Home | About | Donate

Establishment Democrats Missing the Moment – And the Point


#1

Establishment Democrats Missing the Moment – And the Point

John Atcheson

This is one of those pivotal moments in history when real, fundamental change is possible. When we can shift the terms of the national debate, recapture power from the plutocrats and return it to the people, and restore democracy to our nation. But the Democratic Party Establishment is busy defending the status quo, as represented by Hillary Clinton. In the process, they are pushing what amount to misguided myths.


#2

Yes. Yes.


#3

Facts: Hillary and Bill took $153 million dollars from Wall Street and corporate lobbyists. Hillary had top secret e-mails on her personal server which is a felony for anyone else. She voted for the immoral and costly Iraq War. She was involved in the Syria and Libya Wars. She supported TPP and XL PIPELINE. ENOUGH Already!!!
Bernie Sanders 2016.


#5

Hillary is and always been a political creature, and like Bill, both have harmed our national interests, citizens and world security to further their own egos, wealth, and power.

"Anyone who praises Hillary Clinton’s accomplishments and abilities, her understanding of world affairs, and her diplomatic acumen is right up there with the fools, dupes and suckers who take Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or any of the less colorful bozos in the Republican goon show seriously."


#6

I think you can make the argument that both Clinton and Sanders may have electability problems. Clinton has been a punching bag (or as she says pinata) for the Republicans for years and that certainly has diminished her image. The Republicans have never taken aim at Sanders so what would happen if they did is an unknown. I think the establishment Democrats, which basically refers to all elected Democrats except for Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, don't really believe in the possibility of a sweeping progressive political revolution. They see the country split between people who want to move forward on a progressive agenda and people who think the government is too big and want to cut back on government programs and even abolish some government agencies. So the concern of the Democratic establishment is mainly is how do you get something accomplished given this gridlock.


#7

For more of the same, vote Hillary.


#8

Clinton's strong line is that she "knows how to work with Congress to get things done." However, I must repeat that Republican Congress intends to bring articles of impeachment EARLY in her administration (see HuffPo Oct 19, 2015 for one report).

I am not so optimistic that Bernie's youthful supporters will remain in the November turnout and carry Democrats into the Senate with a president-elect Clinton to stop Republican intransigence. Instead, we will have at least two more years of hearings on Benghazi, email servers, Vince Foster, Whitewater, pork belly trades, etc, etc. NOTHING will get done.

While Acheson provides a fairly detailed breakdown of the forces lined up against Clinton in the November campaign, I found it discouraging that the Sanders campaign seems unable to raise a few of Acheson's points (a Hobson's choice, as it were) without creating vulnerabilities in upcoming primary states.

Regarding the MSM, I believe it's helpful to point out that the New York Times exceptionally early endorsement of Clinton, notably highlighting her electability, should really be seen as self-serving to the NY community. Surely, Clinton did more than her share of service to the Manhattan and NYC community generally. And while I love NYC and New Yorkers, many I've spoken with there know or care of anything beyond the New Jersey Pallisades. It's a kind of NY parochialism. A sort of "what's good for New York will be good for the rest of the country." Obviously, New York is not the only geographical region susceptible to such powermongering parochialism.

Acheson also raises the withering attacks Clinton would face following her nomination. Expect such attacks to be nastier than ever we've seen in 30 years, and very likely with enough negativity to give Republicans the White House. A nail-biting back and forth September to November would only amplify Republican intransigence.

While youthful voters and other of us working for Sanders might remain in the November count with a Clinton/Warren ticket, imagine the anti-woman dog-whistling in Republican advertising. I offer to say that the electability differences observed in the recent Quinnipiac poll might be simply anti-woman. When calling SC voters last week, I was surprised to hear a woman tell me, "I don't believe a woman should be president." Clinton/Warren would be a risky, risky compromise.

All my eggs are in the basket for Bernie. No other way.


#9

Personally, I hope Bernie beats the crap out of Hillary on the votes. That said, he still has a tough row to hoe on the delegates..which are the only votes that count at the convention. He added 11 super delegates the other day, while Hillary added 87. Based on the math, and the system of proportionate delegates with the absurd layer of super delegates on top, I would estimate that he needs to get 60% or better of the popular vote to defeat Hillary, an extremely difficult thing to do.. I know that Obama had the super delegate switch in 2008, but history does not always repeat itself.

I hope the democratic party changes it's super delegate position..like do away with the undemocratic fact that one super delegate can beat 9000 regular voters..


#12

It is true that Hillary is a terrible candidate, but Atcheson and most analysts seem to be unaware of the following basic fact, which I keep pointing out:

The #1 job of Democrats is to lose to Republicans

When I say "Democrats" I'm talking about politicians and party leaders, not voters, who obviously want their party to win.

The reason Democrats want, above all, to lose to Republicans is that Democrats promise the opposite of what they intend to do, which is to serve established power and contribute to the ever increasing concentration of such power.

Of course, with Republicans being as horrible as they are, Democrats eventually have to win some odd election of two. At that point they need to switch into "incompetent" mode, usually by faking shyness and weakness, and being scared of the mean ugly Republicans, who also know how to play they role of being mean and ugly. So, as planned, Democrats fail to implement the agenda they promised, and they predictably lose Congress to Republicans in the next elections since their base stays home on election day. Mission accomplished: they lost to Republicans, which again is their #1 duty.

Hillary is the perfect candidate for this charade.

Sanders, on the other hand, seems to be following some other script, and the bosses must not like that. As Atcheson says, his coattails might deliver Congress to Democrats, and God forbid, perhaps even a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That would be the ultimate horror to party leaders because then, what excuse would they have for not enacting the policies they promise?

Atcheson's article is, on the other hand, useful regarding the myth of Hillary's electability. Many Democratic voters truly seem to believe that she is the most electable candidate, and this is something we need to change. I found the following absolutely delicious "Hillary Clinton is the least trusted candidate, Republican or Democrat, while Bernie Sanders is the most trusted.".


#13

I mean you no disrespect, Mr. Atcheson, but I think the list of liabilities for Mrs. Clinton exceed the two mentioned:

"Two things make Clinton a risky bet for Democrats."

The email scandal is more inflammatory to the Fox "news" crowd. Her twisting every way the wind blows is a much stronger flaw.

But here are 3 more:

  1. The Clinton name. Given the FACT that Bill Clinton did more to fuse both parties into one organism loyal to the super-rich (and/or corporations), lots of people are really over "Dynasty American Style," and what two families responsible for MUCH in the way of spreading misery, ecocide, and bloodshed have created.

  2. Her current campaign machinations... particularly those that misrepresent Mr. Sanders' positions added to her use of the entire D.C. media beltway chain to catapult the lie told often that she is the PRESUMPTIVE Democratic candidate (that coronation was granted way before ANY primaries got underway).

  3. Her phony attempt to package herself as a Feminist Progressive when she practically froths at the mouth in support of the most anti-Progressive, anti-Feminist entity on the face of the earth: The Military Industrial Complex and its chain of Crimes Against Humanity packaged as "The war against terrorism."

This portion of the analysis is most apt:

"But what good is experience, if she continues to get things wrong?

"For example, she voted for the Iraq war, while Sanders was one of relatively few to vote against it. And both had access to the same information. His judgment was simply better than hers. But worse, more than a decade later, she made essentially the same error with Libya, advocating a hawkish, simplistic, neocon policy of regime change that has been an unmitigated disaster. Indeed, the rise of ISIS can be attributed to these two profound errors in US foreign and military policy.

"The policies advocated by Clinton have led to blowback, and have increased the number of terrorists.

"She also has a long record of supporting economic policies that have led to extreme income inequality, massive losses in US manufacturing jobs, and deregulation of Wall Street, which led to the Great Recession of 2008."

If I were a Republican campaign strategist... I could do a LOT with all of the above.


#14

Actually, I think its the opposite. It's the GOP that's kept her negatives from plunging to the true depths they belong. People feel sorry for anyone in the crosshairs of crazy (tm); even a Clinton. And it's been a significant factor for much of her support among the rank and file.
The calculation is thus: If the GOP hate her, and I hate them, therefore I should like her.

As for the desires of the establishment, it's pretty bloody obvious: they want something very different from what their voters want. Same as in the GOP. And why shouldn't they? they've done handsomely by the current order of things.


#15

Obama also got those delegates because essentially he's Clinton ideological twin. There was no risk to superdelegates switching to him. But the switch from Clinton to Sanders is fairly dramatic, at least domestically. Sanders flat out isn't going to get too many fence sitters, because he threatens them.
You're right: he's going to have to knock her out hard in order to capture enough delegates to win.

But it also bears remembering: the umber of super delegates is not fixed. It can be moved (and has twice) and could still be if more are needed to elevate Her Heinous to the throne.

I'm personally interested to see how much risk the Democrats are willing to take in order to keep the status quo lurching along. They've already committed enough anti-democratic shenanigans to alienate a whole lot of their own voters. Wondering what their limit on obvious intereference actually is. I have a feeling we might get to see it.


#16

"All we need to is to reject the myths the Establishment is pushing in a desperate attempt to keep their candidates in the driver’s seat."

The above is idealist and presumes that:

  1. Vote counts will prove accurate and not tampered with
  2. No strange accidents will befall Mr. Sanders
  3. No 4/4 Supreme Court will interfere with election results
  4. No uptick in war zones will occur to "justify" Martial Law here inside "the Homeland"

These are NOT ordinary times and Democracy is hardly functioning as intended by former checks and balances on Power.


#17

there's another dirty secret--I know, surprise, right?--that clintonites aren't talking about. And that's Hillary's vacuous Senate record. I believe that in 8 years she has never had a sponsored bill pass or even co-sponsored by anyone (at least in the GOP). Sanders record of getting legislation passed or considered--with some GOP assistance--is considerably greater.

All of Clintons arguments are empirical fantasy; easily debunked. Number of years of public service: Clinton 12, Sanders 32. There goes experience, unless we're counting marriage now. Even then, it's still basically a wash.
Electability? Nope. Sanders winning hed to heads consistently in polls. HRCs negatives thru the roof. Sanders positives very high.
Pragmatic get things done? No evidence whatsoever of that. Her record is the opposite: total failure, from the stupid HillaryCare fiasco in 1992 all the way to the loneliest senator gig for 8 years. ALmost all of her State Dept experience was either overtly evil or criminally incompetent.

She's nothing but a pr poster and always has been. Hillary Clinton is the Loch Ness Monster of politics.


#19

The Cheshire Cat grins we saw on Obama's face when he told us that he was "looking forward to working with the GOP" on the day after the GOP took control of the House in 2010, and again on the day after the GOP took control of the Senate in 2014 confirms your thesis that "the #1 job of Democrats is to lose to Republicans".

Ever since the Clintons and others formed the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in 1985, losing to Republicans has sustained the flow of corporate cash into the Democratic Party better than any other ploy covered by the DLC play book.


#21

Hillary's story About landing in Bosnia amidst sniper fire is my favorite political misrepresentation. NBC suspended Brian Williams for a similar, but lesser tale. Hillary controversies are so numerous that this one usually is forgotten, but not by me.


#22

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


#23

Great article but...

"Liberals have extracted about as much out of the system as is possible,"

Liberals can't afford to participate in America's pay for play system.

“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” ― John Steinbeck


#24

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Bernie has the old handicap to overcome of suppressed coverage by the msm. Ever since the New Hampshire primary I don't see his face on tv or in print much more than it was before. It seems to me that every time I watch tv I see Hilary or Trump! It's as though Sanders doesn't exist! (The event Thursday night on MSNBC did give Bernie a good chunk of exposure.)

Does anyone here know of a publicly available watchdog activity that records exposure minutes or seconds of the various candidates?


#25

What is more "Establishment" than this from 2006:
Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch will host a fundraiser for liberal New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, the Financial Times reports.

In April [2006], Murdoch told Fortune magazine, “I could live with Hillary as president,”

We know enough about Rupert's evil corrupt empire to steer well clear of any politician who has stooped low enough to receive his patronage.
Murdoch is to democracy as Goebbels is to truth.