Despite the mainstream medias repeated assertions that the Bernie Sanders movement is now a thing of the past, enthusiasm from his base only seems to be growing, based on the overwhelming number of people who flocked to his rally in Sacramento this Monday night.
his is what 21,000+ looks like at a Bernie Sanders rally in Sacramento #BernieInSacramento #FeelTheBern #bernie2016 pic.twitter.com/RMK4aKK8NO
Dave (@fastlife3o5) May 10, 2016
Supporters lined up for over four hours to see Senator Sanders outside Bonney Field some of them even longer. The following video by Our Voice Media shows the massive scope of the line, as the videographers take several minutes to drive from one end of the line to the other.
21,000 people showed up to see @BernieSanders at his rally in Sacramento, CA today. #BernieInSacramento https://t.co/HoTxWEEJcK
Our Voice Media (@OurVoiceMedia) May 10, 2016
Somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 people were estimated to have been packed inside the stadium, with more than 10,000 more continuing to wait outside.
We're gonna make alot of trouble for these billionaires. #BernieInSacramento pic.twitter.com/BAUzox7Q2t
People For Bernie (@People4Bernie) May 10, 2016
15,000 at the field, 10,000 waiting to get in, and 2,000+ watching online this is what democracy looks like. #BernieInSacramento
Avatar Bernie (@jellibus878) May 10, 2016
The hashtag #BernieInSacramento quickly exploded onto the top trends on Twitter, and yet the mainstream national media once again chose to ignore the massive influx of support and unprecedented turnout. Only local outlets covered the rallies, and local Sacramento NBC affiliate KCRA-3 only attached the following picture to their article, obviously taken before the rally as people were still entering the field:
Compare the above photo to these photos during the actual rally taken by supporters and uploaded to social media:
Another view of one side of the @BernieSanders Sacramento rally. pic.twitter.com/BR85O8W3ut
Danny Freeman (@DannyEFreeman) May 10, 2016
I can't wait till the #CAPrimary so that Bernie shows Hillary who's the boss #BernieInSacramento pic.twitter.com/VsOQMxiUA2
Big D (@World_Codes) May 10, 2016
Of course, Bernie supporters are growing used to operating in a total media blackout. Spirits at the rally remained high, however, as attendees cheerfully destroyed the white male Bernie Bro stereotype by flooding social media with pictures of Bernie supporters of every race, gender, and age displaying their patriotism together.
More here: http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-sanders-sacramento-california/
Dear Secretary Clinton,
First, I must congratulate you on your campaign. Its now only a matter of time until you will be named the official party nominee, and, most likely, our first female president. You have fought vigorously for this moment, and have more than earned the reward. You are, in fact, the only candidate I could see myself supporting in this election. But I cant vote for younot yetand I wanted to write you today in the hope that you might better understand who I am, and why many women like me feel the same way.
I am registered Democrat. An every-election voter. A mother. A wife. An atheist. A student. A photographer. I, like all of us, am a culmination of so many things. Yet the two that define me most are feminist and survivor. These identities, for me, cannot be separated. They are intertwined in a complicated yet empowering way. I am a survivor of child molestation by a family member, and later, I became an adult survivor of rapetwice. I was date raped in 1997, and in 2013 I was drugged and raped while working as a photographer at a wedding. He was a naval officer, and Im sure you can imagine the difficult decision I faced when contemplating whether I should press charges. Ultimately, I didnt. I sometimes hate myself for it, but I know I wouldnt have survived the court-martial process and the assault on my character.
On November 22nd, you tweeted, Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported. You are so exactly right. According to a Stanford study, only about two percent of claims are false. Even so, we are dismissed, ridiculed, threatened, smeared, and made to feel that we are to blame. I dont speak much of the date rape incident, but I am vocal about 2013. I, like many others, am often asked questions like, what were you wearing? and how much did you have to drink? These moments hurt, and its only the start of the long, painful, and embarrassing road ahead of us.
Your November tweet was moving, to say the least. However, I must ask why you continuously contributed to the problems we face. This may seem unfair, but I implore you to hear me out. Honestly, I do not blame you for your husbands bad deeds, and I do not blame you for standing by him when his affairs with Monica Lewisnky and Paula Jones came to light during his impeachment trial. We love who we love, and you were a victim of his behavior. However, I do take issue with how you have yet to believe and support the multiple women who have alleged sexual misconduct and rape against Mr. Clinton.
Had this only been one accusation, I suppose you could say, I know him too well. Id have understood. But we know there wasnt just one allegation. There have been a string of accusations, and your handling of each one has shown a distinct lack of belief and support.
Juanita Broaddrick accused your husband of violent rape in a hotel room in 1978. Paula Jones was awarded an $850,000 settlement after accusing Mr. Clinton of sexual harassment. Kathleen Willey claims she was sexually assaulted during his first term as president. Then theres the Monica Lewinsky affair, but well get to that in a moment.
All of these women have something more in common than suffering abuse at the hands of your husband. That commonality is you, Secretary Clinton. Broaddrick wrote that you threatened her at a campaign event only weeks after the incident. When asked about this recently on the campaign trail, you called a survivor of rape very rude. Your instances of dismissive and/or aggressive behavior to these women became a pattern. Paula Jones was dismissed as trailer park trash by James Carville, one of your top strategists. Willey said of you, she chooses to go after the women that he hooks up with, to ruin them again and again
More here: http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2016/05/dear-hillary-im-a-sexual-assault-survivor-and-i-ca.html
The award for most deliberate and egregious burying of a lead has just been handed out.
It goes to NBC News, for a story entitled, Bernie Sanders Makes Things Awkward for Hillary Clintons DNC Takeover.
Put aside for a moment that the storys central premise is the uncritical repetition of a nonsense: the idea that a major-party convention cant as in literally cannot be planned without a nominee being declared at least a month and a half in advance. We know thats untrue because, up until a week ago, thats exactly what the GOP was (with minimal public grousing by RNC Chair Reince Priebus) planning to do.
More importantly, in the context of Democratic National Committee rules which, as DNC officials Luis Miranda and Debbie Wasserman Schultz have both explained to the media repeatedly, dictate that super-delegates cannot be tallied until July there can be no doubt about which sentence in the above-cited NBC News story is the most important. Its this one, about what the Clinton campaign and the DNC have been up to since April (more than three months prior to the Partys late-July convention):
Back-channel conversations have already begun between Clintons campaign and the DNC about what role the party will play in the general election. These discussions are happening out of sight for now to avoid the appearance of collusion before the party has formally selected a nominee.
Where does this information appear in the article? In the very last sentence, of course.
Thats the spot in a hard-news article reserved for (assuming theres no kicker) the least important piece of information in the article.
Or it would be, had not some editor at NBC News switched the rules around.
Thats something thats becoming not just a trend in, but a cancer upon, the 2016 presidential election, so lets go back in time to find the root of the problem. If you can, cast your mind all the way back to February 19th less than 90 days ago. On February 19th, only two states Iowa and New Hampshire had held primary votes for the Democratic presidential nomination. The results in Iowa (a tie) and New Hampshire (a landslide victory for Bernie Sanders) had at that point made Sanders the front-runner for the nomination.
Sanders was the leader in the popular vote.
Sanders was the early leader in the all-important pledged-delegate count.
And heres where the super-delegate count stood on February 19th:
Hillary Clinton: 451
Bernie Sanders: 19
Now its May, and were being told that the sole purpose of the Democratic super-delegate has all along been to acknowledge the popular-vote and pledged-delegate leader.
Except thats nonsense.
Hillary Clinton courted hundreds and hundreds of super-delegates at a time when there was no popular-vote or delegate-count leader, and in 2016, as in 2008, she worked hard to keep her super-delegates even in those times she was neither the leader in the popular vote nor the leader in the delegate count.
The reason for this is that super-delegates have absolutely nothing to do with the popular vote or the delegate count.
And Clinton knows it.
Read more here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-abramson/clinton-and-the-dnc-are-not-just-colluding----theyre-changing-the-rules-for-superdelegates_b_9876274.html
Bernie Sanders wants everyone to be offered a tuition-free college education and hes called crazy. America cant afford it, naysayers scoff. Hes just pandering to young voters.
But too many of us in California forget: This state did provide tuition-free college for generations.
That helped California achieve greatness by broadening the middle class and providing opportunities for upward mobility not available in other states.
It was an economic engine. In return for investing in higher education, California gained a widening pool of professionals, entrepreneurs and innovators who repaid the state many times over with tax payments, consumer buying and product creation. It set California apart.
So Sanders idea is not loony.
Another noteworthy thing about the Vermont senators intriguing race for the Democratic presidential nomination is that he doesnt seem to have been significantly tarnished by the mark of socialist. He would have been a few years ago.
The next time you hear me attacked as a socialist, Sanders told Georgetown University students in December, remember this: I dont believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production.
But I do believe the middle class and working class of this country who produce the wealth deserve a decent standard of living.
Of course, its easier to tout socialism when youre running in Democratic primaries. Its not the same as a general election.
President Obama has been called a socialist by Republicans for eight years, says California pollster Ben Tulchin, who has conducted surveys for Sanders. That has diluted the brand. If Obama is a socialist, all Democrats are socialists.
Moreover, Tulchin adds, Its a negative implication that is lost on almost everyone under 50.
The USSR and all its socialist republics no longer exists. The Cold War ended while millennials were in elementary school. The Iron Curtain crumbled.
These days, Tulchin says, capitalism is likely to be as dirty a word as socialism among young voters. Blame Wall Street greed, corrupt mortgage lenders and the widening income gap.
Paul Mitchell, who crunches voter stats for Political Data Inc., says: When I grew up in the 80s, I didnt want nuclear war. That forged my political view.
Kids these days, their dominant political struggle is that their parents may lose their jobs, their house. Millennials go to sleep at night worried about not finding work or being laid off. Theyre ticked about economic insecurity.
That brings us back to free college. Its no wonder the 74-year-old Sanders brand of socialism appeals strongly to young voters.
More here: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-bernie-sanders-college-20160509-story.html
Usviewer: Sen. Bernie Sanders praised the Maine Democratic Party on Sunday for adopting a resolution that effectively bans superdelegates.
Beginning in 2020, the amendment, which passed by a voice vote at the party's state convention on Saturday, will tie Maine's five superdelegates to the overall popular vote.
"Maine is trying to make the Democratic Party more democratic," Sanders said in a statement Sunday. "I hope other states follow Maine's example. This is the kind of grassroots democracy that will help the Democratic Party grow and win elections."
Sanders won Maine's March 6 caucuses by a large majority. He earned 64 percent of the vote to Hillary Clinton's 36 percent. Seventeen pledged delegates were awarded to the senator from Vermont. Clinton got eight.
But Clinton walked away with more superdelegates supporting her as Maine superdelegates this year are allowed to support the candidate of their choosing. Three of the superdelegates back Clinton. One is for Sanders. Another is undecided.
Under the new rule, the superdelegates will be allocated proportionally. That system would give Sanders three delegates and Clinton the remaining two.
Sanders has often decried the presence of superdelegates in the Democratic primary process. "Superdelegates in states where either candidate has won landslide victories ought to reflect the decision of the people in their states," Sanders said.
There is momentum for changing the party's rules about superdelegates.
All the supporting sublinks are here:
Clinton touts her time as FLOTUS as political experience and is known to have been very involved in her husband's work, but she refuses to accept responsibility for NAFTA, DOMA, the crime reform bill (which she supported with her racist "remorseless superpredators" remark), the welfare reform bill and the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Clinton voted for the Iraq War, she voted for the PATRIOT Act, she supported bankruptcy reform that denied Chapter 7 protection for the poorest people.
AS SECRETARY OF STATE:
Clinton pushed NATO to bomb Libya and it is now a haven for ISIS, she opposed the restoration of the overthrown elected Honduran president Manuel Zelaya and now Honduras is in chaos, she supported free trade with Colombia that led to slave labor conditions in that country even after she had publicly opposed that same free trade agreement, she made favorable deals with countries that had donated to the Clinton Foundation.
Clinton's foreign policy can best be described as "hostile", favoring military intervention or oppressive sanctions, particularly in the Middle East. This hostility complicates our reputation abroad and creates unintended problems. However, there is an "Emperor's New Clothes" effect where the media consistently portrays Clinton as vastly experienced and capable in foreign policy, despite the ruins and/or chaos left behind in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Honduras, Colombia and soon Syria.
To further this "Emperor's New Clothes" effect, Clinton had her Senior Advisor while she was Secretary of State, Philippe Reines, secretly communicate with journalists of major media sources to encourage them to use glowing praise for Clinton's foreign policy, including use of the adjective "muscular". These journalists were happy to cooperate in exchange for exclusive stories.
Clinton embraces her ties to Nixon's Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. Kissinger is known to have had the most warlike foreign policy of any Secretary of State, causing mass deaths in Cambodia and Laos to fight the Viet Cong, the former leading to the rise of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge party which massacred some 2M people in the Cambodian "Killing Fields", as well as unseating Salvador Allende in Chile to replace him with brutal dictator Augusto Pinochet. Clinton's embrace of her ties to Kissinger before an audience speaks to her foreign policy, yet she seems to feel confident that the average voter will not know who Kissinger is and what he did.
Clinton has worked to maintain close ties to Israel's conservative Likud Party and its leader and oppressive Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu dislikes President Obama for not frequently dealing with him. Clinton has worked through the Center for American Progress (CAP) and its leader Neera Tanden to smooth over relations with Netanyahu, including a recent speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) where Clinton gave effusive praise for Israel and the need for America to maintain close ties with Israel and offer unconditional support for the country despite its mistreatment of Palestinians and exaggeration of Palestinian violence compared to Israeli usurpation of land and water rights in the region.
When Clinton was secretary of state, she helped Swiss bank UBS avoid the IRS after they helped wealthy Americans dodge their taxes, then UBS gave $1.5M to Bill Clinton for a speech.
Clinton recently was outed for supporting the Panama free trade agreement alongside Obama, that allowed people all over the world to use Panama to avoid paying taxes. The Prime Minister of Iceland recently resigned for his implication of tax evasion in Panama, but Clinton is not under any significant scrutiny for her role in the Panama trade agreement.
AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN:
Before she was First Lady, Clinton was on the board of directors of Walmart, which has driven small businesses to closure around the country and has aggressively lowered wages, forcing its employees to seek welfare and nutrition benefits. Clinton continues to receive donations from members of the Walton family.
Clinton accepted millions of dollars in speaking fees from the most corrupt financial institutions in the country that were responsible for the subprime mortgage lending crisis that caused the recession of 2008, but acts like these fees do not influence her and doesn't seem to understand why the public doubts her. Clinton also refuses to release the transcripts of these speeches, first saying that "she will look into it" and then saying that she will not release such transcripts so until all candidates have done the same.
Clinton works with the charitable organization the Clinton Foundation, which fundraises from suspicious individuals and has raised $3B. Some people on the payroll of the Clinton Foundation have found their way into Clinton's campaign, which blurs the line between the charitable organization and her campaign (which would be illegal).
AS A CAMPAIGNER:
Clinton got hundreds of superdelegate endorsements long before the primary started. These superdelegates stubbornly refuse to change their endorsements, even when their states have gone for Sanders. Clinton has a vast donor network to which these superdelegates are all connected, and they are essentially "locked in" to support her. There is also concern that Clinton exerts pressure on these superdelegates through political coercion.
Of these superdelegates, many Senators and Representatives have either offered excessively flattering praise for Clinton or rebukes for Sanders, or both. Notably, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Claire McCaskill, Nancy Pelosi.
The same Harry Reid coordinated with a union in Nevada to let their workers out with pay so that they could caucus for Clinton.
Elizabeth Warren, who did not endorse either candidate, is hounded constantly by her peers to endorse Clinton.
The DNC is clearly supporting Clinton. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who was part of Clinton's 2008 campaign, is now head chair of the DNC and has caused grief to the Obama administration. She has done everything she can to limit Sanders' media exposure by severely limiting the debate schedule yet she acts like it helped the candidates. She also cut off Sanders' campaign access to voter data because of a data theft by a Sanders campaign staffer who was referred to the campaign by the DNC.
The same Debbie Wasserman Schultz blacklisted vice chair of the DNC Tulsi Gabbard from attending the first debate because Gabbard insisted that she and others had not been consulted about the debate schedule and demanded more. Gabbard had to leave the DNC to endorse Sanders.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz has also attacked Elizabeth Warren's legislation to stop payday lenders, seemingly in retribution for Warren's refusal to endorse Clinton.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz has also cut off voter data access to Tim Canova, a Sanders supporter who is running to replace her in the House of Representatives.
Clinton won Arizona due to early voters, while Arizona election day voters were stuck in line for hours due to the loss of over a hundred polling locations and thousands of people were denied their votes entirely. Clinton was suspiciously quiet on this disenfranchisement while being the beneficiary of it.
Clinton won New York's closed primary by a large margin despite Sanders' record-setting rallies and Sanders' volunteers making over 3M calls into the state, after mysteriously lucky circumstances for Clinton of malfunctioning voting machines, people involuntarily changed from Democrat to Independent and over 126,000 people dropped from the voter rolls in Brooklyn, which was expected to be Sanders' most favorable borough. NYC Comptroller Scott Stringer, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio and NY Governor Andrew Cuomo all endorsed Clinton and did not acknowledge any fraud, but suspended the Brooklyn Board of Elections chief clerk seemingly to pin all the blame on a low-ranking official.
Sanders was booted from the DC ballot for what were claimed to be administrative issues, then the mistake was corrected after the controversy.
In many of the states that Sanders lost, the voting results do not match the exit polls at all. This strongly suggests electoral fraud by the Clinton campaign. By comparison, the Republican voting results by state very closely match the exit polls, showing that exit polls should be accurate for the Democratic results as well.
Clinton uses her husband and her daughter to hurt Sanders. Bill has campaigned in front of voting places in Boston and Chicago on their election days, which veers on illegal electioneering and kept people from making their votes that day. Chelsea has lied about Sanders' healthcare plans, claiming that he will repeal the Affordable Care Act rather than use it as a backstop until implementing the superior Medicare for All that Sanders wants instead.
Hillary Clinton relies heavily on her husband Bill's appeal with black voters. That is why people have referred to the South as her "firewall", because there are many black voters in the South who fondly remember Bill's presidency and will vote for a Clinton over any other candidate. The Southern states did vote overwhelmingly for Clinton, but recently Bill had a run-in with the black rights activist group Black Lives Matter bringing him to task for his crime reform that put so many black people in prison and his welfare reform that denied relief to the poorest black people. Black Lives Matter also demanded that Bill answer for his wife's use of the racist code phrase "remorseless superpredators" to justify the crime reform. Bill handled himself very poorly, becoming defensive and trying to justify the bills he had signed into law even after he had apologized for the crime bill last year. This has turned black voters against Bill Clinton. However, with the predominantly black Southern states out of the way in the primary, Bill Clinton's appeal with those same black voters has already done its job for Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Clinton's campaign staffers have been caught on camera violating election laws of the respective states, by canvassing for Clinton while registering people to vote.
Clinton has been coordinating with her SuperPACs Priorities USA and Correct the Record by helping them fundraise, in violation of FEC laws.
Clinton's campaign has harassed Sanders' campaign for not raising money for state and local candidates, but Clinton recently was outed for utilizing a fundraising group in her name, the Hillary Victory Fund, to raise millions of dollars for state candidates then have those states funnel nearly all the money back into her campaign to skirt FEC laws.
Clinton has clout with every news source. She got endorsements from New York Times and Washington Post, and gets consistently favorable coverage from CNN, NBC, ABC, PBS, NPR, and Univision, while those same networks either ignore Sanders, even when he wins overwhelming victories, or belittle his campaign and his chances. Many of those networks are contributors to the Clinton campaign.
When Clinton had a young black woman escorted out of her South Carolina fundraiser for demanding an explanation for the "we have to bring them to heel" remark, Clinton got an immediate audience with Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post to clear up her image with black voters.
The same Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post lied to hurt Sanders, by claiming that Sanders was not the subject of a civil rights photo, even when the photographer himself verified it was Sanders.
When Clinton was confronted by a Greenpeace activist over her fossil fuel donations, Clinton blew up in that activist's face, saying "I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me", and promptly got an article from Philip Bump of the Washington Post debunking her fossil fuel donations, which didn't sufficiently discuss Clinton's lobbyist donations from the fossil fuel industry and failed to mention fossil fuel donations into her SuperPAC Priorities USA. And again, Clinton is coordinating with her Super PACs, so she is responsible for donations into those Super PACs.
Univision, owned by Haim Saban, notorious right wing supporter of Israel and Clinton Foundation donor, bought The Onion which had been printing stories at Clinton's expense and now the satirical newspaper runs brown-nosing Clinton stories instead.
The same Univision hosted a debate where they gave Clinton quadruple the speaking time and ambushed Sanders with an out-of-context clip of an interview about Fidel Castro.
The New York Times repeatedly edits their digital articles to diminish any praise for Sanders and make Clinton sound better.
Paul Krugman, economist and columnist for the Times, has run one condescending article after another about Sanders and his supporters while clearly slavishly endorsing Clinton.
The Washington Post ran an article by the editorial board calling Sanders a liar and his supporters gullible fools. When Sanders fought back calling the Post wrong on the Iraq War, among other things, the Post doubled down and they have been facetiously attacking him ever since.
Smearing her opponents
Clinton lies about Sanders, including making insinuations of sexism and racism, accusing him trying to repeal the ACA, accusing him of cozying up to the gun lobby (while she attends fundraisers held by NRA lobbyists), tried to smear Sanders as being anti-choice and tried to blame Sanders for the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting.
Clinton acts through third parties to lie about and attack Sanders, including despicable smear artist David Brock (accused Sanders' campaign of racism, attacked Sanders' age and health, hired trolls to post porn and snuff photos to pro-Sanders Facebook groups), Hispanic activist Dolores Huerta (accused Sanders supporters of racism), Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis (insinuated that Sanders was not a member of the civil rights movement), Congressman Luis Gutierrez (accused Sanders of insensitivity to Hispanic people) the feminist group Emily's List (accused Sanders' campaign of sexism), the gay rights group HRC (ignored Sanders' superior record on gay rights), and the list goes on.
Clinton uses doublespeak to slander her opponents. Recently, Clinton was asked on Morning Joe whether Sanders was unqualified for the Presidency. She refused to answer this question multiple times, when she could have easily said "Yes, but I am more qualified." Sanders' campaign manager Jeff Weaver responded to this with "I went to law school as well, and I know how to say something without actually saying it."
Stealing her opponents' ideas
Clinton has changed her stance on the TPP, Keystone pipeline, financial de-regulation, the private prison industry and a $15 federal minimum wage, among other things, the moment that Sanders made these issues important to voters.
Contradictions to behavior in the 2008 election
Clinton has made herself a very close friend to President Obama. At least, that's how she portrays herself in every debate. However, Clinton was rather nasty to Obama in 2008, running the infamous "3 A.M." political ad that had racist undertones and suggesting that she would stay in the race despite an insurmountable delegate gap because Obama might be assassinated like Robert Kennedy. Clinton's sudden camaraderie with Obama and his policies plays more like an appeal to black voters, considering that the Clintons are rumored to be furious at Obama for winning the 2008 election.
Clinton has changed course from 2008 to attack Sanders. She put herself on Obama's right regarding guns to appeal to rural voters, and now puts herself to Sanders' left regarding guns to appeal to urban voters. She told Obama that Democrats should never disagree on universal healthcare, and now tells Sanders that his Medicare for All concept "will never, ever come to pass."
GENERALLY AS A POLITICIAN AND A HUMAN BEING:
Clinton is seen as a political opportunist, and her views have (outwardly) changed as the world has changed. She opposed gay marriage, now she supports it. She supported fracking, now she opposes it (after making money from the fracking industry). She supported the TPP, now she opposes it (while political officials feel comfortable that she will flip back to supporting the TPP if elected). She supported the crime bill that her husband signed into law, now she says it was a mistake. This kind of opportunism tells people that Clinton is a liar who will say anything to be elected.
Part of this political opportunism is that Clinton has used political revisionism to explain away her bad decisions from her time as First Lady. For instance, Clinton has claimed that DOMA was secretly intended to prevent a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which is false.
Clinton is seen as wealthy, out of touch and arrogant. She owns expansive New York properties, she flies in a private jet even as a private citizen, she hasn't driven herself since she became First Lady and she has been surrounded by Secret Service since the 90's. She claimed that she and her husband were "dead broke" after leaving the White House, even on a more than $100K pension, and so she and her husband gave paid speeches to become multimillionaires. She doesn't even seem to understand that these paid speeches constitute a conflict of interest for a President. Her daughter married a Goldman Sachs employee and has never had to work a day in her life. Secret Service employees allegedly dislike her and say that she is rude and dismissive.
Clinton is seen as considering herself above the law. Of course, there is the private server that she had set up as Secretary of State, seemingly so that she could either work from home or so that she could have communications withheld from the State Department with individuals like Sidney Blumenthal, who was not authorized to work for the Department and was paid out of the Clinton Foundation as Clinton's private foreign affairs advisor. There is a history of scandal following her and her husband, some of which is compelling, most of which is conspiracy theory.
Clinton is seen as a liar even on unnecessary things. She lied about "being under sniper fire" when visiting Bosnia, she lied about trying to sign up for the military and she lied about her name being given in honor of Mount Everest mountaineer Edmund Hillary. This tendency to lie even about insignificant things creates perpetual distrust of her. Worse still, when Clinton was asked if she would always be honest with people, she responded "I don't believe I ever have [lied]. I don't believe I ever will."
To those of you liberals who don't understand the Bernie or Bust movement, allow me to explain it in a way that may be clearer and more detailed than what you are used to hearing.
What you are seeing is a group of people who hit their breaking point -- and some day, you will hit yours too. It may be a month from now, it may be eight years from now. The injustices that have been allowed to thrive in our country have resulted in the death and suffering of millions of people. We have a climate crisis, we have lead in our water, we have massive income and wealth inequality, and we have millions of people in prison for petty "crimes" who are being used as slave laborers. These are just a small fraction of the injustices which permeate through every aspect of our government.
The people of this movement have come to the realization that our current system is broken beyond repair and the time for incremental change is over. This is worth repeating. The system under no circumstances can be fixed with establishment politics; it can only be fixed by a progressive political revolution that sends a message loud and clear that we the people are setting a new standard for our elected representatives.
Bernie Sanders understands the urgency to navigate our way out the whirlpool of injustice and impending disasters that inevitably await us and he has a voting record that proves he has the wisdom required to make the right decisions for the country.
When he saw the candidates running for the democratic nominee, he hit his breaking point. Despite never having any aspirations to be president, he knew he had a moral obligation to run. He knows that a Clinton presidency will only prolong the stagnation of our broken system. He knows if she becomes president, in four to eight years from now, our elected representatives will still be reduced to nothing more than a glorified telemarketer begging for money.
He knows we can not afford to compromise on taking aggressive action to address climate change or other necessary regulations that are needed to prevent the death or suffering of millions or even billions of people.
He knows we don't have time for incremental change, especially when that incremental change is going to be led by a centrist candidate with a history of voting blunders that resulted in a diminished middle class and an unstable middle east -- by a candidate who has amassed her personal wealth from the same special interests who fund her campaign -- and by candidate who is basically campaigning on fixing the damage from the legislation she voted for in the first place -- the same legislations that Bernie Sanders passionately spoke out against to anybody who would listen.
For these reasons, Bernie Sanders stepped up and took on the establishment. Progressives finally had a candidate who was something so much more than the stereotypical politician. Sanders has proven beyond reasonable doubt that he has by far the best judgment and the strongest principles of any candidate to run for office in a very long time.
He built up an unprecedented grassroots moment with a very popular platform among democrats and independents. The progressive movement finally had a leader with a vision and a strategy to wrestle our government back from the wealthy few. He inspired millions of people who have long been disengaged from politics to start caring and participating in the system -- which is exactly what needs to happen for progressives to take control of the house and senate and end the gridlock we see today.
I'm well aware of most of the scandals Hillary Clinton has been involved in -- both the real ones and the fake ones -- but out of all of the unethical things she has done, I think the worst was her intentional sabotage of the progressive revolution.
For years, democrats and liberals have blamed republicans for the problems that plague our country. MSNBC regularly issued scathing reports about republican corruption and obstructionism. Progressives rallied behind the "liberal media" and the democratic party (some reluctantly) who were doing what little they could do given the republican opposition.
Democrats have always defended raising money from special interests because it was a necessity. They had to do it because the republicans were doing it. But, Bernie Sanders proved that his platform combined with his refreshing honesty and consistency was so popular that he could raise massive amounts money without relying on any special interests.
This is something Hillary Clinton could not do if her life depended on it. This is not a phenomenon that can be manufactured by anyone with money and power. This is a phenomenon that can only be created by a candidate with an impeccable track record marked by a commitment to altruism and reason.
Hillary should have dropped out early and supported him. The democratic party would have had an incredibly strong candidate with a scandal-free past. The vast majority of her supporters would have accepted him with open arms and been just as passionate about him as his current supporters are. He would be virtually guaranteed to win in a landslide victory against any candidate the republicans could put forward.
But, Hillary Clinton had different plans. She wanted more than anything to be president -- and in the course of this campaign, she has revealed the truth about the democratic party and the "liberal media."
When Bernie Sanders' generated a massive amount of momentum for the progressive revolution and the progressive principles that the democratic party and liberal media claim to want, he and his movement were not accepted by the media nor the democratic party. Instead, he was seen as a threat and the democratic party and the Clinton campaign sought to extinguish his momentum.
They could have embraced Bernie's revolution and doubled its support. They would have been able to launch a fierce campaign uniting enough people to win majorities in every branch of government.
But instead, they sabotaged his campaign through the use of propaganda. Sometimes the propaganda was blatant, sometimes is was subtle, but there is no doubt it was there and there is no doubt it was effective.
Bernie was painted as a pie in the sky idealist with no chance of winning and no concept of reality. But this is not the case and it is not what the Clinton campaign and the media believe. They knew that Bernie Sanders could win and the progressive revolution could build support. That is why the DNC had to hide Clinton and schedule debates at times when people wouldn't see them. If Bernie couldn't win, then the DNC and the media wouldn't have to resort to protecting Hillary and vilifying Sanders.
The republicans are extreme and their policy is worse than Clinton's center-right policy agenda. But at least the republicans don't pretend to be on our side. The Clintons and the liberal media are not stupid. They know what they did and Sanders supporters know what they did -- and it was nothing short of a betrayal.
So if Clinton wins the nomination, don't be confused when millions of Sanders supporters stay home or vote for Trump. Betrayal is personal and millions of people are more angry and discouraged than many people realize.
Profile InformationName: California Kid
Hometown: Northern California
Member since: Wed Nov 17, 2010, 01:02 PM
Number of posts: 11,665
- 2016 (586)
- 2015 (1841)
- 2014 (1583)