cutting off all identification with the Dem Party and launching an independent party run. I don’t think he ever really had the kind of ego that is necessary to be able to pull off such an historical move.

So if it wasn’t in him to make that kind of move, who am I to say it should have been? He’s been a great spokesman for average Americans and he did launch a bit of a proto-political-revolution that was long on its ultimate ambitions.

But in spite of the great inspiration he has been to millions of us, once he was forced by his situation to defer to Hillary, he ceased to be in a position to lead us against what she represented, which is something he did for months to our grateful cheers.

We, however, are still acutely aware that what we were fighting against then (tools of the corporate elite) did not simply evaporate into the mist. Yes, Bernie’s voice has been taken from him, but we are still quite aware of what we are battling against and we are capable of identifying strategic moves that will improve the chances of our ‘revolution’ prevailing over the Centrists within the Dem Party.

For me, once this reality finally sank in, I could see that I was obligated by my devotion to his Political Revolution ideals to ignore him whenever he asks me from the stump to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Bernie has his own plate full of variables that he needs to deal with now in his current situation. But I am not in Bernie’s position and I am not at all reluctant to point out that the efforts he’s been pressured into making to help Hillary get elected will---if they are successful---ultimately do great harm to The Revolution he has inspired.

To make my case clear, I ask you to try to focus your attention for a moment solely on the raw political question of what Bernie’s zillions of supporters could possibly do to optimize the chances of seeing his Revolution one day winning over the majority of the Democratic Party’s leadership?

At the crux of my reasoning is a recognition that the prescription Bernie offered to the Democratic Party earlier in the year was always intended for the ears of individuals who are primarily interested in only one thing: what works?

How am I going to be able to fund my campaign? Does victory come to those who are straight with the voters re: the issues, or does it come to those who are successful in making it sound like they are all things to all constituencies (both corporate donors and Average Voters) and who have mastered the art of negative campaigning vs. their opponents (i.e., character assassination)?

These are the questions that key people in the Democratic Party are paying attention to this election. They have assumed that Hillary's way is better. If Bernie’s Revolution is to have any chance at all of reforming the Democratic Party, those people need to see some convincing evidence that Bernie’s way is better.

And that, my friends, is another way of saying that they need to see evidence that Hillary’s way does not work in the current political environment.

So do I need to actually spell it out? From a purely political perspective, in order for Bernie’s Revolution to have any real chance of winning over the Democratic Party in the next year or two, Hillary Clinton needs to lose to Donald Trump on November 8.

If she does not lose, her victory will provide validation to all those within the Dem Party who resisted Bernie’s message and rallied around the Centrist philosophy of politics. Bernie’s criticisms will be roundly ignored and the Centrists will enjoy greatly enhanced prestige, having achieved a real life validation of their thesis that Bernie’s economic progressive faction can be easily manipulated into showing up on voting day.

What is absolutely necessary in order for these people to start taking the Bernie Sanders alternative seriously is for them to witness a soul-crushing defeat for Hillary next week. Losing is the only kind of development that can touch off the extended period of naval gazing that is necessary in order for them to start questioning some of their past assumptions.

When you think about it, absolutely nothing could be more important to the Political Revolution Bernie has inspired than orchestrating a Hillary Clinton defeat vs. Trump roughly eight days from now.

Those happen to be the fundamental political realities that Bernie and we are dealing with, period.

If you really, really wanted to see Bernie’s political revolution occur---as I did and still do---then you absolutely must admit that it has 1) a reasonably good chance of taking hold within the Dem Party if Hillary Clinton loses next Tuesday, and 2) virtually no chance of succeeding if she wins.

So at least on one level---that of pure political strategy---it makes no sense whatsoever for Bernie Sanders supporters to help Hillary Clinton get elected. If the only thing that matters to them is advancing the cause of The Revolution that Bernie started, it would be insane for them to vote for anyone other than Donald Trump, so important would it be that they give Hillary the defeat she so richly deserves.

.

So is this strategic consideration the only thing that should matter to former Bernie Sanders supporters? Of course not. It is not so important that we should be willing to pay any price (few things are). But I argue that it is the proper starting point from which we ought to be evaluating our choices on November 8.

From where I’m standing, in order for me to walk away from the hope of witnessing a Political Revolution occurring within the Dem Party in the next couple of years (i.e., voting for Her), the downside risks of a Trump Presidency have to be very grave, indeed. The good news, I can report, is that those downside risks are not actually as bad as the Clinton campaign has made them out to be.

It is important to understand that the most outrageous things that Trump has proposed require legislation and I think it will be possible to defeat his essential sociopathy on that level, since he will face not only the opposition of the Dem Party, but also MSM and a significant number of people from his own party.

So generally speaking, while Trump is [virtually] all the bad things they say about him, his is an Evil that we can survive/handle/take advantage of.

Almost all of the anti-POC crap he talks has a zero percent chance of being translated into people-harming legislation, and without legislation, his talk is just talk.

Far too many former Sanders supporters fail to realize that putting a white supremacist like Trump in charge of multi-ethnic America, a country where the media and most of our public institutions have been embracing ethnic diversity for many decades is not something to fear, but is actually something to look forward to.

You see, the racists were a big enough faction within the Republican Party to win Trump his nomination, but they are a rather small minority nationally.

Seriously, the best way to beat down racism in America is to put their hero in the White House so they can watch him being crucified for any hint of racism in his proposals. It’s the kind of criticism that racists need to hear, that will discourage the vast majority of people from joining their numbers.

On economic issues, Clinton and Trump are essentially the same thing: protectors of the corporate elite. Neither of them offers an overall advantage to us over the other.

Ultimately, Trump is a bad choice for a long list of reasons, but that dour assessment of his overall worth as a human being does nothing to change my perception that we would all be a lot better off with an embarrassing jerk in the White House than we would be with Hillary Clinton in charge of America's military might.

Almost all of Trumps bad ideas require legislation, which we can fight, but when it comes to the President’s ability to put American ‘boots on the ground’ vs. some theoretical enemy, no such approval from Congress is necessary. Hillary Clinton will be in a position to get us into a costly war without having to overcome any domestic opposition to pull it off.

What scares me is my knowledge of her career-long investment in trying to convince the generals and the admirals that she is a ‘tough bitch’, ala Margaret Thatcher, who will not hesitate to pull the trigger. An illuminating article in the NY Times revealed that she always advocates the most muscular and reckless dispositions of U.S. military forces whenever her opinion is solicited.

Contrary to what some of you may be telling yourselves, Hillary does not just talk tough from the podium to hide the fact that she is actually a peace-monger (!); she has a long history of establishing and nurturing relationships with the generals and admirals who push for the most aggressive of military responses from America vs. our imagined enemies.

She's fully invested in their 'club', and is a voluntary voice for their most aggressive ideas on how to use America's military assets. She wants their approval and wants them to know that they can depend on her to speak for them. She has unwavering confidence in their assessments of America's perceived advantages over the enemies they want to face down, or crush with extreme prejudice.

All of her experience re: foreign policy that she’s been touting is actually the scariest thing about her, when you look at what her historical dispositions have been. The "No Fly Zone" she’s been pushing since last year is just the latest example of her instinct to act recklessly, as it directly invites a military confrontation with Russia.

Her greatest political fear—that she might one day be accused by Republicans of being "weak on America’s enemies"—is what we have to fear. It is that fear which drives her to the most extreme of war hawk positions, since her foundational strategy is to get out in front of the criticism she anticipates.

It is what we can count on. She will most assuredly get America into a war within the first 6-9 months of her Presidency, since she will be looking forward to the muscular response she will order when she is 'tested', as she expects.

How reckless is Trump likely to be? Well, like Clinton—and all other civilian Commanders-in-Chief, Trump be utterly dependent upon the advice of military professionals in deciding what kind of responses to order. But in the position of The Decider, there is one significant difference between Trump and Clinton. Trump is at least willing and able to 1) view Putin as someone who is not a threat to the United States and 2) to question the rationality of America’s continued participation in NATO.

These differences alone are enough to move me to actually vote for someone I find politically detestable, simply because I fear that the alternative is a high probability of war, and a greatly enhanced risk of nuclear annihilation—through miscalculation—under a Hillary Clinton Presidency.

Quite simply, she scares the hell out of me.

.

My suggestion to former Bernie Sanders supporters, then, is that they try to think beyond the simplistic "Trump Bad" campaign slogans that the Clinton team has been generating and wake up to the fact that everything you were working for six months ago will be ground into dust if Hillary wins the election next week.

Trump will suck, as President, but we have good reason to expect that we will be able to limit him to a one-term misadventure that does additional damage to the Republican brand. At the same time we will finally have an opportunity to re-create the Democratic Party in fulfillment of the political revolution dream that Bernie Sanders inspired within us for several exciting months.

If we think strategically on voting day, we have a chance to win big (by easing our fears re: war and by giving ourselves a chance to make 'Our Revolution' a movement of destiny in America's political history).

Share
up
37 users have voted.

Comments

Pricknick's picture

means changing it through the democratic party, count me out.
The corruption, greed, and cronyism is far too deep and solidly ingrained within the party. They will not change in our lifetimes.

up
27 users have voted.

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

The corruption, greed, and cronyism is far too deep and solidly ingrained within the party.

I agree that it is far too deeply ingrained within the Centrist Faction within the Democratic Party. But you see, the Dem Party at least has some roots in economic progressivism and a lot of people supporting it who are not corrupt. The idea is to inspire a new direction for wannabe politicians to consider embracing.

Reforming isn't always about firing all who were corrupted, but to fire the highest profile of them and use it to pressure the others to come around...

up
12 users have voted.

James Kroeger

Pricknick's picture

but to fire the highest profile of them and use it to pressure the others to come around

We've seen the protection given to Clinton, from the president on down.
Power protects power and money buys power in todays politics.
You really think those with money and power are going to turn off the gravy train?
Wishful thinking at best.
Nope. A new party at the helm is the only likely way things will change in the foreseeable future.

up
13 users have voted.

Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.

dkmich's picture

That's two whole points behind Gary Johnson, the guy who doesn't know what Aleppo is. I don't want Trump, but I want Hillary even less. Hillary knows how to grease the gears of the machine and milk it for all it is worth. Trump will be a wrench in the gears and hopefully blow it all up.

No matter who wins, I hope this isn't going to go away.

‘What Trump represents isn’t crazy and it’s not going away.’ Peter Thiel defends support for Donald Trump.

up
10 users have voted.

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

*donate to c99 *like us on Facebook *follow us on Twitter

Jill Stein for President. Take our precious planet back.

up
25 users have voted.

Beware the bullshit factories.

From the OP:

... For me, once this reality finally sank in, I could see that I was obligated by my devotion to his Political Revolution ideals to ignore him whenever he asks me from the stump to vote for Hillary Clinton. ...

And that's what Bernie has always said and expected his supporters to do. Vote your conscience, vote for the results you want.

He warns against Trump because he's another cheating pathological liar running in the other corporate party, and he/his right-wing, warmongering, TPP-supporting, anti-abortion VP selection - virtually identical to Hillary's VP choice - would in either case be catastrophic not only to civilization but to life on the planet.

Since the Libertarian supports the TPP corporate coup, Jill Stein is the only Presidential candidate currently running whose election would give us all a fighting chance of survival.

The polls are being rigged, much like everything else; Indies form a larger voting group than either the Dems or Repubs and she - and we - could win even just on their votes.

And this Green Party win on actual votes with a vociferous public backing would send a far larger message than voting for any of those willing to sacrifice democracy globally to corporate control, even if they fail to realize how close the window is to shutting on chances of salvaging enough of the collapsing global ecosystem to even maintain enough oxygen production for life to continue even beyond the next few decades.

This even if the high probability is not considered of nuclear war-crimes being inflicted by whichever corporate-court-controlled President upon multiple countries (naturally responding with pre-set Mutual Assured Destruction) triggering the final shut-down of nuclear winter, dimming the sun for a decade or more and causing additional drought, global crop failure and plant death, together with all of those dependent upon plants/animals for sustenance as global oxygen production diminishes with those producing it.

Ecological die-off is already snowballing far more rapidly than previously recognized, due to industrial/military pollution/destruction, and the life-support system evolving in an interdependent manner over billions of years is already in acute danger of sliding off the edge of a precipice created by the insatiable greed of a relative few.

Life will not long survive the demonstration of this reality-denying blind madness, once globally unrestrained.

There is never an 'enough' for these.

(Bolding mine.)

http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2016/oct/13/standing-90000-people-a...

Standing with 90,000 people against corporate power
Aisha Dodwell

13 October 2016

... The fact that so many people have been motivated by the possibility of controlling corporations shows that many are fed up living in a world where the power of corporations has reached a level never before seen in human history. Many have resources so large that they dwarf those of states. Of the 100 wealthiest economic entities in the world today, 69 are now corporations and only 31 countries*. This is up from 63 to 37 a year ago.

Here in the UK, where the petition was delivered to Downing Street this morning, we see corporate power play out through ever more functions of society being handed over to for-profit private companies. Most big infrastructure now lies in the hands of a tiny plutocratic elite, the running of schools and health services are gradually being taken over by multinationals, and private security firms carry out ever more police and border-control services. Meanwhile, our government is looking to tie us in to trade deals like Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) that establish parallel judicial systems allowing corporations access to their own forms of justice via shady corporate tribunals only accessible to the rich.

The power of corporations is so great within our society that they have undermined the idea that there is any other way to run society. We are all too familiar with hearing about the threat of ‘losing corporate investment’ or companies ‘taking their business somewhere else’ as if the government’s number one task is to attract corporate investment. ...

The brainwashing runs deep, so deep that the belief that people must vote against their own interests in order to vote in one of the psychopathic billionaires buying political favours in order to defeat another psychopathic candidate repeatedly bought by billionaires is being accepted by many...

Edited for typo. Twice, lol. And, my goodness, must look before clicking on whatever's suggested as correction wherever my extra thumbs come into play typing, lol.

Re-edit after finally eating breakfast at almost 9 PM to recheck and remove a duplicate phrase from a sentence which I finally noticed. Thereby proving that people need fruit and veggies and cannot exist on outrage alone, despite what corporations seem to think regarding the re-set standards of their version of an economy as applied to the relative poors.

up
6 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Alligator Ed's picture

as the Mad Bomber. Trump may decide to finish off ISIS, just like Her Heinous says she wants to. But Clinton's plan is pure smoke and mirrors. She throws billions of bucks at the Saudis when SoS, who then give the money to ISIS. She also funded "moderate terrorists" (now that's an oxymoron if ever there was one) so that she can fight Assad, so that the international Petrochemical Cartel can build two pipelines through Syria. I believe Trump will not fund Saud because of his basic nationalism. He correctly sees the Wahabists as a threat to America, by condemning "radical Islam" (read Wahabist Sunnis). He is a businessman, goal directed. Although his business history has sordid parts, he has a record of completing complex projects rapidly and efficiently. He knows how to get competent people to help him and does not micromanage (hasn't got the temperament for it).

He is against the monstrous "one world--no borders" trade agreements which surrender national sovereignty and destroy jobs, families and communities (this, despite his own outsourcing of much of his businesses to foreign lands). Medusa wants to destroy national sovereignty both to enrich her bribers donors and herself.

He will likely actually increase income for the 99% somewhat despite passing a regressive tax policy--by investing in infrastructure--and not just oil pipelines. Unfortunately, he is no more an environmentalist than Medusa. So leave that out of the equation for now.

As he promises to build up our military even more, at least under his detente-like approach to foreign affairs means less munition depletion through war, as well as less military casualties. Hence he could still build the military without actually increasing overall military spending.

So, Ellen, I totally agree with you about the corruption and greedy elites which must be taken down. Hillary, as we all know will not do it. She will expand their power. Trump is interested in increasing his own wealth but, being less beholden to large donors, probably won't care how much the 1% besides himself get along.

You must be thinking I have gone off the rails. Am I really supporting Trump? Hell, no. I am supporting Jill. Why? Two reasons:
1. Jill can't win but we Progressives can build upon the foundation of the Greens. As I remarked in another comment, every foundation begins with just a single stone. We can never change either major party from within. But if all the Berniecrats voted Green we could actually exert great influence on that party. Their platform--pretty much like Bernie's. If disaffected Berniecrats did jump aboard the Green train, we could energize it. Many c99ers were very active in the primary: phone banking, canvassing, GOTV, administrative, public relations, etc. This could and should energize the relatively poorly organized Greens. (Forming a separate progressive political party would only dilute the puny power of the current Progressive movement into two camps. Remembering that in 1856 there were very few Republicans but 4 years later the Republicans won the White House. We must think of the long game.

2. So what about Trump? He is a distasteful, impetuous vulgarian but his flaws are markedly overshadowed by Medusa. So why don't I advocate voting for him? Simple. The vast majority of voters think there are only two political parties--and the Greens ain't one of them. This means that the vast majority of votes cast, perhaps 95% will be for one of the duopoly. Hillary's ship is sinking rapidly. Her crew is hysterical. She lost her brain (Huma). Trump will win by a landslide. Trump doesn't need our relatively paltry votes. The Greens do.

up
1 user has voted.
Citizen Of Earth's picture

Now being championed by Jill Stein. Long live Bernie's Platform!!

up
42 users have voted.

Donnie The #ShitHole Douchebag. Fake Friend to the Working Class. Real Asshole.

Cassiodorus's picture

From a purely political perspective, in order for Bernie’s Revolution to have any real chance of winning over the Democratic Party in the next year or two, Hillary Clinton needs to lose to Donald Trump on November 8.

Outcome #1: Trump wins, and the Democrats continue to pretend that real change is only possible when a neoliberal Democrat is in the White House

Outcome #2: Clinton wins, and the Democrats continue to pretend that everything is OK because there's a neoliberal Democrat in the White House.

I don't think the Bernie thing really disturbs this calculus significantly. The problem is, of course, Sanders' endorsement of Clinton.

up
23 users have voted.

"The degree to which liberals are coming to inhabit an alternate reality, impenetrable by facts or reason, is actually frightening." -- Steve Maher

We can wave goodbye to a even a center-left national party regardless of the outcomes. As Chris Hedges said, the democratic party leadership and power centers have learned how to talk "faux liberal". Even on social issues the leadership had to be forced into supporting gay marriage by the gay rights movement. Hillary and the party has attempted more to marginalize Black Lives Matter rather than embracing it. Well, it was embraced when it could be used against Sanders. And the President along with the DOJ/FBI violently put down OWS. Nancy Pelosi had to reassure the banksters earlier this year that Warren did not speak for the party. Clinton by some accounts wasn't even aware of the movement for $15/hr min. wage when she was advised not to support it. This showed me that even unions can't be counted on to support progressive power centers in the democratic party. (I wonder if SEIU leadership realizes after Wikileaks they cut off their own noses in supporting Clinton.) And it was just amazing how so-called liberal leadership adopted Hillary's right wing rhetoric in attacking Sanders.

Nope, Bernie was the last hurrah for the any sort of party that descended from FDR and Johnson. Instead its new parents is the party of Nelson Rockefeller, who Clinton the republican once supported.

up
0 users have voted.

...you're saying that you believe that Bernie's 'Political Revolution' is DOA?

up
3 users have voted.

James Kroeger

Cassiodorus's picture

If Sanders' "revolution" can't be bothered to challenge the Democratic Party in any serious way, then yeah. You can see from this piece what they're doing. Why shouldn't they just do more of it?

As far as I can tell, at this point, there is no initiative to do anything but run a bunch of candidates in Democratic Party primaries, who will be mowed down by the fraud squads at the top, if not by the nice fundraisers who have quid pro quo relationships with Clinton and with her associates Brock, Podesta and so on. Where is the enthusiasm for the Green Party, or for organizing another party to challenge the Democrats and the Republicans?

Is it that things aren't bad enough yet?

up
14 users have voted.

"The degree to which liberals are coming to inhabit an alternate reality, impenetrable by facts or reason, is actually frightening." -- Steve Maher

...if I believed that the Political Revolution Bernie was pushing for was already dead, I think I'd just give up on politics altogether. Forget about the GP...I'd have to see all political activity as a complete waste of my time.

But for now, there's a little window of opportunity I can see and it all hinges on Clinton losing.

We shall see...

up
8 users have voted.

James Kroeger

Cassiodorus's picture

called "Our Alternative," that would have as its goal the development of a radically more effective version of "Our Revolution"?

Would you join that?

up
4 users have voted.

"The degree to which liberals are coming to inhabit an alternate reality, impenetrable by facts or reason, is actually frightening." -- Steve Maher

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

but it would depend on what that organization's strategy was.

If it's "challenge the Democrats in primaries," um, no.

up
4 users have voted.

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

election fraud in any serious way.

And that's it in a nutshell. Nothing will be accomplished, for the reasons you lay out above: "there is no initiative to do anything but run a bunch of candidates in Democratic Party primaries, who will be mowed down by the fraud squads at the top."

I continue to be gobstruck at the fact that so many people see going outside the two-party structure pretty much the way I would see going outside a space capsule without a suit. It's like if they can't fix the Democrats, all is lost.

Whereas for me, if all is lost, it's because of global warming, the international police state (need a new word for that), and the possibility of nuclear war--it doesn't have anything to do with the viability of this monopoly. Are we really saying that if we can't get what we want at the company store, what we want doesn't exist?

up
19 users have voted.

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

They aren't sitting still for the fraudsters, or the establishment of their own party. They don't care what they burn down.

The Dems are too caught up in identity politics to really leave the party behind and start something new. Sure, Hillary is bad, and we might die in a nuclear war soon. But we can't let anybody think we're white working class voters omg. Gotta clutch that Dem label hard.

up
15 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

It wasn't because I'm a class snob, but because I suspect him of being one more part of this political monopoly. Like I said, I'm afraid it's all a pro wrestling match, and I'm tired of being a mark.

We need, very soon, (IMO) to pull back from all this shit and get together face to face and talk about something other than our enemies. We need to start talking about what *we* will do.

up
15 users have voted.

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Bisbonian's picture

until it is Dead, Dead, Dead.

Then they can flea, and come to a Party that we are building/reinforcing, already waiting them.

up
8 users have voted.

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

dkmich's picture

The right has balls, and the left is full of rationalizations, honor, and fairy tales. If I'm ever in the trenches during a war, please don't give me someone from the left.

If there is no revolution, no fight on the left, we might as well just cash it in and send Washington a check and our kids to die in their wars. I'd rather die on my feet than live on knees servicing the Kochs and/or the Clintons.

up
9 users have voted.

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

*donate to c99 *like us on Facebook *follow us on Twitter

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

The left in America has no ammo, and the right has no aim.

By which I mean, the right has the gumption to fight, but keeps aiming at people with no power who look different from them or talk different or worship different or whatever. A series of scapegoats, distracting them from the people who are really fucking them over.

The left, meanwhile, can see what the problem is, but often doesn't want to do much about it.

up
8 users have voted.

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

dkmich's picture

Only this time we do have ammunition, our vote and Trump.

up
4 users have voted.

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

*donate to c99 *like us on Facebook *follow us on Twitter

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

Suffice to say, I understand why some people are doing that. I still think it's most likely the whole thing is a trap, so I want to reject it all, but I've got no beef with people who see it differently.

up
5 users have voted.

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Voting for Hillary is a vote for the neo-con agenda.

up
6 users have voted.

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

I would vote for one of my garbagemen before I voted for her.

up
5 users have voted.

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Late Again's picture

make an honest living and wouldn't blow up the world. I'd vote for one of your garbage men too, if that was the only other choice.

up
6 users have voted.

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

dkmich's picture

We each have to decide for ourselves. I am really crabby about this whole thing.
I think everyone is banking on MI being Hillary. If so, I want to vote for Stein. If not, then I want to vote against her and for Trump. This is driving me nuts.

up
5 users have voted.

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

*donate to c99 *like us on Facebook *follow us on Twitter

Point is, that isn't Bernie's Revolution; people were wondering why it was registered as a Pac which precluded anyone holding public office being involved with it, enabling Bernie to walk away from it with this as a non-suicidal excuse - this, in my view, providing a strong hint to progressives that it'd been co-opted and therefore abandoned by him as a vehicle for change.

The propaganda presenting Bernie as 'just another politician, selling out' - taken up by many, despite his life-long record and character, in their thoroughly justified bitterness at the revealed power of the Clinton faction/international PTB - was intended to discourage progressives and reinforce the learned helplessness already engrained in so many, rather than having that anger Berning into action.

They want you to think that they're too big to fail and that all you can do is to serve them and die trying, not to realize your power and numbers. Or believe that you must vote for candidates they tell you are the only ones who can win, to keep you in the two-party trade-off trap until it's too late, as I fear it will be after this election and the illegal, unconstitutional transfer of domestic law from the people and those to whom they delegate this to offshored corporate control via Trojan Horse 'trade deals', in the pretense that anyone is or could be empowered to carry out such traitorous acts and that they could be 'legal and binding' upon their victims - which works only if those victims are convinced and accepting of this betrayal as 'legal'.

But those for whom the most people vote are the ones who get the most actual votes. It's the (actual, not Clinton PR) math!

up
2 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

thanatokephaloides's picture

So...you're saying that you believe that Bernie's 'Political Revolution' is DOA?

With respect to both the Duopoly political parties? You bet.

The only hope Bernie's political revolution has is outside of them.

up
15 users have voted.

"I say enough! If Israel wants to be the only superpower in the Middle East then they can put their own asses on the line and do it themselves. I want to continue to eat."
-- snoopydawg

Bisbonian's picture

up
9 users have voted.

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

Wink's picture

dead. Just dormant, waiting for a spark. That spark soon coming whether we get HRC or Orange Man. We'll see Bernie in a venue near you, behind the podium, by the end of June if not sooner. And, if not, then yes, Bernie's Revolution over. A shame, too, that the masses left. They could have gotten their country back. instead, they took their signs and went home becuz "Bernie lost." Well, it never was about winning or losing. Revolutions take longer than a presidential run. The Bernie Believers were at Philly. Most of us still believe.

up
5 users have voted.

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.

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

from the needs and wishes of the people, but I've rarely seen it work like that. There almost always is leadership, planning and organization from a much smaller group--and then the people, when they see the work, decide how they're going to react. Afterwards, depending on how the initial planning went, it sometimes happens that the bulk of the people have the ability to alter or amend the movement they've joined (it doesn't always stay under the control of the original small group).

You also have to take into consideration the fact that you're starting with an electoral campaign, and trying to shift it into something larger and longer-term. Any movement that starts w/an electoral campaign will be focused around the candidate, even if the candidate is trying very hard to push back against that with slogans like "not me, us" and "it's not about Bernie, it's about you." Structurally, electoral races are focused around the candidate. If you want to use an electoral race to start a larger movement, it behooves the people at the top, including the candidate, to make a transition plan to shift the focus away from him- or herself, carefully tending the fires of morale and enthusiasm and directing them into channels that the leadership has planned. This isn't as romantic and wonderful as the idea of the heart of the people simply producing a movement whole cloth out of nothing like Athena springing out of Zeus' head, but it's how things generally work.

Even Occupy began with a small group of people deciding what the initial tactic and plan was going to be. And guess what? Once that tactic had run its course, most of the movement dispersed. Now of course, Occupy was also actively suppressed by violent thugs, infiltration/sabotage, and other means; but it was clear that continuing to stay in the parks indefinitely was not a successful plan. There needed to be a transition to a next step. The original leadership had not planned for that. Therefore, in most cases, it didn't happen. Where it did happen, it happened because a small group of people got together, acted as leaders (however much Occupy doesn't want to admit that) and planned the next step. If they were good at what they did, then the people got a chance to see what they'd planned, and responded by joining in.

In Bernie's case, it's clear that Brand New Congress and Our Revolution are supposed to be standing in for this transition to the next step, but since they're based on, basically, crap ideas for how to move forward, and a more or less complete denial of what the movement just experienced (your electoral movement gets defeated by election fraud and voter suppression and your next step is to run a bunch of candidates in Democratic primaries--just like the Democratic primary you just "lost" because of fraud and voter suppression???) they're not going to succeed in drawing very many people--and if they did, those people would eventually find that these are essentially pitcher-plant organizations that eat up people's energy and resources and get them nowhere. When the "next step" is a tactic that has already failed, your movement isn't going to develop.

Therefore, while it's pretty easy to blame "the masses" what's really going on here is a failure of leadership and planning which, frankly, disappointed me deeply. Bernie goes around the country making a speech, gets the whole country dressed up, but then has no place to go. Then everybody says "Well, "masses," it's all really up to you anyway, you shouldn't be looking to leadership or that makes you sheep! After all, Bernie made the speech, what are you complaining about! Get to work!" But in order to get to work you have to have a reasonable tactic/plan and visibility. We had neither.

up
7 users have voted.

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Wink's picture

though, that Bernie's leadership bailed on him, not the other way around. Besides, most of his "Leaderhip" was local. There may have been 10, 15 leaders "at the top" that were the glue, but I never saw them. We in the 'cuse (Syracuse) mostly planned our own events, with one or two planned by Bernie, Inc.
As for Bernie, if I'm "reading" him right from his speeches just before and since Philly, he isn't going anywhere. Just waiting in the wings for HRC to trip all over herself. That won't take long, and Bernie's Revolution back on track, back on the road. I don't know if the masses will follow this time, but the college kids will. And that might be enough. After all, there's no election to win this time.

up
7 users have voted.

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.

PriceRip's picture

          If we keep trying maybe someday we will find the combination of actions that will lead to an acceptable result.

          When I first moved to Kearney I met a group of people that had successfully killed an enormous irrigation project. The project involved killing a significant stretch (Big Bend reach) of the Platte River. These environmentalists were able to build a coalition of business, tourism, hunters, and even farmers to stop the promoter in his tracks, . . . almost.

          When its second incarnation was introduced I had the pleasure of getting into the fray. Not being a biologist or having any other applicable expertise per se, I hit on the notion of full disclosure as I produced a set of maps accurately detailing the extent of this new improved project. Our attorney was a idiot and failed to qualify me to testify with respect to matters of hydrology, but I was able to contribute in the court of public opinion. The coalition from the first time expanded dramatically and the promoters were dealt a much more substantial failure. We were utterly bewildered when the idiot promoter did not see the light.

          When this project's third incarnation was revealed, we (for the most part) rolled our eyes and said, " What the Fuck ‽ " as the letters to the editor unceremoniously forced this extremely pathetic scaled down iteration into the dustbin of history.

          These wins were extremely satisfying, particularly as they have significantly altered the tone in South Central Nebraska. That original group (Big Bend Audubon Society) of people were a real inspiration to community organizing. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - - Margaret Mead.

up
6 users have voted.

"I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Robert J. McCloskey, U.S. State Department spokesman. From a press briefing during the Vietnam war.

That's where Bernie's political revolution lives - outside, and within the people. 99 to 1% odds. They have the money, we got the numbers.

up
3 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

featheredsprite's picture

It has served mainly to remove the leadership from the movement that Bernie awakened. Losing Bernie hurt, but losing 10-15 of the best organizers REALLY caused harm to the movment.

So we're doing the best that we can until the fat lady sings.

Of course I still love Bernie. It's like alcoholism. Once a Berniecrat, always a Berniecrat, even if you no longer indulge.

up
5 users have voted.

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

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

Frankly, I don't even know who the 10-15 best organizers are.

up
5 users have voted.

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

Wink's picture

and started their own Rev. organizations. Thing is, none of them are Bernie.

up
2 users have voted.

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.

Bisbonian's picture

Jeff Weaver back from the Clinton camp (again) to lead in a top down fashion was a slap in the face, and a recipe for failure. They had been promised that Weaver was not going to be a part of the organization, and then all of a sudden he was.

up
7 users have voted.

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

Wink's picture

Somebody in Camp Bernie thought asshat Weaver would be the cure. (for something that didn't need one). So, the 10, 15 leaders bailed. Thing is, the "revolution" didn't need any help. It was in full bern mode up 'til Cali. Then, somehow, it wasn't. Bernie took a 3 week vacation, and everyone took their signs home.
My take was Bubba, Inc. (or the DNC) paid Bernie a visit. "Revolution" over.
No matter. It soon back. Team HRC will not be able to cover for her indefinitely. Americans stupid, but not that stupid. They're catching on. Bernie! Bernie!

up
4 users have voted.

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.

mhagle's picture

I already voted Green Party last week. It felt wonderful to vote my conscience and not vote for HRC.

Voting for Trump is still voting against your conscience and is unnecessary. I think he is going to win anyway. It is important for HRC to lose, like you say, but it is also important for Jill Stein to get as many votes as possible. That's how we say that we support Bernie's policies, because Jill's policies are the same.

up
27 users have voted.

Marilyn

"Make dirt, not war." eyo

Hillbilly Dem's picture

I voted for Jill Stein yesterday here in West "by God" Virginia. It's the best I've felt about a presidential vote since I voted for Jimmy Carter over Ronnie Raygun in 1980.

up
24 users have voted.

"Just call me Hillbilly Dem(exit)."
-H/T to Wavey Davey

I've voted for Jill Stein for President.

up
10 users have voted.

I don't believe any of the polls and therefore believe that the safest bet is to vote for *Hillary losing* (as opposed to voting for Trump) whether you're in a red, blue or purple state. YMMV.

up
1 user has voted.

...and like you say, it's Bernie's platform, but for me the opportunity to vote is not just an opportunity to define myself by my choice, but rather to try in some minuscule way to bring about an outcome I can live with, that I find less fearful.

Helping the GP to reach the 5% threshold is desirable, of course, but in my state it's way to close to for me to do what's pleasing to my conscience, under the circumstances.

I'll also be voting for Democrats down ballot in the hope that it will help to strengthen the push back against Trump's craziness.

Love and Peace to all Jill Stein supporters!

up
10 users have voted.

James Kroeger

Because there will always be an "awful Donald Trump" or an "awful Sarah Palin" or an "awful Ted Cruz" etc etc etc.

So you will always vote against your interest and against working people. YOU are the enemy of America.

up
6 users have voted.

...are a very confusing person....

up
2 users have voted.

James Kroeger

up
0 users have voted.
Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

one is that you need the Democratic party in order to reach those who agree w/your goals. But 43% of the American electorate is independent, and it's probably going to be more than that soon, given how both parties have comported themselves during this election. Bernie did fantastically well with independents. He even drew some Republicans. You can't assume the majority of your support will come through the Democratic party.

Second, you totally ignore election fraud. Unfortunately, no strategy that ignores election fraud, and the complicit media that enables it, will work.

That said, I totally agree w/you about Hillary and nuclear war; if I didn't suspect Trump was actually working with her, I would have had a hard time deciding whether to go Trump or Stein, only because putting somebody, anybody in there who isn't gearing us up for a nuclear war is, shall we say, a high priority.

But I still have the lurking suspicion that I'm watching a pro wrestling match. So no Trump for me.

up
21 users have voted.

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

..and I can tell you that there was a time (1994) when I was desperately hoping a third party would arise that represented the needs of average Americans.

But I have become convinced that a third party has no chance of winning until a constitutional amendment gets rid of the Electoral College. Until that happens, I find the prospect for a successful third party to be extremely dubious. Why not take care of first things first?

I also have doubts about what appear to be a couple of implicit premises upon which are based the hopes of many outspoken GP supporters. One is that the basic problem and solution are that one organization is full of bad people and that the answer is to ditch it and start a new one that presumably will always have good people running it.

I would suggest that corporate money corrupted the Dem Party and that if the Green Party were to become big enough, it would be in danger of being corrupted by corporate money, as well. If, instead, there is a possibility that a shared sense of higher values could prevent this from happening---and I believe this is something to be hoped for---then I believe that a similar shared sense of higher values could eventually rescue the Dem Party from it's current state of corporate corruption.

On a completely separate point, wouldn't you agree that if Bernie had started out running on the GP ticket, he would not have been able to rally anywhere close to the support he eventually did bring together?

up
3 users have voted.

James Kroeger

hellinahandcart's picture

and I find your motives in posting, here, dubious.
You are obviously trying to steer people away from voting Green Party, while agreeing w/ the obvious evils of the Dem party, but insisting that the evils can be exorcised. (Too late for an exorcism, according to Harry Belafonte... just grab from the "wreckage" what might be useful)
Nice try, but the posters here are some of the most intelligent and spineful as any I have found anywhere on the net.

up
7 users have voted.

...pissed off frustrated.

No, my purpose is not to steer people away from voting for the Green Party (facepalm). I would have thought it obvious that my purpose is to steer former Bernie Sanders supporters away from voting for Hillary. Clearly...explicitly...stated.

But who shows up to respond to that message directed at someone else? Several Green Party supporters who decide they want to interject their own plugs for the GP in a comment thread that was intended for another audience.

To a certain extent, it's understandable, since most GP supporters are opposed to the same people, Trump and Clinton, who I am opposed to. So there's going to be some overlap.

I've tried to be sensitive to the feelings of those who are fully invested in the GP but I also wanted to give some honest responses to those who are commenting on some aspect of my posting.

The simple truth is that I happen to be worried about some other things a bit more than I am worried about how well the GP does in this election.

You know, there are macro-political reasons why the Green Party is not doing well and they happen to be a big part of the reason why I am not on that band wagon.

I'll point out that, while Bernie may not be perfect in his political judgments, he understood full well why it was extremely problematic to run as a 'fringe' party candidate and he ended up blowing everyone away with the approach he finally took.

Please try to focus on the fact that we are both on same side of the political spectrum and that we happen to disagree on what courses of action we think might take us to the Promised Land.

Accusing me of going after GP votes is way out of bounds...

up
6 users have voted.

James Kroeger

TheOtherMaven's picture

It's remotely possible, but only if it shatters the way it did in the 1820s and large factions go up for grabs. That's a long shot, and it's somewhat more likely it will fade away with a long slow whimper.

Either way, we need to be ready to take advantage of the situation, by grabbing a promising faction and building on it, or by building up a viable alternative. Either one will take "blood, toil, sweat and tears" - and the blood might not be merely metaphorical (take a good look at the history of the Labor movement, and the Civil Rights movement).

up
8 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

Shahryar's picture

because, as we all seem to know, a Hillary win "proves" everything they think is right and a loss means they have to become more like the Republicans.

As long as those people have control the party is a useless dead end. As we've seen, Debbie and Donna cheat. There's no reason to expect we could take it over.

up
18 users have voted.

Right wing Republicans took over their party between 1964 and 1980. Of course, they had backing from rich people, but they also had a plan, clear eyed goals, tenacity and a willingness to work together. DWS and Donna Brazile are heinous, but they are neither particularly smart or effective. Many local Democratic organizations are ineffectual and ripe for takeover by vigorous, younger people. I voted for Stein and contributed money to her campaign, but I don't think her campaign has been effective at all. If the Greens are to have a breakout election, this would be the year. It doesn't look like it will happen, however. So our alternatives are not good, but I don't think we can dismiss taking over the Democratic party as an alternative.

up
7 users have voted.

is the Green Party. It's going to evolve and become more and more relevant with climate change. If Hillary loses, it's possible that Bernie may be put in charge of the DNC and I think that would be great. But the DNC is going to have to stop putting the interests of fossil fuel companies above the interests of the planet.

up
9 users have voted.

Beware the bullshit factories.

The Green Party is running the only Presidential candidate who will not support the corporate coup.

Once the TPP and the Fast-Tracked others are put through and the corrupted Supreme Court quashes challenges to this traitorous act by further distorted interpretations of the US Constitution, what purpose remains for government at any level other than enacting for-profit corporate/billionaire-serving 'law' against the people and environment?

The offshored 'Trade Court' will dispense extortion-backed domestic law in every area involving potential profit and its maximization (at all cost to citizen/environmental health/life/rights) for those involved corporations/billionaires for all betrayed countries and publics.

The public interest has no standing there.

This needs to be stopped now - chances are far worse later, as we'll then be fighting imposed 'law' to try to survive in a 'legal' system regarding us all as disposable commodities or liabilities.

up
5 users have voted.

Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.

A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

And at this point, you'd be fighting the combined forces of the Clintons and Bushes to get it under the control of people of good will.

I don't think the game is worth the candle. and I also don't think we have any viable path toward taking it over.

That's the problem with dismissing "fringe" parties and saying the Greens aren't viable, etc.; nobody has shown me anything remotely like a viable path toward defeating the Clintons, who are also being backed by the neocon Republicans (Bushes in the lead) on their own turf.

The Democratic primaries are not, at this moment, a viable path toward either reform or revolution. They're a giant sink where good people repeatedly dump their energy, money, and time.

It would be better to go to the beach and drink tequila than to try that again. And, like I said, it's worse now, because the Clintons and the Bushes have essentially accomplished the political version of a merger. The only fly in that ointment for them is that a lot of the rank-and-file Republicans are refusing to go along.

up
4 users have voted.

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

sojourns's picture

I've never felt so good about casting a vote.

Sanders' movement is not dead. It has simply simmered down to pre-Sanders levels. Sure, there has been damage due to Sanders' apparent support of Clinton but I think that fleeting.

I agree with you that a Trump presidency is not to be feared. He' too much of an oaf. That along with the fact that he has his own legal troubles that continue to mount and will haunt him and possibly see an impeachment, leaving Pence. Also not to be feared. Also an oaf.

Clinton, elected or not will be dead in less than two years. She is not a well woman.

up
9 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

mouselander's picture

Bruce Dixon of the Black Agenda Report had Bernie accurately pegged way back in May of 2015:

Vermont senator and ostensible socialist Bernie Sanders is playing the sheepdog candidate for Hillary Clinton this year. Bernie's job is to warm up the crowd for Hillary, herding activist energies and the disaffected left back into the Democratic fold one more time. Bernie aims to tie up activist energies and resources till the summer of 2016 when the only remaining choice will be the usual lesser of two evils.

The whole piece is well worth reading. Dixon's central point is that we've seen this show before, repeatedly, and it always ends the same way.

The sheepdog's job is to divert the energy and enthusiasm of activists a year, a year and a half out from a November election away from building an alternative to the Democratic party, and into his doomed effort. When the sheepdog inevitably folds in the late spring or early summer before a November election, there's no time remaining to win ballot access for alternative parties or candidates, no time to raise money or organize any effective challenge to the two capitalist parties.

At that point, with all the alternatives foreclosed, the narrative shifts to the familiar “lesser of two evils.” Every sheepdog candidate surrenders the shreds of his credibility to the Democratic nominee in time for the November election. This is how the Bernie Sanders show ends, as the left-leaning warm-up act for Hillary Clinton.

I don't know, or even particularly care, whether Bernie was consciously acting on behalf of Clinton all along, or whether he naively believed that the billionaire class that essentially owns both major parties could somehow be defeated by a voter uprising. The net impact of his candidacy is the same either way.

Those who have deluded themselves into believing that a Clinton defeat will somehow empower "progressives" like Sanders within the Democratic Party should study the fallout from neoliberal Dem nominee Al Gore's narrow defeat in 2000. Did this lead to any soul-searching on the part of the party's corporate wing? Did it jump start a movement to move the party away from domination by the moneyed elite or militaristic, unabashedly pro-corporate office holders and office seekers such as Hillary Clinton herself, Barack Obama, Diane Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi?

Ummm... no. Didn't happen in the past, won't happen in the future. Structurally, the Democratic Party is akin to a house build on quicksand and riddled with termites. You can't exactly fix the leaks in the roof, slap a new coat of paint on it, and then declare it good to go. The problems are just a wee bit more far-reaching and fundamental.

But hey, hope springs eternal, and if Hillary loses there will no doubt be a new progressive candidate to sally forth and play the Bernie role in opposition to the designated corporate stooge in 2020. And that candidate will surely be passing the hat among the diehard, eager to believe Bernie loyalists, and promising that this time things will be different. I can't help but recall that on several occasions, in a slightly different context, Lucy Van Pelt promised something remarkably similar to Charlie Brown.

up
15 users have voted.

inactive account

the flock, that's why many sheepdogs have been bred to look like sheep.

A Judas Goat however becomes part of the flock and then leads the flock into a shearing, or worse.

Gore won in 2000 - the Supreme Court stole the election away from him. 5 on the Court had more loyalty to the Republican Party than to their oath of office.

up
8 users have voted.

"The justness of individual land right is not justifiable to those to whom the land by right of first claim collectively belonged"

mouselander's picture

Judas Goat is probably more accurate than Sheepdog, although it's very possible Bernie feels he's acting in the best interest of average Americans by steering them towards the Democratic Party candidate.

Whether Gore truly "won" or not in 2000 is really a matter of semantics. Generally speaking, a candidate is considered the winner of an election if he or she is ultimately awarded the office or nomination. From your perspective, it would seem equally valid to say that Bernie "won" the 2016 Democratic nomination. Rather meaningless in terms of any practical impact, however.

And regardless, my larger point was that despite Gore's disappointing showing - after all, he barely eked out a popular vote plurality against a defiantly ignorant yahoo who could barely manage to string two intelligible sentences together - the DP establishment never budged from its embrace of a strongly pro-corporate ideology that more or less openly puts the interests of the 1% ahead of everybody else.

So why would anyone think that the defeat of neoliberal Hillary Clinton would have any more impact on the party's ideological direction than did the defeat of neoliberals Dukakis in 1988, Gore in 2000, or Kerry in 2004? Mightn't it be just possible that the owners of the party are just a bit more concerned about ideological continuity than they are about winning any given election?

up
3 users have voted.

inactive account

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

If you say it's meaningless, it's like you're saying that election fraud makes no never mind; who the hell cares if it was fraud; the only thing that matters is who ends up with the power.

While that point of view is attractive in the sense that it reflects reality, it also ends up either justifying might makes right, or making the question of right irrelevant. Which means that you end up, philosophically speaking, in Clintonland. That's how people like her think.

I think it's very important to continue calling all of them on this bullshit. That's not the only thing we should be doing, however.

To get to your main point:

As for Hill's defeat impacting the party--I don't really agree with James that it would make them change their minds. Somebody once said it's hard to make a man change his mind when his salary depends on not changing it. However, it might have an impact, because Hill is different than Dukakis, Gore or Kerry: she's not merely a servitor of the powers-that-be, but comes close to actually being one of them. The power that is concentrated around Clintons and dedicated to them--like the power that is concentrated around the Bushes--is massive. If that machine, or even part of it, were to fall, it would have to have repercussions, and create vacuums--sometimes I think that's what Obama is angling for, playing nice with a woman he despises until she hoists herself on her own--or Wikileaks'--petard, and then, when she crashes, stepping into the space she and hers left. Not that that would be good for us, though at least Obama isn't a lunatic and doesn't want to start a nuclear war.

The owners of the party are dedicated to the continuity of their own absolute control over policy, and the policies they generally want to keep are dedicated to moving resources, money, and power into their hands and nullifying all possible opposition and resistance. That won't change unless their power is broken or unless competition rises against them.

up
6 users have voted.

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

mouselander's picture

is certainly meaningful in terms of evaluating the morality or legitimacy of the system, and the fact that it is so deeply embedded in American politics is a major problem - no one could possibly deny that. But election fraud on a fairly massive scale hardly started with Gore vs. Bush, nor will it likely end with Sanders vs. Clinton. Pointing out how your candidate was cheated is only meaningful if you have a realistic plan for doing something about it. To date I'm not seeing that.

You're right that Hillary Clinton is part of the ownership group in a way that previous Democratic presidential candidates were not. Somehow, though, I think the Lloyd Blankfeins of the world would quickly find another horse to put their money on if Hillary were to pull up lame. The glue that cements the wealth class to the Democratic Party is more than strong enough to withstand the fall of any individual, even one so exalted as Her Heinous Hillary Clinton.

In point of fact, self-styled progressives have been obediently working to change the Democratic Party from within for decades, and thanks to Wikileaks we now have a very good idea of exactly what they have to show for it. Though I realize full well that many will continue to heed Bernie's call to remain within the framework of the two-party system, I personally don't plan to be among them.

up
5 users have voted.

inactive account

Cant Stop the Macedonian Signal's picture

up
4 users have voted.

The issue is patriotism. You've got to get back to your planet and stop the Commies. All it takes is a few good men.
--Q

Exit polls not involving George W. Bush or Hillary Clinton tend to be quite accurate.
--Doug Hatlem

sojourns's picture

up
0 users have voted.

"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage

skod's picture

No longer care what Bernie thinks. Hope he gets off the HRC bus soon, though, if he ever intends to be relevant again.

up
8 users have voted.
ZimInSeattle's picture

for Senate and House races. Syriza, the current ruling left wing party in Greece, was formed in 2004 and was polling around 4% only 5 years ago. Obviously things got really bad economically in Greece thanks to Goldman Sachs and other corrupt neoliberalcons, but the point is that a party like the Greens can come up quickly given the right conditions. Hopefully things won't have to get as bad here as they were in Greece for that to happen. I will take every opportunity going forward to vote other than for the corrupt duopoly.

up
7 users have voted.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK | "The more I see of the moneyed peoples, the more I understand the guillotine." - G. B. Shaw Bernie/Tulsi 2020