It’s routine for right-wing outlets like Fox to smear progressive activists under the guise of “news” coverage. But why the New York Times? And why the special venom for Bernie Sanders?
"Now, in mid 2017, with no Presidential Election in sight, why is the Corporate Media hostility towards Sanders so prone to surface?"
Because Bernie's MESSAGE is Dangerous to those who have been Comfortably Destroying Our Nation, and who now want to take every opportunity available to Demonize and Marginalize it.
Bernie would have been the first Democratic presidential candidate FOR whom I would have voted. In the past, I have only voted for Democrats as a means of playing defense. It would be great if his brand could be used to create another party, truly independent of the duopoly. That TPTB fear Bernie enough to revile him at this time it a good sign.
Another cup of obvious to start the day. The media is part of the Democrat Establishment. The Democrat Establishment has been against Bernie since he originally announced his candidacy against Saint Hillary. Like any group with power, the Democrat Establishment will rally against anyone they perceive trying to diminish their power.
And it's called "news" why?
TPTB look at Trump and the Repubs and see how much people are opposed to what the selfish and corrupt creeps are doing. It is pretty hard to miss the protests and demonstrations that happen practically every week! They look at Bernie's continuing popularity (and growing support across a wide spectrum of Americans) and they rightfully expect that the backlash generated by the draconian Republican agenda (plus the cruel cuts in social services like Medicaid and even food stamps etc just to give the wealthiest more tax cuts) will end up making a huge number of voters hear Bernie's message and come out to vote for him should he run in 2020!
The powers that be fear that Trump is going to make sure that Bernie gets elected. So the right is beginning to unsheathed its claws with which they will try to hold on to (make permanent) the Republican's agenda and tax cuts for the rich.
If Bernie gets elected a HU-U-GE groundswell of public support would force even the most pro Republicans among the Democrats to undo much of what Trump and the Repubs are doing now. They would have to rather than risk a more progressive challenge to their reelection.
It is just that the Times and the Wash. Post et al actually want to look balanced and fair so they start early and prefer to look less strident (and fearful) and tone down or camouflage their intense opposition to a candidate like Bernie. Bernie would be very much the opposite of Trump and the Times etc. know full well that he would enjoy an immense amount of public support.
The oligarchy cringed when Bernie spoke their name!
Business as usual from the Democratic-Republican-Corporate-Media-Military-Industrial-Establishment Party Machine.
One of the most common criticisms of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ progressive movement is that challenging the Democratic establishment will help President Donald Trump and Republicans remain in power. This criticism pushes progressives to fall in line behind the Democratic leadership, which in 2016 lost the presidency, both majorities in Congress, and 1,000 state legislature seats across the country. Despite establishment Democrats viewing progressives with the same disdain that they did throughout the 2016 Democratic primaries, progressives are creating a resistance that takes on not only Republicans but the ruling class that is strangling the Democratic Party.
The weak positions Democrats are taking in lieu of supporting popular progressive policies inhibit the party from recouping their losses. Democratic elites hope to coast off of Trump’s unpopularity and avoid adopting popular progressive positions that would antagonize their wealthy donors. In many instances, establishment Democrats are shifting to the right to attract conservative voters. One example is Sen. Joe Manchin, who votes and acts like a Republican. But, since he is technically a Democrat, the Democratic establishment refuses to hold him accountable.
If I am understanding you, "heal the divide" means telling progressives to shut up and get in line?!?
The Clinton wing of the party got beaten by the worst candidate in american history (actually, i guess based upon the history, more correctly it would be Clinton IS the worst candidate in american history and lost to the 2nd worst). That was just the culmination of 30 years of "triangulation" that resulted in complete republican domination over elections. 30 YEARS of mounting, continual, abysmal failure.
How does ANYONE think they should still be in charge of this party?
So, what is your solution after we "heal the divide" and start following the glorious Hillary Clinton again? Why would we expect any different result?
Bernie is doing more harm than good in the world. Despite promises to the contrary, his campaign devolved into a negative, divisive, poisonous rhetoric against Hillary Clinton, who never returned in kind.
Is this a joke?
He has been seeking self aggrandizement instead of furthering the interests of the American people.
Is this another joke?
I don't believe your claim of being a Sanders fan of decades standing.
His continued division of the Democrats, liberals, and progressives will only lead to more damaging elections like the one we just went through. He should either help heal the divide or stay out of it. Too many white men are telling Hillary to shut up. Bernie can shut up.
And here you're doing the work of Hillary and the establishment democrats like Schumer--this crap is why Hillary lost. And Hillary does need to shut up if all she can say is "I take full responsibility for my loss, but it's everyone else's fault". She's said this twice in public now.
I see that Melinda joined 23 minutes ago.
Kind of a big clue that she's not been paying attention to Sanders for decades or paying attention to the awful candidacy of Hillary 2016.
Anyone notice how people who sign up to trash progressives often seem to bear the 'patron' label to try to legitimize the crap they spew? They toss a few bucks to make it seem as though they really care about Common Dreams. As I have said before, those who care about Common Dreams don't need a banner to prove they gave money in support.
I know she is likely lying about that, but I must call out this kind of tripe and can't let it stand.
I think Trump is a horrible president, but the only reason we have him is because people like Melinda keep spouting this crap about "healing the divide" and how Hillary and her camp will lead us to victory.
Or, to get back to the article, I am amazed at how the Times is so blatantly in bed with Hillary that I wonder if she has some dirt on them - it's staggering how slanted their articles have been in relation to anything related to Clinton. (and I am saying this as a lifelong NY dem and a Times subscriber until recently)
My only hope coming out of 2016 was that the DLC-wing would finally be crushed under their own incompetence. But, we continue to roll down the same path... Thinking of emigrating at this point.
Welcome to Common Dreams, common troll. Thanks for regurgitating the crassly disingenuous Clinton campaign / DNC talking point.
I am not convinced the NY Times is biased against Sanders. It seems well known that his supporters are more idealistic while Clinton supporters are more pragmatic. That would seem to carry over to winning elections. Clearly neither wing of the party wants to lose elections. But if the NY Times is unfairly biased the same could be said of the alternative left-wing media which continually hypes the popularity of Sanders beyond the actual evidence. Again and again we read the bogus claim that the DNC picked Clinton as the nominee in effect stealing the election from Sanders. However, any analysis of the voting shows that Clinton won because the voters chose her. She won by abut 400 pledged delegates and several million popular votes. And that was despite being greatly outspent by Sanders in ad buys in many states. The fact is that Sanders for whatever reason could not connect with African American voters and to a large extent Hispanic voters. He also did not have a message that played well with white voters living in metropolitan areas except for younger voters. I think the Democrats of the Clinton wing remain unconvinced that candidates with Sander's message can do well broadly in the United States. There seems to be more hype than actual evidence of this popularity of Sander's message. Maybe elections in the near future will change that perception.
Ever since the 1985 Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) formation when the Party's mission became GET MORE CORPORATE MONEY THAN THE GOP, Joan Walsh, NYT, WaPO and others have been the Party's infantry, tasked to assure that the corporate money flow NEVER slows down.
Each year since 1965 a smaller percentage of eligible voters identify as Democrats and the Party holds fewer elected seats nationwide than it has since Hoover was POTUS, confirming that sustained corporate money flow is a much higher priority for the Party than winning elections.
Quickly pushing back any progressive forces within the Party is key to keeping corporate money flowing irrespective of whether the next election is a week out or four years out.
Until there is a 12 step program to stem corporate money addiction nothing will change in the Democratic Party.
Go ahead and keep riding that bandwagon, but MIND THAT CLIFF'S EDGE!
LRX, though I don't often agree with you, there is some truth to what you say, here. Had Sanders won the primary, his presidential campaign would have faced a serious problem in getting out the black and Hispanic vote. His primary numbers in these two voting blocs was dismal. It would have taken a major change in strategy and with Jeff Weaver as his campaign manager, it's questionable whether this would have happened. A Sanders presidential bid would not have been the slam dunk that some of his supporters claim.
It's also very questionable whether the party core would have given him the full support he would have needed to push through any of his proposals had he won the presidency. Hard to say whether elements of the party's core hate him or Trump, more.
The early super-tuesday states, combined with zero coverage for sanders until he started to win, and Jeff Weavers inexplicable decision to not campaign there, all meant that the early states were all about Hillary's coronation (hence the 80% support in those southern states). Later in the primaries, Sanders was much better demographically. The myth about him being unable to connect with African Americans is just that, a myth. Same with urban lack of support (take NYC out of your equations and things look better for sanders)
The biggest divide for Sanders/Clinton was age. People 45 and under overwhelmingly favored sanders. People older than that were for Clinton. I personally think us older folk should finally think just a bit about the people following us - we've screwed up this world enough and should start thinking about the next generation.
Why would you think that the Clinton wing's message has any relevance? They had all the advantages in the world and lost badly. They have lost continuously for 30 years. Yet, you think that their "message" does well broadly in the United States? How many more years of losing and rightward shift will it take before you see the failed strategy of triangulation for what it is?
Yes - I have seen that "patron" label - but I am unsure what it is supposed to mean. Many of us have given donations to CD but don't have that label. I thought it just went with being new.
It is very true that the Sander's campaign did not address important systemic structures negatively affecting women and people of color. He was also not critical of the wide-scale human rights violations the US militarism commits around the world.
However, as many of us engaged are engaged in grassroots community based organizing can attest, the Democrat power structure is very quick to launch vicious attacks against progressives who they feel threaten their hold on power. The reality is that the Democrat power structure has been in the practice of demonizing progressives since the the racist slave holder and genocidal Native American murderer, Andrew Jackson, founded the Party.
The critique that many progressives have of establishment Democrats, is that, in significant ways, establishment Democrats are promoting policy/practice as far to right as much of what establishment Republicans promote.
What is the difference between establishment Democrats and Republicans with respect to promoting alternatives to private profit based economics?
What is the difference between establishment Democrats and Republicans with respect to initiatives to reduces wealth concentration such as maximum wealth limits?
What is the difference between establishment Democrats and Republicans with respect to Wall Street / plutocrat campaign financing?
What is the difference between establishment Democrats and Republicans with respect to rolling back the powers of the espionage sectors - NSA, CIA, FBI?
Senator Sanders introduced a bill to get 100% renewable energy by 2050, what is the difference between the support (or lack thereof) for this initiative on the part establishment Democrats and Republicans?
What is the difference between establishment Democrats and Republicans with respect to the US reliance of militarism to solve international crises?
What is the difference between establishment Democrats and Republicans with respect to the use of drone killing and crowd killing (aka signature strikes)?
What is the difference between establishment Democrats and Republicans with respect to the the development of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS)?
What is the difference between establishment Democrats and Republicans with respect to former President Obama's initiative to fund the upgrade of nuclear weapons to the tune of $1 trillion?
What is the difference between establishment Democrats and Republicans with respect to the US crimes against humanity, to wit, massacre of thousands of innocent civilians through its world wide wars?