Home | About | Donate

Democratic Myths: Challenging Mainstream Misconceptions Before the Iowa Caucus


Democratic Myths: Challenging Mainstream Misconceptions Before the Iowa Caucus

Peter Bloom

After months of campaigning and speculation, the 2016 Presidential election is finally about to begin. The Iowa caucus is the first stop in what is shaping up to be a landmark election. While Republican deal with the rise of Trump, the Democrats are locked in a battle between the establishment frontrunner Hillary Clinton and the populist upstart Bernie Sanders.


"Incremental approach to governance simply does not work", except it HAS worked as well as a Swiss watch in enriching the 1% at the expense of the 99%.


Public Relations firms that represent "stars" like Hillary Clinton get the CREAM who graduate from Ivy League Universities. These individuals know a lot about human nature, brain chemistry, and how subliminal messaging and other Mind Control Lite tactics operate. And they are the persons hired to come up with narratives and verbiage that is far less about truth than purchased outcomes.

The problem is that since "the paper of record," The New York Times gives Mrs. Wall Street its backing, and other media pundits do likewise... it's not a truthful narrative that's reaching most of the public, it's the one engineered by PR specialists.

Remember: Bush, Jr. hired Karen Hughes to tell the Iraqi people that a war ruining their nation was good for them. And people, by the millions, have been conditioned to smoke cigarettes--that is, to pay for their own almost inevitable Cancers and health breakdowns.

Advertising is a very powerful force.

Many of us object to the role that a captured corporate media plays in marketing candidates the way it does toothpaste.

If that same media could FIX the case FOR war of aggression (The Supreme Crime against Humanity according to The Geneva Conventions), and if it could long traffic in falsified frames about global warming (thanks to generous funding from countless "think tanks" financed by The Koch Brothers, ALEC, and the like)... then it's guilty of major crimes, too.

TV relies on the public's airwaves. There was a time where the major networks HAD to provide FREE public broadcasting. Had that imperative remained in place when Bill Clinton signed all of that air traffic over to 5 gargantuan broadcast companies, then no candidate would have to spend most of their time prostituting themselves before Deep Pocket interests.

It's a minor miracle that Sanders is gathering funds. He's the first candidate I sent $ to in a long time.

There are many hurdles here.

The first is access to media.
The second is media's proven use of lies told often to deceive the public.
The third is whether vote counts would be truthful.

This battle is FOR what remains of our Democracy. Short of Sanders, it's going to be rule by corporate oligarchs.


Another misconception currently in play is why will Clinton be a better advocate for black people than will a long time civil rights activist like Sanders? The Clintons helped create the prison industrial complex and in my opinion helped increase homelessness and poverty by their ending welfare the way they did. To my mind the most support Clinton has shown towards black people is her support for Obama (presumably in return for a Sec of State position).

Just why do some black people think Clinton will do much of anything for black people while she hobnobs with the oligarchs and billionaires etc?

Could someone please tell us why Clinton is now being talked about as if she has been a civil rights activist?


The main reason I would never vote for Hillary is that she is an inveterate warmonger. Not only did she vote for the Iraq War but she has supported or initiated interventionism in Libya, Ukraine, Syria, etc. along with the spineless Obama. Endless warfare has bankrupted us and made us the laughingstock of the world. No wonder we "can't afford" universal health care. Bernie isn't much better when it comes to greasing the palms of the MIC. We would be much better off as a country if we brought the troops home, put them to work building infrastructure and putting up clean energy installations, teaching in our schools, etc.


The main objective here is to defeat the Republicans. That should be obvious to anyone who has watched the Republican debates. The incrementalism is not something Democrats want, it is something that has been forced on them by the Republican opposition. The best either Clinton or Sanders will be able to achieve is incremental change. Bill Clinton found out that was all he could do and so did Barack Obama. To get these incremental changes you also have to agree to things you don't want so the Republicans can get their incremental changes. That is how the game is played now and there is no reason at the moment to expect anything different. Neither side can get what they really want and the most pressing problems are not really addressed as Congress keeps kicking the can down the road.


If you want to see disaffected democrats stay home in droves, then HRC is just the ticket to usher in a republican sweep. Only 36% of the electorate voted in the last election. Republicans keep winning because democrats have nothing better to offer than being only the slightly lesser evil, beholden to the same wealthy elites as their supposed opponents. People are SICK of the status quo, and HRC is the status quo.

As for incrementalism, what a bunch of hooey. Please tell me how, in the past three decades, we have incrementally become more progressive? If anything, in so many ways, it has been a holding action to slow down the flood of progressive policy reversals, and we have been "incrementally" (at the pace of a deranged cheetah) moving to the extreme right. HRC promises more of the same. What we do not need is to continue on this path. Therefore, in my view, Bernie Sanders, while not a perfect human being, offers the only vision of America that will resonate in this election. He will have coattails that will help balance out congress. HRC promises an electoral disaster that may well see a Trump presidency with a republican majority in both houses of congress. So much for progressive incrementalism (which, in this country, is nothing more than a myth anyhow).

This evening I will caucus for Mr. Sanders and pray that he wins the nomination.


Citizen's United is hardly incremental. Data mining and warrantless surveillance? Endless war and stomp the whistleblower? The only thing incremental is number of mega plutocrats that keeps rising to the 1% status each year.

Hillary is pulling an Obama >>> making promises and saying whatever people want to hear with no intention of fighting for those things or making them happen... even incrementally.


I think that part of that can be explained by Bernie's mindset. From what I have seen in his record and from numerous television appearances, he does not think in racial terms. He appears to see people in terms of who is not getting a fair deal and who needs to be helped, and does not hesitate to go to work for any group that needs help, and that includes black and any other minorities. People who work for him probably all get into that mindset and think that voters recognize that Bernie fairly represents all of them. From what I am seeing, that is a mistake because if they are not "pandered" to, for lack of a better word, blacks feel that they, as a group, are being disregarded. Bernie has better policies for blacks and other minorities and has done more for them over his career, but Hillary is from the south and understands that, apparently, a smile, an (in her case) empty promise, and slap on the back are the true path to the black vote. In that, she has a big headstart and unless black voters actually research what Bernie has done, and his policies will do for their interests, he may not catch up.


I agree with what you've said about Bernie since I am one of those types of people and always have been since the sixties. We were the hard core libs, the radical left, the non racist, non sexist, non violent marchers and protesters etc. We never changed as years went by. We believed in what was right because it was justice and decent etc. You can't change what you believe is the truth. You'll always know that it is true throughout your life. Some people think people changed after the sixties but they didn't. The sixties remained with us in the hearts and minds of activists and writers (many of whom you can see and read who were active in the sixties and remained active ever since). Others were never that active but supported those that were up at least up to a point.

Bernie was one of those who chose to create change from within the system. It is to his great credit that he has never faltered and has long fought the good fight. It is my hope and that of many of a similar age and political background that he wins the top spot because ... well hey... I guess he was right about changing things from within the system after all. LOL. It was possible Bernie! You were right!

I think Bernie is great and I trust him too... probably marched alongside him somewhere ...sometime... Go Bernie!!!

As far as Hillary pandering... do you think that stuff is new? I would suggest that it is the more conservative blacks (justice Thomas isn't the only one) who have found a place in the status quo that they want to keep that support Hillary. They want an incremental status quo. The young people want serious change and the older civil rights generation ... they know Bernie.


Noted and edited in.


I have noticed that comments about black voters can be misinterpreted and start a flurry of resentful replies, so I better clarify what I meant by pandering. I meant personal meet and greet appearances. As a former First Lady and then as a presidential candidate, Hillary has had numerous appearances and meetings with black leaders and voters. As a working senator dedicated to his job, Bernie has had far fewer opportunities to meet with them.


Hillary doesn't have a civil rights record and early on her advisors knew that she would have to counter Bernie's long record of support for civil rights. Blacks are very important to the democrats at election time. After elections not so much as always. So Hillary pulled out the smear guns and dirty tricks (imo a certain event early in the race seemed staged to hurt Bernie's image) and has run with it ever since. The thing is that where is her civil rights record? She says anything and everything but where are her appearances and actual support for black issues over the years? Show us Hillary don't just say you supported this or that now but show where you did back then. The Clintons hurt blacks more than they helped. So why is she able to keep up the illusion of the Clintons being best for blacks?

I think it is Obama blacks who have made a place for themselves in the status quo. The conservative blacks if not the nearly republican ones...they want Hillary. They have a stake in the status quo incrementalism.

So where are Hillary's appearances in the past in support of black issues. Her support of blacks seems to be confined to working in Obama's administration.


This is an excellent article, basic factual reporting about both candidates' actual records, compared to "Democratic myths" and to [corporate] media spin. But the author outlines those myths and that spin, without going into any explanation for them.

This basic reporting will be strongly augmented by similar factual reporting elsewhere about both candidates' sources of not just campaign funds, but also personal income, throughout their respective careers.

It's cemented by analyzing the reasons for the existence and prevalence of those "Democratic myths" and that media spin, largely attributable to the more or less "interlocking boards" and shared interests of the DLC / Third Wave Democrats, much corporate media, and some billionaire sponsors of the deep state.

(Parenthetically also helping grasp why the strenuous effort to produce the appearance of united attacks on Sanders, even as he keeps rising in polls and in fundraising. Writer Peter Bloom surely knows these things, but leaves them unexamined in this short piece.)

How any voting human :wink: could look at those two candidates' sets of records on these matters, and conclude that it is in one's interests to vote for sell-out Clinton over honest Sanders, i cannot understand. i think the polls continue to prove that, as more people learn about his record and his consistency. (And i haven't even mentioned his message.)


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


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


Benie's explaining also inspires fear in the GOP.

Wait, Wall Street and the GOP are one and the same, so whats my point ?


Except the author is in error to claim that Hillary Clinton only won election to the senate once.

She won twice, first in 2000, then in 2006. The solid republican challenger (Rudy Giuliani) dropped out in 2000, after that reasonably easy victory, 2006 was another easy race for Ms Clinton.


For the group -- my precinct will send twelve delegates to the democratic convention. Nearly nine hundred people showed up and filled a high school gym. After the tally, of the twelve possible delegates, Bernie wins eight and HRC four. No Diebold machines, no electoral hanky-panky. The tally was a head count. The Iowa caucus is grassroots democracy at its finest!!