Home | About | Donate

Bush-Clinton Is Not Inevitable


Bush-Clinton Is Not Inevitable

John Atcheson

A funny thing happened on the way to the oligarch’s quadrennial choice between tweedle-de and tweedle-dum. Two renegade candidates decided to ignore the script. One, a right-wing lunatic with a boatload of money; the other a socialist/democrat relying on small contributions, which are pouring in.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Sanders and Warren are both effective speakers with effective messages. Hillary Clinton speaks without affect; it is painful to listen to her soulless messages that skirt the issues like so much teflon. With Clinton, there is no there there…


Since you and your “first up C.D pals” who toss aspersions at Mr. Sanders have no other viable candidate stating anything remotely helpful to U.S. citizens, I think all of you should be called “to the mat.”

This insistence that an individual who tries to work outside of Big Money interests, and IS speaking to what’s important to U.S. citizens, and IS courageously exposing the dark underbelly of financial empire (hopefully with more emphasis on its martial component… to come) is nothing more than another Trojan Horse… is suspect.

Sanders is not a CIA clone. Sanders was not propped up at the Democratic Convention to serve as a “screen test” determining whether a new “star” would rise. He’s been his own man.

And as has been explained what, 50 times thus far (?)… he assumed the Dem brand so that he can have a shot at the election AND be heard across media. In case you didn’t notice, those who buck the duopoly’s control system are not generally seen or heard. Ross Perot, due to his own mega money was an anomaly.

YOU and your pals work too hard to demonize Mr. Sanders. THAT is suspect.

Anyone with an operating brain knows that no politician is going to pander to the extreme left; that many U.S. citizens WANT small business/capitalism–along with fairer divisions made to the fiscal pie; and not all are ready to abandon the sense of macho strength attached (through decades of programming & conditioning) to a huge military.

Most of us would rather see a candidate do SOME good than pretend that perfection is possible, and that ALL of “our” interests will be granted at the toss of a presidential wand.

There is a tradition in this site’s message threads that shows FAR more umbrage towards persons like Bill McKibben, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Dennis Kucinich, Naomi Klein, and now Sanders… than the REAL sellouts and dangers to all forms of life, human and ecological. Just as persons can be judged from “the company they keep,” a lot can be determined from the particular targets chosen by this site’s “regulars.”


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Here’s another red herring by Chris Hedges as quoted by Paul Street on Counterpunch:

“I am glad that the left intellectual and activist Chris Hedges does not support the Bernie Sanders campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. As Hedges explained in a recent interview on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, Sanders’ candidacy lends undeserved credibility to the thoroughly corporatized Democratic Party. Sanders has pledged that he will support the corporatist military hawk Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general presidential election. Sanders stirs up legitimate progressive energy and popular anger and then “funnels it back into a dead political system,” Hedges observes.”

Nonsense, the real world of politics is messy, practical, and the art of the possible.

This is the sort of stuff coming out of a clerisy, led by Counterpunch and some on Truthdig. Counterpunch is often quoted as a secular bible, although many good pieces appear there, I use my own studied judgement, as I think everyone should, in making decisions, and do not parrot the thought of others. A one word description of Counterpuch of late is “sour.” Reading sour often begets sour. To say pro forma support, as Hedges does, for a candidate, has any meaning other than an accepted protocol, used in life generally, is disengenuous. The disproportionate hatred for Bernie boggles the mind. Bernie as funnel is a slur, he is bringing thousands to the debate, a debate I haven’t heard for decades, and that is all Hedges can say, well I respectfully disagree. I and I guess many others do not plan on following Bernie to the Democratic candidate other than he, even if Bernie thought we should. In that case I will be sitting it out, the wilted kaput Green Party is not part of the conversation. This is Hedges’ version of Bernie the sheep dog herder, an insult to the dignity of all people. Where is Hedges’ candidate who is drawing thousands? After reading some of these people I walk away with sour, with nothingness, and nothing comes from nothing:

I do fear the Net Roots incident left maybe irreparable damage, through no fault of Bernie.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Every Democrat, sooner or later, is revealed to be a Lieberman. This is what happened with Obama very early on. If Sanders gets the Democratic nomination, which is indeed possible, he also will be a Lieberman.

The role of the Democratic Party is take voters’ good intentions, melt them down, and forge them into barbed wire and bullets.


Well said and thank you very much.


Spot on yourself >>>

Ain’t it the truth! Then when a rightwingnut or something close to it gets elected they whine about how little progress has been made.

Nope Bernie isn’t perfect… for example there seems to be an incipient near comb over always threatening to make an appearance but never quite crosses the hairline!

I personally am willing to accord Bernie the benefit of the doubt and even to extend the laurel leaves (ahem) of forgiveness should a true comb over ever break free of disciplined restraint (perhaps caused by the undue strain in the guise of a Trumpian pompadour?)

My point is that there is always something about any candidate isn’t there? Always something that raises an eyebrow or causes a frown in supporters. Some position that shows that this person is imperfect!

Are the words politician and perfection used in the same sentence not something of an oxymoron? Can’t we add up all the positives and count how many times Bernie has voted like we have wanted politicians to vote but most never do? Shouldn’t that count? A lot !!!

In the final analysis yes while a comb over seems to look like it could happen… the fact remains that it never has! Not perfection sure but pretty darn close as far as that goes.

In any case Trump’s hair is far, far worse… so by comparison >>> Bernie and Trump…

Bernie looks pretty good to me!


Siouxrose11, lately your views have begun to make much more sense to me than they have in years. I think your thoughts would be even more palatable if you could shed the paranoia and stop the personal attacks aimed at fellow posters. Just saying.


The Counterpunch editorial board:


Excellent comment.


Go Bernie!

But how are you going to get your programs by the Republican Congress and the SCOTUS RATS?

Popular initiatives and binding popular referendums are the democratic answer.


I’m with you HisStory.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


[quote=“Endgame, post:7, topic:11529, full:true”]

I don’t understand what has happened to CD posters. Perfection over progress seems to be the tone for many more than I would have thought.

Pushing for a vote for a Green candidate is tantamount to all the “wasted vote whining” I read on here. Bernie a TROJAN HORSE??? Puh-leeze!!!"

That’s only if one assumes that all CD posters are progressives.

For Greens to form a coalition with a Progressive Democrat like Bernie is a no brainer. It would be great if after the debates, Jill Stein backs Bernie. As a Green, I don’t see any advantage to denying him the Green vote to make a statement.


[quote=“aligatorhardt, post:18, topic:11529, full:true”]
There is no “hatred” for Bernie Sanders. But there is also no godlike worship of him. To think that one can get the support of the corporate Democratic Party without subservience to corporate control is naive and immature."

If this Green is given the choice of joining the circular “progressive” firing squad or voting for Bernie, a candidate with a long progressive track record, I’ll choose the latter every time.


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


Good post - good article …