Saturday, March 5, 2016

Didn't Democrats in Kansas and Nebraska hear that Sanders' run was "kaput"?

It seems that a majority of Democrats in Kansas and Nebraska were not paying attention to the “mainstream” media or Hillary Clinton for that matter since Tuesday. Didn’t they know that Bernie Sanders is done, finished, kaput? To borrow from Monty Python’s “Dead Parrot” sketch, didn’t they know that all statements to the effect that this candidate is still a going concern are from now on inoperative?
But on “super” Saturday, it was the media that proved itself to be ill-informed, or lacking in the "influence" it assumes it has. Bernie Sanders won swing states Kansas and Nebraska, while Hillary Clinton merely won the black vote again in red state Louisiana, which was predictable given that they represent the totality of Democrats in the state. Louisiana, you see, is the state that nearly elected  KKK grand wizard and LSU campus Nazi David Duke as governor in 1990, with plenty of help from white female voters who provided the majority of his support in raw numbers, if not quite by percentage by gender (since they voted in higher numbers than male voters in that election).  Just as predictably, most black voters seem to equate Sanders with a guy like  Duke, although I doubt Duke would have been found demonstrating against discriminatory housing in Chicago and being arrested for his trouble, like Sanders; he would more likely be supporting Barry Goldwater and his far-right agenda, like Clinton did. Hey, whatever works for her.

Is there anyone in the mainstream media that is taking any stock in the fact that Bernie Sanders has been winning blue and swing states, while Hillary Clinton is winning red states unwinnable in November?  This talk that only Hillary can win against the Republican field is baloney. That's the last card that she and media can play. And why is she considered a more "winning" candidate anyways? You think the right is just going to sit on their hands with the Clintons' history of corruption, perjury and scandal? Hillary is probable in it more deeply than her husband, because his is "learned," and her's seems to be congenital. You want another Nixon in the White House? That is what you will get if you vote for that megalomaniac. 

More to the point, doesn't anyone have any principles anymore? If Clinton thought she could win by spouting the racist and jingoistic populism of Trump, you actually think she wouldn’t do that? Isn't that exactly what she did in 2008? Just because she doesn’t have any principles (save that which serves herself) doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have any. Her history demonstrates her total lack of scruples, even as recently as Benghazi and the email server business where she concealed and subsequently deleted who knows what kind of new scandals.  I mean, what else was she doing as Secretary of State? Not much, except going on a worldwide vacation tour on the taxpayer dime. 

Just remember one thing: Over at the realpolitics website, it shows that various polling has Sanders doing better against the Republican field than Clinton. Sanders doesn't seem more attractive than Trump and Cruz? Who's kidding who? Must be Clinton and her media fan-atics.

No comments:

Post a Comment