Sanders Success Reveals Widespread Disgust
In 2007 Joe Biden, an esteemed senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, voted in favor of Bush’s vanity war in Iraq. It was a craven vote for a transparently corrupt war intended, ironically, to safeguard his future electoral viability. To their credit, Democratic primary voters remembered that vote and denied Joe Biden the presidency. Votes have consequences. Americans do not favor giving pusillanimous politicians the keys to the White House. Does anyone doubt that Biden would have sailed to the nomination and the Presidency is he had only asked, “What’s the REAL reason for this war?” and then voted as his heart and head both advised him? Instead, he (and Jeb Bush) are the only American politicians to ever pay a price for that war, and that price was astonishingly small compared to the price Iraqis continue to pay.
Between 2001 and last spring, Bill and Hillary Clinton were paid $153 million for speeches delivered to a range of oligarchs and big banks, including Goldman Sachs, the very company that profited so wildly from pushing the country to the brink of economic ruin. Like the Iraq war vote, these speaking fees are an affront to decency and common sense that Democratic primary voters appear unwilling to forgive. No US bankers have been jailed for their crimes against this country. For their outright attack on our economy that wiped out retirement accounts and life saving, they only got bonuses. Hillary Clinton may now be the only person in the upper reaches of power to pay a price for the reckless criminality of the US financial industry.
Is that fair? I don’t know. But there is a heart beating within the US electorate and that heart years for the scales of justice to somehow be set right.
If you look at basically any other Western democracy, you shouldn’t be too surprised that Hillary Clinton and the unappetizing mush that is Kasich/Bush/Rubio are having such a rough ride. The world is reeling from tectonic demographic and technological changes, along with the rot of oligarchical rule and continual warfare, all of which have driven the politics of country after country into great upheaval. America is no different. The people backing the National Front in France would likely find much to discuss with some of Donald Trump’s supporters. The members of the Labour Party who made Jeremy Corbyn their leader over the howling objections of the party’s upper echelons would no doubt have a very jolly time commiserating with Bernie Sanders backers.
Interesting connections to worldwide phenomenon…worth considering. I would not consider Clinton down and out yet, though, until I see some real changes in the polls in South Carolina and elsewhere. If the Bern can catch fire (god, that’s cheesy) among minorities and pull out a win in more diverse places, this thing will be over.
I think it will go to the convention. Hopefully some deal will be cut. (Hillary for VP… Bernie for VP?) I’d b happy with that outcome.
I am not a fan of Bernie for VP, other than to prevent Hillary from choosing some corporatist running mate. If there is a deal to be cut I hope it involves specific legislation or cabinet picks. No more Wall Street bankers in the cabinet.
Hillary for VP? OK, but in the interest of the party the VP should be younger and closer to Bernie’s politics than Hillary’s.
I disagree. The person finishing second is going to have a shit load of delegates. Those voters should be recognized, and either one as VP can energize the ticket in a way that some random Congressman or Governor couldn’t.
“Americans do not favor giving pusillanimous politicians the keys to the White House.”
Right on. This is even more powerful than substantive positions. 2004 demonstrated that. The tide of opinion had already turned against the Iraq war by then, but you had Bush’s statement at the ’04 GOP convention, “Even when we’ve disagreed, you’ve always known where I’ve stood” versus “I voted for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it.”
Yeah, I’m leaning towards Jason’s view (not completely there yet!). This ain’t 2008.
I found the MSNBC coverage fascinating. I enjoyed it when Brian Williams semi-groused that Sanders’ victory speech was ‘long’.
Uh, Brian? Do you think that the reason the speech was ‘long’ is b/c it’s the first time that the entire nation has had a chance to hear Bernie’s stump speech? As opposed to yet hours of juvenalia from Donald Trump, who has dominated your coverage? It’s YOUR fault that there has been little coverage of Sanders. Sanders knew that not even the corporate media would dare to cut him short to switch to Trump’s address, and he took full advantage.
BTW, the contrast between Bernie and Trump, who went on immediately after, did Trump no favors. He seemed so smarmy and, of course, so lacking in any ideas. Is there anybody who still thinks that Bernie would get swamped by Trump?
Also, for those that have been paying attention, do you wonder why Chris Matthews, seemingly for the first time, was not dismissive of Bernie’s chances? I think he had no choice, and I think that here’s why:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/09/hillary-donors-helping-chris-matthews-wife-into-congress/
BTW, Andrea Mitchell should be taken off this beat as well. Her ‘scoop’ that Hillary had declared victory in Iowa long before the votes were counted, and/or miscounted and/or not counted, was simply the act of Mrs. Allen Greenspan doing the Clintons a solid. Unworthy of making the air. Biased coverage.
I don’t get your point about Mitchell. I agree she is odious, but if the Clinton camp had declared victory, she is right to report it.
It was early enough that I thought “Hillary better win, or she’s screwed.” I actually found the declaration by team Clinton to be stupid with VERY limited upside.
@ES: Normally I’d join you in criticizing Mrs. Greenspan, but I have read elsewhere that the Clinton data team really did know that she was going to win.
Also, I find it interesting that Hillary had to pay the price for the Iraq war in 2008 and she now has to pay for The 2008 global economic meltdown in 2016.
Is that fair? I don’t know. Probably not. However, I do know she could have inoculated herself from the second by passing up the huge paydays.
Also – I wish I used tags, because she gave a talk early last year to bankers that I’d love to refer back to now.
It’s also interesting that Sanders voted for Bill Cinton’s 1994 Crime Bill. He also voted against a bill that would have stopped police acquiring tanks and armored vehicles. Not to mention his position on guns, or that he’s on record saying he would continue Obama’s drone program (altho more selectively?). He voted for the 1999 Kosovo War as well as for appropriations bills to fund the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
These aren’t very “progressive” positions, and if that’s the bar we’ve set then, perhaps, we can apply it across the board?
Hillary has always been far more liberal than any member of the Delaware delegation. In fact:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate
Low bar alert.
Give it up. She’s not progressive when it threatens the Clinton family net worth. She’s not progressive when coddling Goldman-Sachs executives. And she’s not going to be progressive when it comes to empowering Netanyahu.
If you trust her, you are in the minority. You could look it up.
@pandora
He [Bernie] voted for the 1999 Kosovo War
You literally have to be the only person in America who remembers that. 🙂
Typical. You didn’t address one of my points. I’ve never claimed she was progressive. Is it really this hard for you to read what people actually write?
I haven’t endorsed Clinton, but anyone would think my not endorsing Sanders was the exact same thing. Why is that? I have questions, damn it. Questions that aren’t being addressed. It’s really getting old how Bernie supporters main points are about Clinton and not, you know, their candidate.
Actually, Steve, I’ve been digging into both of their voting records. I like to be informed! 😉
The problem there is why Senators have such a tough time winning presidential elections, except against other Senators. Any vote at any time is made in a web of other relationships and nuances on the Senate floor, and every Senator leaves behind a trail of votes to be used against him or her.
Obama was lucky the first time to be running against another Senator.
The link shows that Clinton’s record in office was more liberal than Tom Harkin, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, John Edwards, Barack Obama …
John, poor chap…
People vote for a whole host of fucked up reasons. One of the most fucked up, and one that moves a great many people (to Dorian Grey’s and my own eternal chagrin) is voting for the person they perceive to be the eventual winner.
So what? She’s the most progressive of the non-progressive clowns we call “Democrats” these days. As noted previously, low bar alert.
Meanwhile, the NH exit polls showed that people who voted for trustworthiness went against her 9-1.
Who do you think you can fool with Senate voting records?
That link was for folks who focus on voting records and other actual data, rather than those stuck on buzz.
A more significant issue:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/benjamin-wallace-wells/the-clintons-lose-the-working-class
Well… that article (what I skimmed of it) should scare the crap out of you.