Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
June 02, 2016

U.S. Election Thread 2016-03 - Yves Smith On "Not Hillary!"

Not Hillary!

Yves Smith of the Naked Capitalism explains why many of her progressive acquaintances will either not vote, or vote for Trump in the upcoming U.S. election. I recommend to read this in full.

For starters two excerpts:

Hillary's experience is one of failure. And she did not learn from it.

Hillary has a résumé of glittering titles with disasters or at best thin accomplishments under each. Her vaunted co-presidency with Bill? After her first major project, health care reform, turned into such a debacle that it was impossible to broach the topic for a generation, she retreated into a more traditional first lady role. As New York senator, she accomplished less with a bigger name and from a more powerful state than Sanders did. As secretary of state, she participated and encouraged strategically pointless nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria. She bureaucratically outmaneuvered Obama, leading to U.S. intervention in Libya, which he has called the worst decision of his administration. And her plan to fob her domestic economic duties off on Bill comes off as an admission that she can’t handle being president on her own.

And the conclusion:

The Sanders voters in Naked Capitalism’s active commentariat also explicitly reject lesser-evilism, the cudgel that has previously kept true lefties somewhat in line. They are willing to gamble, given that outsider presidents like Jimmy Carter and celebrity governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura didn’t get much done, that a Trump presidency represents an acceptable cost of inflicting punishment on the Democratic Party for 20 years of selling out ordinary Americans.

The Clintons, like the Bourbons before the French Revolution, have ensconced themselves in such a bubble of operative and media sycophancy that they’ve mistakenly viewed escalating distress and legitimate demands from citizens as mere noise.
If my readers are representative, Clinton and the Democratic Party are about to have a long-overdue day of reckoning.

To vote for the far right because the former center (left) has lost its bearing is a somewhat dangerous gamble. The U.S. has a relative stable, inertial system with lots of checks and balances that make this move less risky than similar moves underway in Poland, Germany or France. But unless the center left/right politicians recognize that they have lost their former majority there is no chance they will shun the neoliberal globalization nonsense they impose on their constituency.

Voting for a stronger movement towards a genuine left is be a better strategy than voting for the far right. But notorious lack of unity within the left, center-right control over the media and the absence of a successful current archetype will keep a majority away from taking that step.

I agree that the day of reckoning is a long-overdue day. But it may not bring the reckoning we want.

Posted by b on June 2, 2016 at 7:36 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

harry @ 14.

Plus, Sarkozy was a prime, maybe even main, mover (re. Lybia.) Clear case of “The US went along with violence/war wanted by others.” Those who see the US-Isr as instigators / controllers of everything that happens in the world in fact conflate US power for their supremacy shiver feels and love to quarrel about what is the ‘best’ bombing, agression, etc.

Jack R. @ 13.

The niity-gritty re. Obama is that he is NOT African-American. He is typical of the rootless, international moving-around class, who are economically upperish-middle but consider themselves above any kind of class distinction, as they exploit opportunities verboten, closed, to others. His family ties are to banking, to Foundations, some say the CIA, etc. To become Prez he needed an African-American (‘black’, not pale-passing, no fake blondine) ‘respectable’ (college degree, clean family) wife.

Ron at 25… so it goes. Pity. MoA broke down once before but was re-born.. there was an alternative site…b’s posting NC is surprising as a top post and not just as an opinion amongst others with contextualizing…

In US elections, the voters, as in France and *many* other places, get to choose some of the actors, but NOT the script.

Jill Stein (about whom I know squat, so no insult to her) can be ra-ra-ed for a supportin’ role like in a reality TV show, or climb to some kind ‘position’ like 5th place in a Eurovision song contest type thing.

—jfl (@ 56) thx for that.

Posted by: Noirette | Jun 3 2016 15:40 utc | 101

My goodness ... the beat goes on! Advocating the removal of the elites will no doubt cause a deep loss of the middle class. So? It is the alleged middle class, dreaming of elite status, that is a big part of the problem. The so-called middle class is the gang that votes Republocrat or Demican ... using lessor-evil-dom as the excuse for keeping the system stable.

I am simply advocating instability. Instability will mean that the oligarchs MAY actually be rendered impotent ... along with the apologist middle class.

Pitchforks are a symbol of the lower classes for rebellion. That is why it does not surprise me in the least that the oligarch enablers on this site whine and complain about which candidate to support rather than advocating extra-political change. When violence is done, violence is required to create change.

Granted it won't happen. The oligarchs with your complicity will remain in control. So my question is why do you bother to complain? You are not the ones living in their cars ... dumpster diving for food ... hoping it won't rain because you have no roof ... . Admit it, you are really complacent and truly fear real change.

Is THAT blunt enough?

Frankly, I doubt it --- your collective complicit behavior is so ingrained that alternatives are simply invisible.

Now, go have a nice day at Wal-Mart.

Posted by: rg the lg | Jun 3 2016 15:45 utc | 102

PS..I get how some folks could ask..If you believe voting having a real effect is fantasy, why vote? Well, it's kinda' like religion. Belief in fantasy, can, sometimes, be beneficial
to the human condition.

Posted by: ben | Jun 3 2016 15:57 utc | 103

For those contemplating write-in votes, this site gives the requirements for US states, as of May 2008 (lots of voters were unhappy with the choices on the ballots back then).

Perhaps people here could call their state election offices to find out if any changes have been made, such as requiring write-ins to be registered ahead of the election (like, what's the use of a write-in if the individual has to be registered ahead of time???). Let other readers know what you find out. States and territories.

I live in NJ looked into how my possible 2008 write-in vote would be counted. Turned out NO WRITE-IN VOTES ARE COUNTED unless the election is so close the write-ins might affect the outcome. So, I voted the Green Party ballot line for president, Cynthia McKinney. In looking up the '08 results I just learned all the Green Party presidential votes came to 0.01% of the votes for a total of 3,950. All the write-in votes were double that, 0.02% for a total of 7,718, but how many went to each write-in was left uncounted.


Those numbers may indicate one reason Bernie ran as a Democrat. Plus, of course, it was the only way to get real attention to his reasons for running. And, for all of us who paid attention, it took until well into the primary season for the MCM (Mainstream Corporate Media) to report on anything other the horse race. But, finally, some of his proposals were introduced to general public.

Beginning with Carter, the effect of Big Bidness began to strongly influence the leadership of the Democratic Party (deregulation began big time under Carter). By the time of Obama considering his run, Wall Street had accomplished its hostile takeover of the party, buying out, with the power of Big Money, the major candidates in just about every office nation wide. Bill Clinton was masterful in speaking to the Dem electorate as if he were one with their aims and needs, but his loyalty was for his new masters. For most voters that only became really clear with the results of his deregulation of Wall Street causing the Great Recession. Most of the presidential candidates, until Obama, were not as effective in covering their Wall Street loyalty and did not win when it seemed any real Dem should have won. Of course it took some chicanery and a Supreme Court soft coup to give BushBoy his presidency....

Bernie knew there were many, many Americans who believed strongly in the good the New Deal FDR and his like-thinking following presidents brought to most Americans There was a deep hunger for a candidate who actually would implement the legislation and executive actions to keep the accomplishments of the New Dealers intact and would expand on them for the good of the vast majority of Americans. The way Dems and independents flocked to support Bernie speaks strongly to this desire and to Bernie's wisdom in running for the Dem nomination.

Bernie tells his voters it will not be easy to take back the Democratic Party, that it will take a revolution, and revolutions take hard work. He sees it as a bloodless revolution, but revolt we the voters must. Bernie knows he must fight on to the convention and we the people must work hard afterwards to take back the party or forge a new one, leaving the Corporatist Dems to the tender mercies of the Republicans. It will take energy, enthusiasm, unity, and guts to do what Bernie sees as possible and necessary.

So, I know I need to get off my butt and, with many others, we should all lift out eyes from our computer and cell phone screens for hours on end to do that work. And, yes, it takes time to also keep abreast of all the horrors of living in a Corporatist state, to know what is being done to us....

Posted by: jawbone | Jun 3 2016 16:25 utc | 104

Watch what they do, not what they say.

And you don't have to wait until after the elections too.

Lets look at Trump:
consults with neocons on foreign policy
hires GS people to manage his campaign
shortlists Newt Gingrich as VP

So what you think he will actually do after(if so) becoming President.

Them Yanks are so screwed, they watch WWE on TV but don't learn from it. Trump looks to be using WWE scripting.

A real anti establishment/status quo candidate will never get the air time Trump is getting, see Ron Paul.

Posted by: ThatDamnGood | Jun 3 2016 17:12 utc | 105

#51 Jack Smith. How you get from Bernie (or any other decent human being) to Erdogan or Lieberman makes absolutely NO sense.

Posted by: Tom in AZ | Jun 3 2016 17:25 utc | 106

Calathai @61. ;)

Posted by: Tom in AZ | Jun 3 2016 17:31 utc | 107


It'll be a rainy day in Tartarus when I vote for a libertarian who would subject us to unregulated corporate rule. However good Johnson may be on many issues, that's a big sticking point.

Posted by: Calathai | Jun 3 2016 18:10 utc | 108

Advocating, defending, voting for a lesser evil - makes one evil too.

Sanders is an evil US empire living wuss.

Sacrificing the rest of the world so the US citizens can have a bit better health care is disgusting.


And calling for collapse is insane. Collapsible means most likely that we will get the worst of US fascism to come out of it.

Posted by: tom | Jun 3 2016 19:16 utc | 109

@50. The fact that his campaign manager is an expert on managing (regime change?) elections overseas, is suggestive -- but only that. Anything is possible. Seems far fetched, though.

Posted by: Harold | Jun 3 2016 19:20 utc | 110

@75 Penelope: Yes, I know excellent Dean Henderson's writing very well.

But it's only a tip of the iceberg. The real list would comprise hundreds of names of owners, managers and shills from global corporate cabal with the companies like Bechtel, Monsanto/Blackwater, Lockheed, Boeing, Raytheon, Glencore, Halliburton/KBR, Koch at the top. Many of those people belong to secret societies worshiping Satan or Lucifer and indulge in pedophilia.

Calling by anyone for street violence without giving specific names and no justification (list of offenses) is sheer trolling either result of stupidity or a paid provocation.

Indeed, such list would be invaluable for raising global consciousness.

Posted by: ProPeace | Jun 3 2016 19:28 utc | 111

Whoever encourages voting for Hitlary Killton and genocidal maniacs like her justifying it perfidiously "let's bring the system down" should be held accountable to the FULL EXTENT for the ensuing death, suffering and destruction.

Posted by: ProPeace | Jun 3 2016 19:32 utc | 112

jawbone @104:

I want to dispel some misconceptions.

You have to run as a major Party candidate to have a chance
This 'truism' is less and less true. What you need is: a) name recognition and/or a track record and b) a source(s) of funds.

Example: Trump's celebrity and social media savvy have helped him a lot. Although he ran as a Republican, there was great concern that he might run as an independent - he pledged not to do so if he was "treated fairly".

And you have to wonder:

>> Does the 'rigged nomination' process provide any real chance for success for a progressive candidate to win the Presidency?
- 'Super-delegates' and an early 'Super Tuesday' in conservative states mean a big head start for the establishment candidate;

- agreeing to support the eventual nominee means tying your hands;

- media attention and donors flock to the "likely nominee")

>> If 'success' really just means influencing the Party: how's that working out?

If not for Bernie, progressives wouldn't have a voice
The Democratic Party has run a progressive in every election since at least the early 1980's. They never win, but they keep hope alive.

If Bernie had not run, the Democratic Party would've found another 'progressive champion' candidate to protect its left flank.

Bernie is a genuine progressive and outsider
Bernie has a long history as a progressive and a good record. But he is also a career politician that votes for guns and supports the military. He has worked so closely with the Democratic Party that the Democrats don't run candidates against him. His Senate campaign was supported by Democratic Party leaders like Schumer, Reid, and Obama; and he calls Hillary a 'friend' of 25 years.

Bernie is leading a movement
Its hard to call it a "movement" when it is not independent. The DNC owns the mailing list. And Bernie says that he will support the Democratic nominee.

Obama also said that he was leading a movement. But he dismantled it soon after his election in 2008. Why? Because real movements hold their leaders accountable.

Don't be naive. Bernie is in the race to prevent the formation of a real movement.

Bernie has a shot at the nomination
As I described above, the nomination process is 'rigged'. But in addition, Bernie doesn't seem to want to WIN(!). From the start, he said that he merely wanted to raise issues and provide a progressive voice. The vichy left heralded his entry into the race by setting a low bar for success: he might move Hillary's positions somewhat to the left AND he could help to better prepare HER for the general election.

His campaigning has been weak and he has pulled many punches:

> not using the email issue: even after the IG Report!;

> late to attack the cozy Hillary-DNC relationship;

> not complaining about election malfeasance (Hillary's winning 6 coin tosses!; exit polling that doesn't match voting, etc.);

> not contending for the black vote (which would require criticizing Obama);

> not using Warren's famous example of Hillary's being influenced by money to change a vote (she changed a vote for the credit card industry);

> not criticizing media bias;

> and more.

His fiestiness is of the too little, too late sort. But it certainly keeps his young hopeful supporters engaged, doesn't it?

But, but ... he's a better candidate in the general election & Hillary's emails!
Early polling is notoriously deceptive and Trump is a candidate that is unusual. Super-delegates on not going to place much faith in 75-year old Sanders as a better candidate.

And Super-delegates are establishment types that fundamentally don't care for Bernie's proposals. They like things the way they are.

Hillary's emails are a disgrace but whether they result in an indictment is unclear. If there IS and indictment, either:

> Hillary will plead to a lesser charge, saying that she did nothing wrong but must get this behind her in order to campaign for President; or

> the Party (with Hillary-Obama blessing) will arrange for an establishment candidate to take her place - rumors suggest Biden-Warren.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 3 2016 19:59 utc | 113

being for your country first is not being far right, suppose you mean far right to be the jew defined nazis.

trump is not an isolationist. he will work with, deal with the world. he doesnt believe in war at the drop of a spittle soaked yarmaluke

hillary is an incompetent crooked psychopath

"we came, we saw, he died"


"we voted, we counted, she lost"

Posted by: 5 dancing shlomos | Jun 3 2016 20:40 utc | 114

Jerry Brown endorses Hillary Clinton despite 1992 duel with Bill.

Bernie's apologists will agree Gov Brown is no Independent nor progressive but the establishment lap dog. He and sister Kathleen enriches themselves with ties to big oil and gas business....

This came to light after the devastating Porter Ranch Gas Leak, the worst in the state’s History.

Counting, D-day 4 days to go. Will vote for Hillary on June 7 primary base on MOST ABHORRENT CANDIDATE POSSIBLE

Posted by: Jack Smith | Jun 4 2016 0:30 utc | 115

@96 dumbass, 'Write in your vote ... Write it in, even if you want to vote for one of the names on the ballot.'

Yes, indeed. The point of the exercise is to assert popular control over the election process.

@99 jr, 'Writing in a third-party candidate instead of casting a vote ... means that your vote is less susceptible to tampering.'

Absolutely, And it's a move toward paper ballots which, together with local poll administration and local counting of ballots, is essential to asserting popular control over the election process.

@100 ben, 'I've always voted. The therapy is beneficial.'

I think the therapy of write-in voting lies in its unorganized, just uncoordinated do-it now character ... and, of course, the numbers of write-ins. As that number climbs, election after election, it will act as positive feedback, building group consciousness among those of us who write-in, demonstrating the latent power of real elections, both to ourselves and to those who have not yet considered the possibility of an alternative, fostering real organization and convergence on names written-in, eventually enabling the 'write-in total' to surpass the 'winning total' at which point begging the question of who really won? And who runs elections in the usa, anyway?

@104 jawbone,

Thanks for the link. I've looked at the requirements to become a write-in candidate before. Implicit is the 'licensing' of candidacies, of state control of elections. I'll try and follow up, characterizing the classes of response to write-ins, but the real point is to come form outside this box of control, to assert popular control over the election process.

I think that the majority of write-ins will be counted as 'write-ins', with no candidate credited, as you point out in New Jersey. Or else they will be counted as 'spoiled ballots'. Both labels derogate our power, the power of the people, the voters, to choose our preferred candidate for elected office.

May I suggest that you - you seem to approve of Bernie Sanders - that you write-in Bernie for president, no matter he wins the Demoblican nomination or not.

And I think we all ought to write in the names of people we prefer to be our Congressional Representatives, and Senators as well. Write-in our preferences, first time, everytime. We will need, I believe, to hold our own series of "peoples' primary" elections to discover candidates with significant popular support to turn 'selections' into elections. To assert popular control over the election process.

There are a lot of questions about voting in the usa. The write to vote is not at all adequately dealt with in the us constitution.

I have taken a shot at an open election amendment. We need one, and we need to manifest our requirements for open elections within our write-in movement.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 4 2016 1:14 utc | 116


"The Democratic Party has run a progressive in every election since at least the early 1980's."

Ahahaha, like who? Freaking Howard Dean?

They didn't pick Sanders to run, he's running as a Democrat against the party's wishes (as they've made abundantly clear). Using him to protect their left flank? Many Sanders voters aren't going to roll over and vote for Clinton (or anyone else the Dems offer up) if Sanders doesn't get the nomination. Further, the Clinton campaign seems hellbent on increasing the number of lefties who won't vote for them by belittling and insulting them at every opportunity in their quest to net moderate Republican voters.

Sanders isn't actually that great, he's certainly no radical. He's a New Dealer; 40+ years ago he would have been a bog-standard Democrat. It's only a stark sign of how much the political landscape in America has shifted to the right that he can be seen as an amazing breath of fresh air. I'm far from a diehard Sanders supporter; at most I'm lukewarm.

Posted by: Calathai | Jun 4 2016 2:53 utc | 117

Calathai @116

"Enough with the damn emails!" = Bernie

Close watchers of the Democratic Party could see what was coming:

Black Agenda Report: Sanders is a Sheepdog

1984 and 88 the sheepdog candidate was Jesse Jackson. In 92 it was California governor Jerry Brown. In 2000 and 2004 the designated sheepdog was Al Sharpton, and in 2008 it was Dennis Kucinich. This year it's Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. The function of the sheepdog candidate is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there's a place of influence for them inside the Democratic party, if and only if the eventual Democratic nominee can win in November.

Despite casting millions of voters[sic] for the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other sheepdogs, those leftish Democrat voters are always disregarded when Democrats actually win.
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.

Talking Points Memo: The Official Opposition?

... Hillary Clinton [is] so seemingly unchallengeable that the intra-party negotiation and jockeying which normally takes place between rival candidacies has shifted to different factions and constituencies contending over the terms and nature of their support for Clinton's candidacy.

Here's something I've noticed over the last few weeks: The DNC is sending out a lot of Bernie Sanders emails ... [that are] indistinguishable from what I might expect to get from the Sanders campaign itself.

At this point I think it's fair to say that Hillary essentially owns the DNC or that the DNC is so bought into Hillary (as is really the whole informal Democratic party structure) that it amounts to the same thing. I half expect to start getting emails from the Hillary campaign telling me how awesome Bernie Sanders is.

If you want to be arch about it there's a bit of this that reminds me of how things operate in one-party states where there are usually a few official opposition candidates who are harmless and make nominal runs and everyone gets along and goes along.
But this sort of embrace of Sanders by the formal party structure as this awesome guy who really fights hard against inequality is also just a loud - perhaps thunderingly loud - tacit recognition that everybody gets where and how this story ends.

And most Bernie supporters would be shocked to know just how establishment Bernie really is:


Sanders entered the race for the U.S. Senate on April 21, 2005, after Senator Jim Jeffords announced that he would not seek a fourth term. Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, endorsed Sanders, a critical move as it meant that no Democrat running against Sanders could expect to receive financial help from the party. Sanders was also endorsed by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Democratic National Committee chairman and former Vermont governor Howard Dean. Dean said in May 2005 that he considered Sanders an ally who "votes with the Democrats 98% of the time". Then-Senator Barack Obama also campaigned for Sanders in Vermont in March 2006. Sanders entered into an agreement with the Democratic Party, much as he had as a congressman, to be listed in their primary but to decline the nomination should he win, which he did.

As Congressman and Senator Sanders was essentially a Democrat in all but name long before he formally became a Democrat (just before the Presidential race) and is close to the leaders of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 4 2016 6:01 utc | 118

Ha, both Trump and Sanders are what they say they are!

Posted by: ThatDamnGood | Jun 4 2016 9:58 utc | 119

@104 jb

From your link, the states' line-up with regard to write-in voting as of 2008 according to Michael Labash.

Nine states outlaw write-in votes.

  New Mexico
  South Carolina
  South Dakota

Nine states allow write-in votes unconditionally and count write-ins.

  New Hampshire
  New Jersey*
  Rhode Island

* New Jersey only counts a candidate's votes if 'there are enough to contest'.

Thirty-two states and the DoC require 'write-in' candidates to be registered in order to count the votes written in.

  District of Columbia
  New York
  North Carolina
  North Dakota
  West Virginia

ML is looking at it from the candidate's point of view while I am looking at it from the voters' points of view.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 4 2016 12:44 utc | 120

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 4, 2016 2:01:28 AM | 117

A third party run would be useless and self-defeating the side you are more in agreement with in a presidential election, there is a chance however you will have an impact in Congress and Senate.

My guess is this is a generational thing as much as anything else - "else" being new organizing and fundrising tools proving effective.

A new type of politician is urging the older generation to leave their jobs already.

What strikes me about the way everything was cleared for Clinton (as opposed to 8 years before) - maybe she was not meant to win, everybody expecting a Republican following the Democrat.

No one expected Sanders to have any success at all. No one expected someone like Trump.

The sheepdog theory is fine except for the fact that Obama managed to get the Democrat "left" including the "youth vote" behind him very early against Hillary with a programme that was very much to the neoliberal "Wall Street" right of her.

Posted by: somebody | Jun 4 2016 13:21 utc | 121

I agree with 88. If we get a team of known good guys/girls behind the celebrity this will work! Have Jesse Ventura, Roger Waters, or ? run for president and assemble a team like Paul Craig Roberts, Buchanan, Kucinich, McKinnley, Unz, etc...

Then, come up with a brand new form of governance. You don't fix what's so badly broken, you scrap it. Clean slate. It shouldn't even resemble that crap we have. Make it impermeable to corruption. Make it simple! A whole new way. Parties make people for for the corrupted and the 2 are 1 in the same. Free airtime on radio and tv for the candidates that have been narrowed down online by the populus. It's our airwaves. Power to the people! Let the people rule! Online voting. All 100% free of money interests.

Scrap the evil central banks! That's what the wars in the mideast were/are, installation of central banks and a looting machine. 911 enabled it. Now the only countries not taken over are demonized with propaganda. North Korea, Iran, Cuba. We have to come up with a money system by and for the people.

Do not discount the power of the people who don't vote. The Jesse Ventura effect. They can win any election. They aren't going to file in for the wicked witch of the west or any of the other criminals. They're inebriated by celebrity. They will file in for celebrity. And then once we get in ... WE FIX IT.

Posted by: Barbara | Jun 4 2016 16:24 utc | 122


All three of those countries have Central Banks.

Posted by: Calathai | Jun 4 2016 21:19 utc | 123

@122 barbara

What a breath of fresh air! How about we write the platform(s), and then take applications from those willing to effect it/them? Put the leadership at the bottom, where it belongs. Choose among applicants by write-in ballot, administered, counted, and preserved locally, at the precinct level?

I think we need a central bank to exercise sovereignty. Nationalize the Fed. Kill the old order and birth the new with a single swing of the ax?

Posted by: jfl | Jun 5 2016 1:57 utc | 124

somebody @121:

No one expected Sanders to have any success at all.

Sanders expected success was simply to help Hillary adjust her message and sharpen her skills (as noted @113).

Many people are emotionally invested in Sanders just as they were in Obama in 2008. They don't WANT to see him as anything other than kind-hearted grandpa sharing his wisdom. And DNC/Hillary supporters have a vested interest in maintaining the ruse of a fair contest against a real opponent.

The sheepdog theory is fine except for the fact that Obama managed to get the Democrat "left" ...

In 2008 John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich were left of Obama. Obama got the left because of his ethnicity, adoring media, and lofty rhetoric (aka bullshit).

'The Atlantic' Magazine calls Sanders an "insurgent" and proclaims Democratic establishment has beaten him back. All that remains is to hang the sign at DNC headquarters: "Abandon hope all ye progressives that enter here".

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 5 2016 4:16 utc | 125

@125 jr

Certainly all those who read the brand remnants of the Atlantic Monthly. The liberals sold-out on their way-out the door on the right.

Certainly agree that Obama was always of the right. People just heard then what they wanted to hear, as they do still with respect to Trump and Sanders. Hillary's fans know just what they're getting.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 5 2016 14:31 utc | 126

@ jfl | Jun 5, 2016 10:31:31 AM | 126

What are these 'liberals' of which you speak? The last of that species was seen ca. 1968. No attempt was ever made to place them on endangered species listings, au contraire, every effort was made to extinguish, liquidate, eviscerate, demean, belittle and invalidate any and all holding those political views - to such great success that none survived almost a half century now of erasure from public consciousness. Certainly, only the Social Security Retirement Insurance remains to be privatised into the financial maw of the investment banksters as their last significant revenue stream from established public investments. In the place of liberals, a watered down version of 'progressives' is on offer, about as weak an offering as the fourth draw on a thrice used teabag and about as useful as a shadow in a heavy London fog for telling the time of day. But do not tell them that, it would hurt their sensitive feelies and illusions of themselves as inheritors of a once proud and strong tradition.

The New Deal was built with consideration to the objections of a strong opposition and resulted in an edifice that lasted two generations after its building. That edifice did not survive the fraudulent politics of 'Law and Order' and was disassembled under the delusional self-pleasuring of 'Moral Majority'. Thus the seeds of dissolution were sown; awaiting the harvests of social whirlwinds to come. That season is upon the nation now, and there is no opposition upon which to forge the necessary metals needed for survival. Sooner or later that price will be paid, the nails of law that hold the shelter of public organisation together have been extracted for private profit and the storms are at the front gate.

That which replaced the New Deal was as well constructed as the New Deal; the New Deal was the template used to accomplish that destruction as well as building its replacement. Roosevelt's 'Brain Trusts' in and from academia became Think Tanks; Keynes economic analysis became neoliberal economic theology; the original conservative collapse became neocon success; and the workings of republican governance were replaced with rampant democracy, albeit democracy without a voice or standing in the halls of power. Ancient wisdom provides: A house built on sand will not last - neither will one built upon belief and ignorance.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Jun 5 2016 16:36 utc | 127


Um...have you literally not been paying attention to this election at all? Clinton has consistently shifted to the right, not the left, other than the occasional platitude. And those have gone down extremely poorly; people don't trust her. And it's clear that she and her campaign neither understand that Sanders supporters are predominately policy focused and will only accept substantive proposals from her in exchange for their vote (something they know full well she will never do), nor does her campaign care. It keeps attempting to court Republican votes while throwing the left under the bus.

Posted by: Calathai | Jun 5 2016 20:04 utc | 128

@127 ftb

Yeah, the 'liberals' are long gone. I was referring to the formerly liberal rag, apparently called just 'The Atlantic' now. The now defunct New Republic, The New Yorker ... the NYTimes and the Washington post, now all strident neocon publications used to be 'liberal'.

@128 calathai

Actually, I haven't been paying attention to this election at all. We know who the actors are - in the thespian sense of the word - and whom they represent. I'll write-in someone I'd actually like to have representing me, as POTUS, Senator, and Congressional Rep, this time and everytime until I check out. Request that you all consider doing the same.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 6 2016 1:01 utc | 129


So why the hell are you commenting on something you obviously don't know anything about? Oh, that's right, you already know what's 'really' going on. Of course.

Posted by: Calathai | Jun 6 2016 19:25 utc | 130

@ 130 calathai...

the view thru a microscope is different then one via a telescope...

Posted by: james | Jun 6 2016 20:55 utc | 131

Calathai @128

Well yes, I have been paying attention. Maybe you missed the word "expected" in the phrase:

Sanders expected success was simply to help Hillary adjust her message and sharpen her skills

When Sanders entered the race, pundits set a low bar. They all knew that the establishment Democrats had already 'picked' Hillary.

Now, mild changes in Hillary's positions (e.g. she's back away somewhat from the TTIP trade deal) and minor concessions (e.g. adding more Bernie supporters to the to the Platform Committee) are touted as major accomplishments of Bernie's faux "Movement".

And the potential for Bernie to win California is made into a really big deal, even though Bernie is pulling punches (not making the email scandal an issue after the State Dept IG Report) so that his "win" is not as great as it could be - Bernie should be trying to win a majority of elected delegates so that he can shame the Democratic Party (because Super-delegates would have to overturn the vote of the elected delegates to nominate Hillary).

Bernie's hopes for convincing Super-delegates to back him at the Convention is just an excuse to be easy on Hillary - and thereby give Hillary the nomination.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 6 2016 21:07 utc | 132

Add the big names from this article to the list:

Posted by: ProPeace | Jun 6 2016 22:33 utc | 133

@132 jr

I agree that the script has not yet been torn up. I don't think it's likely to be. But anything is possible. I think that Kshama Sawant's assessment of the 'state of play' is pretty accurate, although i also think that the answer has not got much to do with Bernie per se, that it's strategic - the restructure of the political/election process - rather than a good showing for a perennial, losing, third-party in the existing 'first-past the post', two-party system.

@130 calathai

Sorry I cannot meet your expectations.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 7 2016 0:43 utc | 134


'Are touted as major accomplishments' by who? The media? Because Sanders supporters are as convinced as ever she's full of shit.

Posted by: Calathai | Jun 7 2016 1:21 utc | 135

It's Official: Hillary Clinton Wins The Democratic Presidential Nomination!

Posted by: Jack Smith | Jun 7 2016 2:56 utc | 136

Hillary win unless something happens in Oct....
Latest polls in CA, Hillary still leading and maybe Latino voters surge
and not likely.

BREAKING: Obama Blocks Release Of Hillary Docs Until AFTER Election

It's Official: Hillary Clinton Wins The Democratic Presidential Nomination

Posted by: Jack Smith | Jun 7 2016 3:07 utc | 137

About one sentence into the 'Hillary Wins' story its become apparent that it is transparent bullshit.

About 30 seconds, tops, after reading of Obama's blocking the 'Hillary Docs' the conclusion that they must contain evidence of monstrous crimes indeed for the Democrat in Chief to block them.

The corollary conclusion is : they're scared shitless of Bernie in CA.

On the whole, two desperate, degenerate moves. Net negative.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 7 2016 4:40 utc | 138

Calathai @135

Yes, by the pro-Hillary mainstream media (is there any pro-Sanders MSM? I don't think so).

I'm not sure what you are finding difficulty with.
1) The Democratic Party has a history of running Progressive candidates that eventually lose but endorse the establishment candidate.

2) Sanders accepted this role when he accepted the constraints of running for the nomination:

> run on the issues;

> don't attack other Democrats;

> support the candidate that is chosen;

> accept that the deck is stacked against you (Super-delegates; Super Tuesday; media bias; etc.)

3) Sanders played the role by:

> being deferential: criticizing Hillary's poor judgment but not attacking her excuses;

> not making an issue of voting irregularities or media bias (the media STILL adds Super-delegates to Hillary's total - making her seem 'inevitable');

> complaining of DNC-Hillary co-ordination well after it was clear that he was losing the nomination;

> allowing Hillary to benefit from her support from Obama by not attacking Obama's policies that have disadvantaged the black community;

> By not attacking Hillary on her emails even after the State Dept IG Report demolished her many evasions.

> By pretending that he can sway Super-delegates to switch their votes at the Convention or convince the Party to change rules to force Super-delegates to vote with their States elected delegates: Super-delegates are, almost by definition, establishment - they will NOT support Sanders!

Once again:
The only possible way for Sanders to change the Democratic Party was to win a majority of elected Delegates. That would require that Super-delegates overrule the elected delegates to nominate Hillary. A very embarrassing situation indeed.

To do so, he had to attack Hillary - and the State Dept IG Report gave him the perfect means of doing so. But he hasn't.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>

I saw Sanders in an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper. Tapper asked him about the Clinton Foundation's alleged influence peddling/etc. Sanders prefaced his reply with: "Well, since you asked a direct question ..." and proceeded to say that the Clinton Foundation is troubling etc.

I got the sense that he would NEVER bring up the Clinton Foundation on his own.

A similar thing occurred when Hillary questioned if Sanders was 'qualified' before the NY primary. Sanders lashed out at Hillary as the one that was unqualified. But Sanders quickly stopped that line of attack when it became clear that he has misinterpreted Hillary's remark.

It's really as thought Bernie has a written/unwritten agreement with the Democratic Party that bars him from attacking saying anything that might tarnish Hillary or Obama.

And his willingness to make and abide by such an agreement is likely due to his long-time association with the Democratic Party. He counts the leaders of the Party as friends.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 7 2016 4:47 utc | 139


I agree generally with Kshama Sawant's assessment but I very much doubt that Bernie will run as an independent or Green.

Who needs Bernie anyway? Aren't the issues more important? The GREEN PARTY is closest to Bernie's policy positions.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 7 2016 4:57 utc | 140

I think that the AP's calling the race for Clinton II is a ploy to not lose CA. Folks are suppose to get on the Clinton II bandwagon.

We know what JS is going to do, what about the rest of CA?

I want Bernie to win big so the race stays interesting

Posted by: psychohistorian | Jun 7 2016 5:11 utc | 141

psycho @141

The media have made a Bernie 'win' seem more important than it is.

Bernie has to win BIG to beat Hillary in the pledged/elected delegate count. That is why Bernie needed to attack Hillary on her emails. The damning State Dept IG Report was the perfect opportunity. But he didn't.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 7 2016 5:48 utc | 142

@140 jr

Of course the issues are what's important, and chief among them is the electoral structure, the subsequent structure of the 'representative' government, and most importantly, the structure of direct democracy - at the very least as 'in an emergency break glass' function. I think Kshama is well aware of that and is trying her best to pick up the pieces of what she optimistically terms the 'Bernie' movement. Or 'our movement', perhaps, to be more precise. I think her attempt to do so via musical chairs among the outsiders is indirect and fruitless. That specifically opting to restructure the election apparatus, which is what my harping on write-ins is all about, is a move with a future, while musical chairs is not. So I agree with you.


I don't think that Bernie himself, or his actions, are the real driving force behind his campaign. I think that the people, tired and at wit's end about what to do in the face of Trump/Clinton, it's the people behind 'his' campaign who are the drive force there. It doesn't make all that much difference what Bernie says or doesn't say, it's the people behind him that are 'his' campaign. They can organize to pull off a big win in CA, or they cannot. Bernie just has to show up. We'll see what happens.

It is exciting in a horse-race sort of way, and I would love to see both Clinton and Trump beaten! But I don't think much would change with Bernie in the White House. And the same election/selection process will remain if we don't realize that that is what needs to be changed. That that will enable us to change more than the face/manner of the person put in the White House, that that will enable us to change the makeup of the Senate and of the Congress. That that will enable us to call our own elections, initiatives and referenda on issues that need to be decided and on recalls of people in government who have gone too far astray, and to decide those issues and recalls directly.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 7 2016 6:22 utc | 143

Interesting story at counterpunch ...

Los Angeles Election Chief Dismissive of Ballot Shortage Concerns for Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders California Election Contest

“It’s crazy,” Bianic told me. “We live in a time when you cannot trust elected people.”

They'll turn voters away, claiming they have no ballots. The ballots in shortest supply are the ones to be voted by 'No Party Preference voters wishing to vote Democratic'. Clearly the fix is in. The DNC know they are going to lose big if they allow a free and fair election to go forward.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 7 2016 6:40 utc | 144

Months ago, Trump said that he would not run as an independent if he was "treated fairly".

Now Bernie is stuck with:

> a shortage of ballots for "No Party Preference" voters (and these voters have already faced a confusing means of qualifying to vote);

> an early call by AP saying that the election is over;

> leaked info that Obama will endorse Hillary;

> a vicious 'whisper campaign' that Bernie's continued campaign shows that he is sexist.

All the foul play that Bernie has faced justifies his abandoning the Democratic Party and running as an independent or Green. But will he? I very much doubt it.

<> <> <> <> <> <> <>

And I'm not the only one that is critical of Bernie's meek campaign, pulled punches, and pretended fiestiness. It's just that most of the others give Bernie the benefit of the doubt.

As a career politician and Democratic Party leader (even when he was nominally independent) he knew what he was getting into and what was expected of his run for the nomination.

Even though the race seemed to be close and Bernie seemed to antagonize Hillary and the Democratic Party leadership (Debbie Wasserman Shultz), the fact is Bernie didn't do what was necessary to win a majority of pledged delegates.

Last night I saw a Democratic Party political consultant say that Bernie ran a flawed campaign (mentioning some of the things that I have) BUT Bernie did a great service to the Democratic Party!!

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Jun 7 2016 13:39 utc | 145

@145 jr

I agree with you on the real alliances in Bernie's political life and on the 'tells' that point them out in 'his' campaign. It's just that I don't view it as 'his' campaign. He's just the only, rather insipid, candidate who could discover personal reasons for jumping in front and leading the parade, with a campaign in - token - defiance of the DNC.

All those people, whose campaign "Bernie's" really is will remain after Bernie's brought down ... or will be betrayed, like all the people who voted for Obama, if he should somehow prevail. How can they themselves, how can all of us, prevail, independent of the corrupt political machinery that present operates in the USA? For we must. It's not enough just masterfully to parse the dysfunction of it all. Consider the alternative.

I think we just have to roll up our sleeves, become collectively 'self-actualizing', seize power and restructure the means of its exercise. I'm adopting the practice of write-in voting and suggest it as a means to do just that, to both yourself and to all those who've created the campaign that has made Bernie the popular candidate of the democrat party, no matter who the democrat 'elite' actually field in November. I'm always interested in hearing of better alternatives.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 7 2016 20:57 utc | 146

I went, I checked and voted against Bernie Sanders. Would not change even if a gun pointed at my head? Before 2014 didn't give a damn, too busy struggled, while a strong supporter of "Liberal Democratic party.” After Obomo, decided enuff is enuff no more Democrats ever.

Events in Palestine, Ukraine and now Syria and MoA, especially Tom Murphy convinced me to votes against Bernie Sanders and Democrats. Most MoA was outrage I choose to be different. Tom Murphy most important lied to conned me to vote for Sanders.

Did my homework on Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Tulsi Gabbard or so-called liberals. Searched only non-MSM media, why votes against and not for Democratic party.

Hillary may or may not win in November, it doesn't matter. What saddens me most millennial generation will be shock if Bennie win and turns out to be another Obomo. These fool hardy generations believe Bernie Slogan "A future to believe in.” Bernie will forgive over a trillion dollars student's debts. Many baby bloomers lost their home as co-signed/guarantors for millennial generation debts.

Voters’ needs to understand you can't have bread/butter and weapons of mass destruction on the same table. Bennie surly knows he cannot continue to supports many lies he and MSM feeding to us, including the president.

Done my job as citizen of this corrupted exceptionalism nation, voted with my conscience and live with it.

BTW, was in the voting station just after 8am, the place almost deserted. Me with a senior. Another senior helped him. Making sure I got a Democrat's ballot, carefully shaded "Hillary Clinton" and Republicans for County, State and Federal offices. As for Senator I voted for Kamala D. Harris and not Loretta L. Sanchez. Sanchez is the lesser evils and Obomo's moderate terrorist. Watched the ballot feed into the machine. Amen.

Posted by: Jack Smith | Jun 7 2016 21:40 utc | 147

@147 js

Could you have gotten an absentee ballot and effected a write-in? Sounds like you voted by machine. Probably no danger though, with a vote for Hillary it will definitely be counted.

Posted by: jfl | Jun 8 2016 0:02 utc | 148

Depressing that this person who should be behind bars (and I'm not talking about emails) is headed towar winning the Democratic nomination.

Posted by: RudyM | Jun 8 2016 2:48 utc | 149

I'm listening to a speech from Hillary via BBC.
It's monotonous idealistic, ideological claptrap of the wishful thinking gossip variety. No promises. No specifics.
She could save everyone a lot of time by dressing up as Eliza DooLittle and singing
Wouldn't It Be Loverly?

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jun 8 2016 3:00 utc | 150

Polling stations closed fifty-five minutes ago. At 6:10pm (Pacific time) drove passed the polling station. Watched a senior lady coming out and few cars parked outside the small church (polling station). I'm particular interested in Hillary Vs Bernie, Democrats House seats and Dem. Senator. Whoever, she will replace Senator Barber Boxers yak!!

Anyway, Hillary clinched the spot after she defeated Bennie in NJ and NM. BTW I'm no Hillary’s lover.

In 2014 on mail-in ballots, but decided to go to the polling station on polling day, handed in my ballot, but they placed it on provisional ballots but not feed into the voting machine.

Regardless Hillary or Trump, let them destroy themselves or parties.

********** (Democratic) **********
HENRY HEWES. . . . . . . . . . 23 .43
KEITH JUDD . . . . . . . . . . 13 .24
MICHAEL STEINBERG. . . . . . . . 34 .64
BERNIE SANDERS. . . . . . . . . 1,898 35.58
WILLIE WILSON . . . . . . . . . 25 .47
ROQUE DE LA FUENTE . . . . . . . 16 .30
HILLARY CLINTON . . . . . . . . 3,319 62.21
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 7 .13
Total . . . . . . . . . 5,335
Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 1 .02
Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 254 4.54

********** (Green) **********

JILL STEIN . . . . . . . . . . 8 66.67
DARRYL CHERNEY. . . . . . . . . 0
WILLIAM KREML . . . . . . . . . 2 16.67
KENT MESPLAY . . . . . . . . . 1 8.33
WRITE-IN. . . . . . . . . . . 0
Total . . . . . . . . . 12
Over Votes . . . . . . . . . 0
Under Votes . . . . . . . . . 6 33.33

Posted by: Jack Smith | Jun 8 2016 3:51 utc | 151

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.