Home | About | Donate

Sanders Didn’t Start The Fire, So Don’t Ask Him To Put It Out


Sanders Didn’t Start The Fire, So Don’t Ask Him To Put It Out

Isaiah Poole

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign operation has been anything but subtle in suggesting that now that her win in the New York primary Tuesday has made her nomination at the Democratic convention pretty much inevitable, it’s time for the Bernie Sanders campaign to die with dignity.

Let’s get on with the laudatory memorial service, the campaign seems to be saying, and then the estate sale, in which Sanders’ cadre of fervent and largely young supporters can be snapped up for pennies on the dollar.


Unless I am misinterpreting this article, it sounds like another piece of "throw in the towel puppeteering" for the establishment Democrats. Of course Bernie is in this to win. Why would a "geriatric" man waste his retirement years, which could be spent with his grandkids, unless he was dedicated to trying to make a better country and world for them? Being over 70 myself, I think i fully understand Bernie's motivation. Whether he succeeds or not will depend on how bad we all really want a better world. We have a leader; now is the time. Let's not throw it away! As my college football coach told me so many years ago, "quitting is for 'pissants'"! We don't need quitters weakening our team, Mr. Poole.


Schadenfreude: Watching campaign donations trickling down her majesty's legs as she peers at sincere truth.


She can't repair it. We are way beyond that. After years of being lied to, the gig is up. More people are realizing that we have to end corruption as quickly as possible. We don't have the luxury of waiting for 4 or 8 more years.

Our government can't be bothered to make even half-hearted attempts to address any real issues. Yet we have some how managed to create a bipartisan system of legalized corruption that is stunning in its scope and scale.

This new movement is in its infancy, but it is inevitable because the old ways are utterly unsustainable.

This is certainly not the narrative that the insidious HRC machine wants. She clearly expected that everyone would kiss the ring and fall in line behind her, while she got about the business of doing the bidding of her buyers.

No thanks.


That wasn't my take on it. He lists the reasons Sanders should stay in the race and lists many (but not nearly all) of Clinton's negatives as a candidate.

My interpretation of the part that offended you ("Getting a geriatric democratic socialist into the White House was never the goal; it was a means to an end.") is that the author is saying the goal is for more than just the White House, not that Sanders campaign never intended to win.

I think the piece is intended to show Sanders strengths as a candidate and Clintons weaknesses.

Which is anything but a 'throw in the towel' bit.


Clinton is too laden with baggage to be a viable general election candidate even if the Democratic Party could and would reform itself.

"Expensive Rube Goldberg health care schemes" will be one of many issues that Bernie has not used against Clinton but will provide Trump an endless supply of ammo against Clinton in the general election. Clinton has more baggage than all the other candidates from all parties in the primaries combined, and Trump is second to none at exploiting competitors' baggage.


"With this driving Sanders, there is every reason for him to continue his campaign into the convention despite what the delegate math says."


I hope as many people as possible understand that the Movement continues regardless of the presidential nomination and election outcomes. Considering what many youth and young adults are doing in their communities outside the political/election realm, I think this generation gets it.

I wonder though about older Americans who are more set in their views about "the way things are" and what is possible. [Despite many having lived through the Civil Rights movement and its effects and having (foggy) memories of the Bill Clinton presidency as the "good times," I also wonder about older People of Color, in particular Black Americans.] In the traditional frame, one is supposed to go out and vote and then go back to their lives and leave the big decisions up to the elected officials (these are the Establishment politicians White and Black). That's the world Clinton wants to continue.

However, with extreme economic inequality in this country and globally, with the significant effects of climate change now upon many of the poorest nations and peoples around the world and soon to be felt more in the US, can the baby boomers and Gen-Xers cope with change? Are they willing to take the bold steps necessary of sharing and collaboration, of accepting less so that others can sustain themselves, of thinking about community first and self later.

Related to this election, Poole is correct, should she win the nomination, Clinton needs to embrace this new reality. Recall, the FDR got elected on a balance the budget platform during the Depression, but once in office immediately set the New Deal in motion that such positive effects for most (not all though) Americans. We know Bernie will push for FDR-like policies tailored to modern times. Will Clinton? Personally, I don't think she can bring herself to do it, whether that is because of the powerful and monied people she has surrounded herself with to get this far and who don't want that kind of change, or simply because she does not want it herself.

But, regardless, the Movement continues as we find the best ways to deal with the wave of inevitable change that is not just soon coming, but is here. And the Movement is happening on the ground in local communities; people are not waiting for it to come from the top.

Viva la Revolucion!


I dread "Bring Your Husband To Work Day." Can't see a progressive VP stomaching that either.


The Sanders campaign will continue at least to the DC primary on June 14. The results of future primaries will determine the meaning of his campaign as it continues. One thing that could halt his campaign is a lack of money but that doesn't seem to be a problem.


"She may never be fully credible as a reformer of what many people consider a “dollar-ocracy,” but she has to try."

Try? A lady hawking millions with boilerplate speeches to the elites of this country, for the purpose of renting summer homes to the tune of 50k a week, is going to try. The notion that a lady in her seventh decade is going to become a champion of the downtrodden is foolishness. She and hubby Bill are leaders of the New Democrats, those that Tom Frank calls the new professional class, those directly responsible for jettisoning the New Deal and its ideals from the Democratic Party, and proud of doing it. No, their brave new world is of the creators, the privileged elite of prep schools tracked to the Ivy League, the inventors of gadgets in never ending variation. This piece is another in the genre of it's Hillary, so maybe, she'll change, come on Hillary Try.


"Getting a geriatric democratic socialist into the White House was never the goal;" Oh puhleese...would that be in comparison to the "geriatric establishment female" who is Sanders' opponent?


Certain machinations are taken as inevitable and they "throw" the game.

Translation? I think there should be more heat placed on this super-delegate nonsense. It is to a free and fair vote what a 3rd world dictator is to elections.

Too many well-minded pundits take this "math" as some kind of insurmountable obstacle, and then paint their political paeans to the various contenders... from there.

But why should things like closed primaries--which lead to artificial numbers--and super-delegates be taken for granted?

Just because these impediments to genuine voter results have been put in place doesn't mean they can or should remain there?

With all of the people outside of Establishment Camps essentially amassing before the Versailles Gates... it's a VERY good time to challenge the protocols that guarantee specific outcomes. Those outcomes being a return of an Establishment Candidate to office.

Then all this talk about whether Hillary really will lean Left, or if she'll abide by her Bernie-sounding sound bites, etc. are just lots of worthless FLUFF.

Until there is instant-run off voting and more universal voting protocols put in place, strong challenges should be made to FALSE counts and outcomes propped up on the basis of these skewed machinations.

Hillary is NOT winning.

Accepting the FRAME that validates her "inevitable coronation" is a very weak Chess Move. It's a concession to Power, i.e. the oligarchic 1%.


The Democratic Party is accustomed to nearly a billion dollars in corporate donations per year. Nominating anybody who is not a corporate money magnet (Sanders for example) jeopardizes that revenue stream.


Sanders is exactly what the DNC (D) party doesn't ever want at it's helm. The Clinton's are pushing them as the nicer more compassionate of the two Corp. parties and Busybody Bernie acting like the turd in the punch-bowl @ their coronation is annoying to say the least.


I wish I could believe that Bernie's revolution would continue if Hillary gets the nomination, but I don't. The change away from establishment politics must be brought to a head now! Igniting and sustaining such a movement is extremely difficult in a place as big and diverse as the U.S., and leaders like Bernie are rare. The citizens must seize the moment, in my opinion, or the revolution will be gone.


great post SiouxRose! I like the chess analogy.

What would be a "strong move' then for Sanders. A "check" seems to have been thwarted with a system that let's Hillary obfuscate. A "check mate" would be what?
Her emails? The banker speech transcripts?
Maybe she will somehow hoist herself on her own petard when she goes after Trump, since it would be a political
mistake to go after Bernie since she needs those dems to beat the (little d) donald? I imagine the lil' d already bought the rope for her.


I agree. And that is why someone needs to start a petition that says: " IF BERNIE IS DENIED THE NOMINATION BY THE DNC WE REFUSE TO VOTE FOR HRC "!

If this petition was signed by several million democrat and independent registered voters and submitted at the convention in Philly, it would give Bernie a lot of political leverage; especially, if the polls at that time, show the general election between Trump and Hillary close and that Bernie has a big lead against Trump.


I can understand what you are saying to a point. Movements do come and go. I think what you may be under estimating are the forces that are really driving this awakening. I like Bernie, but would not call him a perfect candidate for a whole host of reasons. My drive to continue to support a true Progressive movement is not motivated at all by Bernie.

I see this as economic Darwinism. The true puppeteers behind this are the are the people that fund this. It isn't even the HRC machine. The HRC machine just chases the dollars and the illusion of power that it brings.

The reason why this will keep going because they are literally killing or controlling us. They drop bombs endlessly. Make adequate health care unattainable. Create conditions where we throw eatable food in dumpsters while children go hungry. Economically depress the masses which result in everything from gang violence to suicides.

Those they can't kill off they control. Deny and under fund education, feel their entitled to listen in on every conversation you have regardless of whether you have committed a crime or not. Control and constrain the main stream media. A justice system that is based on economic status more than guilt or innocence.

The examples are endless and becoming impossible to ignore. I don't think this dies. It will have its bumps and stalls. In the end, history shows us that eventually these oppressive systems crumble and something else comes along to replace it.


Yes,to me, its like the question of whether or not those that support Bernie will support Hillary should she win. Answering that is a distraction by the MSM, the Hillary campaign, and the Democratic Party and an admission of acceptance and weakness leading to defeat. No one should have to answer that question.

I agree, the super-delegates and closed primaries are an abomination and should be abolished.