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.