According to a story in the New York Times, Camp Hillary Clinton is
“shaken” by polls that appear to indicate that at least in the state of Iowa,
Sen. Bernie Sanders is no longer the fringe character in the 2016 Democratic
presidential race that no one takes seriously. Being a self-described
“democratic-socialist” has proved less “frightening” to as many people as
assumed by the “smart” people in the media—the same people who gave the “tea
party” movement generally positive reviews, failing to expose it as just
another far-right extremist group with a “cute” name. The media (and indignant
Clinton fanatics) seems flummoxed by the existence of a large segment of the
Democratic vote for which Sanders’ message resonates as something other than
empty space.
On the other hand, Sanders has
the credibility that Clinton lacks, have never compromised himself or his
beliefs; he is what-you-see-is-what-you-get, and the voters of Vermont have
apparently found his political views a refreshing change from the usual
political hypocrisy. It seems that many
people in Iowa have been exposed to the progressive message that media has long
ignored, and are responding to it. The Quinnipiac poll has revealed that in the space of two months, Clinton’s lead over
Sanders has gone from 45 points to 19—and that while the media has given
Clinton and her Republican challengers its complete and undivided attention.
I told you that Sanders was
someone Clinton needed to be concerned about. He doesn’t need to “attack” her
for people to understand that they are like night and day when it comes to
understanding what needs to be done to right the U.S. ship, particularly in
regard to growing economic inequality in this country. Clinton just wants to be
president for reasons of ego. She and her supporters feel that she is “entitled”
to be president. But that was also the case in 2008. Democratic voters may tell
pollsters that they support Clinton, but that is because they feel they don’t
have another viable option at that time; Clinton does come off to many voters at
times self-obsessed and a fraud. In 2008, one such “option” did eventually emerge
in the person of Barak Obama, and liberals who might otherwise have felt
“guilty” about abandoning the Clinton’s gender politics train felt less so when
boarding the Obama silver bullet train.
As I mentioned here a month ago,
when CNN failed to goad Sanders into saying negative things about Clinton to
use for a “sexism” charge against him for even having the audacity to enter the
race, Sanders represents as true an alternative to Clinton as Obama did. People know why Clinton wants to be
president, and that she wouldn’t even be sniffing at the possibility if it
wasn’t for that 800-pound gorilla in her room. But Sanders is the genuine
article, and he represents real
change; he just needs a cooperative Congress.
The Times’ story tells us that Clinton’s heart was “broken” when she
lost Iowa in 2008, but she “often performs best when she is under pressure from
rivals.” Oh yeah? More like the woman scorned. Are they talking about her
racist meltdown in Pennsylvania, or the RFK assassination comments?
Behind-scenes-stories from the book Game
Change indicated that Clinton was as far from “in control” of the
situation, her high-level backers sensed this. As her increasingly dwindling
chance of winning the nomination became more and more apparent, she and her
erstwhile political support tanked.
Nevertheless, the Times still insists that the primaries
are Clinton’s to lose, and Sanders is nowhere near as “positioned” to win the
nomination or the presidency as Clinton. Of course, that is what they said
about Obama eight years ago. The media can ignore Sanders—at the risk once
again of its own credibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment