Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s stunning 22-point loss to Sen. Bernie Sanders in New Hampshire is even more devastating when looked at in the context of the modern history of this first-in-the-nation primary: No one has ever lost by such a margin and gone on to win the presidency.
I feel that Sanders is very different from McCarthy in profound ways. His unprecedented small donor funding, his large and growing base which looks like a winning hand , and which points to the fact that millions consider him electable right now, with many, many more to come. Clinton is no RFK either. While it did look like he was co-opting McCarthy at first, he proved to be a very inspiring candidate, not "establishment" at all. Clinton has no where to go, Sanders does. If Sanders wins the nomination, and even half of Clinton's current base come on board with him, he will have formidable political clout. Especially if Elizabeth Warren agrees to run with him ( hope, hope) . Bernie is a great campaigner with a very good and improving ground game. He, IMHO, would smush Trump. Good article , thanks.
Wow Robert. I guess that means you won't be marked down for a contribution today, eh? I'd hardly consider Sanders a back-bench choice now that we see him in action. He has had every opportunity to back down and be cowed as he is confronted by the establishment, to soften his rhetoric or his focus on the issues that are animating his support.
Your reporting on world conflicts and the hubris of American policy has been great, but maybe your professional focus on those matters has caused you to underestimate what is apparently happening here? This piece really comes off as tone deaf; like you're listening to the chamber music of the anointed and not hearing the hip-hop in the streets. Young people are supporting him because they are getting screwed, not just in the present, but will be screwed long into the future after their abusers are six feet under.
If a candidate comes to the fore that is not flawed in some way then I know I'm either dead or dreaming. Of course these were your honest opinions and they probably do resemble the strategic deliberations now going on in party central. And how, in your estimation, is Elizabeth Warren any more acceptable to the powers-that-be than Sanders? Because she would be more pliable? One of Sanders greatest appeals is his unwillingness to let their rheumy fingers ply at his convictions.
I thought that Hillary looked so angry when she gave her concession speech. It seemed like she thought that all women at least were obligated to vote for her. Good for them- enough of them did not. Again, why would this very wealthy , famous person want to be president when she appears to "have it all?" Yes, it would be great to have a female president , but not this one.
I thoroughly enjoyed your comment and thank you. I laughed out loud at the last sentence....rheumy fingers...ROFLMAO.
Thanks. It may be the constant reminder of my own gnarled appendages always hitting the wrong keys that so easily called that comparison to mind.
The biggest difference between 1968 and 2016 is not McCarthy / Sanders nuances. In 1968 the US working class was as economically stable as it ever was before or has been since. It was easy for well compensated US workers, many of them unionized. to forget FDR's New Deal (that brought them the weekend and their economic success) and be misled by Nixon and Wallace. Many in today's US working class are smarting from the road rash that Raygun and his successors in the White House continue to bestow upon them. They are getting a whole lot more interested in the New Deal than they ever have.
Just read that long post. Thanks for a summation of that period. I did not fully understand the machinations of national politics at the time all of that was going down and was too young to vote. Just under the age of possibly being drafted and sent to Nam I was listening to any peace candidate. To my everlasting relief I was not drafted and sent into that national misadventure.
The cool-aid you refer to is too much time spent absorbing inside-the-beltway BS, right ?
Although Parry tells us that it took "New Democrat Clinton" to win the 1992 election, the election outcome was actually determined by Ross Perot spoiling it for Bush 41. Jerry Brown was the more populist choice in the 1992 primary, but the 1985 Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) play book dictated that the nominee needed to draw more corporate money and deliver more corporate welfare than Brown was capable of. Brown would have done at least as well as Clinton did in the 1992 election and probably would not have made zealous execution of NAFTA his highest first term priority, costing the Democrats control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in 40 years.
Forget about Hillary--the better read is the link to Parry's consortium news article on how Nixon's meddling with the then imminent Paris peace talks betrayed a process that might have ended the Vietnamese war four years (and many many lives) sooner than it actually did. Nixon's argument to the South Vietnamese was to drag their feet and stall the talks because they would get a better deal with Nixon in the White House.
Parry's main source is a national security memorandum written by Walt Rostow, then national security adviser to LBJ, who turned over his entire top secret file on the matter to Rostow with instructions to summarize the findings for the record.
If this sounds familiar, it's the same scam facilitated by Poppy Bush with the Iranians to allow Ronnie the Ray-gun to announce that the hostages were freed in his inaugural address.
Gary Sick, then with the National Security Council under the Ford, Carter and even briefly in the Reagan administrations detailed the chicanery in an op-ed piece in the NYT in 1991 which became known the "October surprise". But the original October Surprise took place 12 years earlier with the Nixon campaign to scuttle the Paris Peace talks to end the Vietnam war.
I can't believe what I just read. Pinch me. This must be a joke, this can't be a piece written by Robert Parry, can it? Bernie might not have paid enough attention to foreign policy, Mr. Parry seems not to have been paying attention to contemporary political history.
Very thoughtful and intelligent comment.
So, we have competing wisdom and facts
In the one corner we have Bernie--he has overwhelming appeals and super vote showings in Iowa and NH.and proof of popular acceptance with the abundance of donations and the small donations do add up.
In the other corner we have Hill. Abundance of time spent in places of importance here and there, Abundance of cash from the high-ups we all admire so much, she is "running on the Legacy", as directed. Not sure what the Legacy is but it must be important--it is called " did so much" and has been welcomed by the opposing party, as bilateral, With and sometimes without compromises to seal the deals They are given cheers and Court dates.
But most of all Hill has those Supervotes, and may never have to win any states to be awarded the Nomination ---of and by the People.
The bells have rung in Iowa and N.H. --come to the center, touch gloves and meet in Nevada.
"Stunning 22 point loss" -- that will be like the uncounted votes in Florida in yr 2000.--no problem. Hill already thinks she won and that was good enough then. Super votes and SuperCourt --twins?
I for one am hopping mad about the super delegates (not to mention coin tosses) that the Clinton's waltz away with. I keep asking my congressmen if they are SDs and if they are going to ignore obvious preferences for Sanders out of fear or greed or bog knows what. Please call your officials to demand they follow our lead! (Shoot I forgot they never listen to us anyway). Yes I'm hopping mad and I'm sending Bernie all my lunch money and extra pennies. I will NEVER vote for a Clinton and for Billy BJob to try the moral high ground against that classy gentleman and loving husband/grandfather Bernie is disgusting. BTW why didn't made line Albright support Palin, Lewinsky, or Fiorina?
Bernie or Bust
It's about COMPASSION not calculation!
I am left of Bernie on Foreign Policy and generally right of Counterpunch as regards U$A domestic policy. Call it 'Social Commerce'. Sanders is the only American political candidate I have ever donated money to.
So please contribute to the last good chance America has of peacefully joining a 'Multi Polar' world. Money or Words!!! I believe Bernie can be moved even more left than either FDR or JFK after he is elected. There is no other better peaceful revolutionary chance for the world. Chomsky, Nader and others our supporting him: Why not Counterpunch and a few other left lefties? Wishing for 20 million full on sit down protesters who won't go home for dinner will be the last draw and bring a lot of death and fill the FEMA camps. Much better Sanders and more grass roots push.
Peter Jones: 23 year x pat in Bali Lombok
still US citizen :
Ayuh. I can understand Parry dragging 1968 into this commentary as a hypothetical, but there is little comparison. For one thing, we're missing a bunch of the moving parts of that time (incumbent president, assassinations, a 'public' war, the pre-popular vote party nomination system that opened the door to Humphrey, etc.).
Biden? He doesn't have Clinton's unfavourables, but he's too smart to tilt at windmills now.
Warren? True, that could throw a monkey wrench into proceedings, particularly if the party believes she'll shelve her rhetoric and become Obama v2.0 vis a vis Wall Street. But if the current groundswell continues to propel Sanders to a degree that buries Clinton's campaign, Warren has to realize those supporters are not going to defect en masse to the latest flavour.
Bloomberg? Yes, please. He can usher Trump into the sunset arm in arm.
Robert Parry's sympathies lie squarely in this case with the corporate, or so-called establishment Democrats.
The similarities I see are more Clinton = Kerry or Gore or Mondale. She's got experience and solid support of the establishment but to everyone else is the lesser of two evils. Like them, she doesn't excite anyone. In her case, she has probably less support than Kerry and Gore. Democrats showed up for Kerry but held their noses. They didn't show up for Gore despite the popular vote. Mondale was probably a decent bloke but he seemed so uneasy with himself, particularly that phony smile that made him look like a programmed robot.
Thank the insurgent candidacy of George McGovern for that development. After the Nixon landslide of '72, the Democratic party hacks were determined to never let such happen again. If, by some unlikely miracle, Bernie beats Witch Hillary for the nomination expect the reaction to be even more fierce than in '72.
The lesson is this: Political parties (like labor unions I am sorry to have to say) are inherently corrupt because, as British Catholic historian John Dahlberg-Acton correctly observfed, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
raydelcamino, remember too that Nixon with the artful help of people like Rodger Ailes would employ wedge politics successfully setting blue collar workers against the peace movement; who might have been natural allies against what is now recognized as the military industrial complex. VP Agnew led the way.