There seems to b some real “concern” amongst Hillary Clinton supporters about voters energized by the progressive Bernie Sanders’ insurgent campaign, as well they should be. While it was a “hard” decision for some to choose between making a “personal” choice and one that offered a true break with the status quo, there are those for whom such “minor” details as ethics, credibility and principles in a candidate with the moral courage to stand-toe-to-toe with the forces of reaction and “entitlement” rank utmost in their minds. Despite all the naysayers in the media attempting clear the path for the “Entitled One,” there is the belief that “change” in the status quo will not occur from a certain candidate’s sham posturing, but if you start with “big” ideas that are currently derided as “pie-in-the-sky.” Merely being “practical” or “pragmatic” leaves us with more of the same—and in the case of Clinton, that means more cupidity and corruption at the top.
There is talk that the DNC and Clinton no longer wishing to stage debates with Sanders. The reason is obvious: pro-Clinton media may try to kid viewers that she “wins” these debates, but the Internet reveals quite a different story, and Clinton’s handlers are not as stupid as the media is. And stupid is the media indeed. The other day actress Susan Sarandon, who is a Sanders supporter, “stunned” pro-Clinton MSNBC’s Chris Hayes with a suggestion that if Clinton was nominated she “probably” would not vote at all, ticking off a number of rationalizations that makes sense to everyone but blind-as-bats Clinton fanatics. The Clinton camp and media seems to have no clue just how much many Sanders supporters despise what the Clintons "stand" for and what motivates them.
But Hayes demonstrated the arrogance of the pro-Clinton media in assuming that voters backing Sanders—particularly “independents”—are just having a temporary lapse in “judgment,” and would return to the “fold” in November. They forget how many voters cringed at the thought of the self-entitled Clinton—with her record of genuflecting before Corporate America, the military-industrial complex added upon her extensive “experience” in corruption, perjury and scandal—occupying the White House in their name in 2008. Why should it be any different now?
People like The Atlantic Monthly’s Chris Graham are also under such an illusion, if not an outright delusion. He seems to think that since some credibility-challenged polling firm indicates a majority of self-described Democrats supposedly have a favorable opinion if Clinton, that naturally if Clinton winds-up with the nomination after a bitterly fought effort by Sanders, his partisans will ultimately fall in back in line like lemmings to follow Clinton to perdition. That may be true particularly among female voters who quibbled about who they would back, but since self-described Democrats are still a distinct minority of the voting demographic (self-described Republicans are an even smaller group), that leaves a significant segment of the population that is “independent,” and you can bet most of them can be placed in the category of two-thirds of voters who do not have a favorable view of Clinton, and believe her ethics are distinctly substandard.
The arrogance and conceit of Clinton (who continues to behave as if her nomination is “locked up”) and the pro-Clinton media wildly misjudges the level of passion Sanders supporters have for their candidate, and the continuing lack of serious attention to Sanders and the patronizing treatment of his supporters by the media is more likely to have an alienating effect on them. That effect only becomes greater as the Corporate Media continues to fail in its duty to inform the American people about the truth, both within the “untouchable” halls of power and privilege (not the usual scapegoats—non-white immigrants) and the ethical and moral corruption in the ranks of the “entitled.”