If there is anything that Bernie Sanders’ resounding primary victory in the state of Washington proved, it is that among politically left constituencies, Sanders stimulates anticipation of something great. This was, of course, the same phenomenon that propelled Barack Obama past Clinton in 2008, when the media also questioned his “electability.” The sole caveat to the comparison being that Sanders is not black or young, and many black voters feel that they “owe” Hillary for having switched their support to Obama—just like Obama “owed” Clinton a post that she had no particular qualification for, that of Secretary of State, which was demonstrated by the fact that her tenure would have been completely devoid of note save for the fact of Benghazi and the email scandal; the latter continues to supply more and more reasons to justify criminal charges against Clinton, since every new revelation makes it increasingly clear that Clinton committed blatant and willful perjury in her testimony before Congress. We want someone like that in the White House, someone who has such contempt for the American people that nothing that comes out of her mouth can be believed?
Meanwhile, the Seattle Times reported that Sanders supporters are calling for the state’s superdelegates to fall in line with the 73 percent who voted for Sanders. While there are the Hillary supporters who wailed at the “outdated” caucus system, far more “outdated” is the Democratic Party’s use of superdelegates, who have bloated the numbers that CNN insists on tallying in order to give a false notion of popular support for Clinton. Naturally there is the belief among party “regulars” that they must decide the primary in favor of Clinton because it is an “electability” thing, yet this is utter hogwash; the many motivated voters that Sanders has brought into the process are not dissimilar to those who carried Obama to a resounding 2008 victory.
There is no evidence that these voters who despise Clinton’s Janus-faced poseur can bring themselves to vote for her this November. Sanders’ authenticity and uncompromising principles for the good of all sound pretty damn good in the face of Donald Trump’s belief that all Americans “hate” the people he hates, but for many misguided people, his brand of “authenticity” sounds “better” than Clinton’s self-serving mendacity, and this will be the “choice” for voters if Clinton is nominated. I have voted Democrat my whole life, but this year it is Sanders, or no one.
What was CNN’s take on Sanders’ huge victories in Washington, Hawaii and Alaska Saturday night? Eight hours of Hillary’s “inevitable” nomination this summer? On Sunday morning it was a panel featuring a Trump spokesperson who was asked to address the latest repulsive act of Trump, who instead slid the “discussion” to maniacal hatred of Hispanics; Americans die every day from immigration, he salivated like a rabid dog. Immigrants (and of course they are of the Hispanic variety) are the cause of every ill thing with this country, he insinuated. But there was an attempt to bring the “discussion” back to the “real” issue, and that started a loud, vulgar argument about what was or wasn’t “sexism” and who was “guilty” of it.
In the past, a racist lunatic like Trump would have gone away if the media had simply ignored him, but as much as it tries to “expose him,” all it has done is give him valuable airtime—the same thing that mass shooters crave. But listening to these “discussions,” there seems to be little “pushback” on the racist stereotypes that underpin Trump’s rhetoric (mainly because there are no one to speak from the Hispanic point-of-view, “ironic” since Hispanics are such a “hot topic” in the media), while the increasingly dreary and self-serving topics of gender and “sexism” continue to be used against Trump (and to a lesser extent, Sanders’ supporters) and to the “benefit” of Clinton, or so it is hoped.
Back on the ground, Clinton supporters refused to accept defeat, combining the “gender” card with the “guilt” card in order to “persuade” undecided female voters. If Sanders wasn’t in the race, the decision would have been easy, because gender “history” is the only “qualification” Clinton offers that is “authentic” (her “experience” has always been a sham—unless we consider her “experience” in corruption). But Sanders offers something powerful that Clinton completely lacks (or Obama, for that matter): Credibility. What he says now is something he has been saying for 50 years, and now for the first time people are being given the opportunity to hear him. He is no “weakling” like George McGovern, but an ideologue capable of standing toe-to-toe with the likes of Trump and “trump” him on issues, and being a true black-and-white alternative. Clinton merely comes across as a sarcastic annoyance. Can you imagine what a “debate” between Trump and Clinton would sound like? On one side is Punch and on the other, Dame Van Winkle.
Meanwhile, the pro-Clinton media continues to play the game of “Why,” and Sanders’s supporters ask “Why not?” Julian Zelizer of CNN tells us that it is “good” that Sanders is in the race, even as a kind of political Don Quixote: “Thanks to Sanders, economic issues are now front and center in this campaign. While Sanders may be a single-issue candidate focused on inequality, it's a really big issue that he has dealt with. And it's one which, as the campaign in both parties has revealed, really resonates at this moment in history. Americans are tired of, and scared by, the growing economic divisions in our society as well as the insecurity that faces middle-class families.”
Was that what Clinton was telling us before Sanders became a serious threat to her “entitlement”? No, she was too busy “preparing” for her “inevitable” coronation to bother with actual policy statements. But that doesn’t stop this blind bat: “In response to Sanders, Clinton has taken a stronger stand on these economic issues and worked harder to demonstrate her commitment to addressing these challenges if she should be elected president. Sanders has created room for Clinton, who has been a centrist Democrat, to be more unabashedly liberal in response to this problem, and this will help her.”
Well, we’ll just have to wait and see about that from Hillary “Super Predator” Clinton.
Having advanced degrees doesn’t seem to be impediment to illogical and pathological thinking. Take for instance Brittany L. Stalsburg, PhD: “The truth is there are many reasons to vote for Hillary Clinton, and gender is one of them. Beyond the historical marker of equality that her election to the U.S. presidency would signify, empirical research has demonstrated that on average, women leaders behave differently than men: they are more likely to build consensus, compromise, and collaborate—leadership qualities that would represent a welcome change to a Washington paralyzed by gridlock… Women political leaders are also more likely to get things done and are 31 percent more effective than men at advancing legislation.”
You are quite kidding, right? Clinton couldn’t even work with a Democrat-controlled Congress in 1993 to be taken seriously on health care reform, mainly because of her irritating and condescending personality, and because of that little thing called not actually having a “plan.” How did Sen. Clinton work with fellow senators? Well, they let her name a post office. As Secretary of State, she did log in all those travel miles and take in some of the local cuisine, all on the tax payer dime; at least she didn’t actually have to talk to anyone on serious matters—at least not in a way that “mattered.”
Then there is feminist Gail Sheehy (I wish these people would just go away): “Many fiercely loyal Hillary-ists appreciate her lifelong commitment to empowering women and girls. As secretary of state, she worked that issue into the portfolio of future secretaries. A gynecologist who is exactly Mrs. Clinton’s age represents legions of women adamant about saving reproductive freedom: “I’m not voting for any politician who has inordinate interest in what goes on in my vagina.” Good god. First of all, Hillary is not really a “feminist.” She is too egomaniacal for that. She uses anyone who can help gain power and riches, and her feminist “allies” had nothing to do with it. Clinton “success” is almost entirely dependent on the personal popularity of her husband, and the “good old boy” networks that Hillary road his coattails on. She would have never gotten this far on her own; more likely she would still be someone people disliked both personally and to work with—she might even have found herself in jail, like many of her associates.
It gets worse. The UK The Guardian’s Jessica Valenti is another one of those feminist commentators for whom gender is the end all, be all—and goddam the rest of you misogynists: “And so it seems strange that at a time when the country has the opportunity to elect the first female president, the idea that gender might be a factor is considered shallow in some circles. Only in a sexist society would women be told that caring about representation at the highest levels of government is wrong. Only in a sexist society would women believe it…There has been an extraordinary amount of scorn – both from the right and from Bernie Sanders supporters – around the notion that Hillary Clinton and women planning on voting for her are playing the “gender card”. The criticism comes in part from Clinton’s unabashed embrace of women’s issues as a central part of her presidential campaign, and in part – let’s be frank – simply because Clinton is a woman.”
In the usual nonsensical way of commentators of this sort, it seems that what Valenti is saying first is that voting for Clinton solely for the reason that she is female is not a “bad” thing, and to argue that this isn’t a good enough reason to vote for someone for the highest office in the land is “sexist.” But then makes a sharp turn and claims that it is also “sexist” that women are being made to believe that they are voting for Clinton for gender reasons, without exactly explaining what other reason there could be.
Of course, not everyone wants to play the Clinton game. The New York Times Maureen Dowd, meanwhile, was never a Hillary fan, and one of the few voices in mainstream media who isn’t. She is unimpressed with Clinton’s claims to “entitlement” to the presidency. While Sanders tells us that in unequivocal terms that “The game is rigged and we have to take the country back from the privileged few and make it work for everyone. Hillary has an “I” message: I have been abused and misunderstood and it’s my turn. It’s a victim mind-set that is exhausting, especially because the Clintons’ messes are of their own making.”
Dowd expounds on this statements, pointing out the hypocrisy of Hillary and her “older” feminist supporters—especially Madeline “Burn in Hell” Albright and Gloria “Hormones” Steinem:
The interesting thing about the spectacle of older women trying to shame younger ones on behalf of Hillary is that Hillary and Bill killed the integrity of institutional feminism back in the ’90s — with the help of Albright and Steinem. Instead of just admitting that he had had an affair with Monica Lewinsky and taking his lumps, Bill lied and hid behind the skirts of his wife and female cabinet members, who had to go out before the cameras and vouch for his veracity, even when it was apparent he was lying.
Seeing Albright, the first female secretary of state, give cover to President Clinton was a low point in women’s rights. As was the New York Times op-ed by Steinem, arguing that Lewinsky’s will was not violated, so no feminist principles were violated. Hillary knew that she could count on the complicity of feminist leaders and Democratic women in Congress who liked Bill’s progressive policies on women. And that’s always the ugly Faustian bargain with the Clintons, not only on the sex cover-ups but the money grabs: You can have our bright public service side as long as you accept our dark sketchy side.
We could go on and on with this. We can “discuss” whether feminists caused as much harm as good to the (white) women’s rights movement, but I’ve already discussed that from the minority perspective (interestingly, Warren Buffett’s sons have supposedly established a $90 million fund to help minority women—which doesn’t do negatively-stereotyped minority men a lot of “good”). The problem for Clinton is that they don’t any real policy “plans” to oppose Sanders’ own, just a lot of clichés and standard talking points that we’ve heard forever to no effect, no matter how “commandingly” they are intoned. So what to do? Back in 2008, Obama felt compelled to soft-pedal criticism of Clinton, so as not to “offend” Clinton’s female supporters and be accused of “sexism.”
The same dynamic is being used against Sanders. You can’t talk about the issues with any degree of substance, because Clinton can’t compete on those terms, so you are just being “bully.” You don’t believe me? Just go back to the Washington Post’s Janell Ross’ absurd accusation about Sanders pointing his finger to make a point during a debate as being genderly “insensitive.” Words like “integrity” and “principle” just don’t resonate with Clinton supporters; they are anathema to the discussion, so just attack Sanders with old “reliable.”
Labeling Sanders’ supporters as “misogynist” merely for failing to fall in line, and for pointing out her 40-year record of unethical and corrupt behavior (starting in 1974, when she was fired as a congressional aid for fabricating a legal brief which attempted to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel). You point out Clinton’s laundry list of corruption that dates from then right up to today, and it isn’t even a topic of discussion in the media? Why should anyone be forced to vote for someone who so devoid of principle? Well, we know what that is. If Clinton was a male with her record and a “centrist” to boot before Sanders “forced” her to sound “left,” she would have been gone long ago.