Bernie, soon to debate Trump, is poised to win California’s primary on June 7

Bernie Sanders, Jane O'Meara Sanders

Associated Press photo

Progressive presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and his wife Jane appear at a rally in Los Angeles in March. Sanders is within striking distance of Billary Clinton in the latest poll of California, and plans to debate Donald Trump before California votes in its presidential primary election on June 7. (Billary cravenly reneged on her previous agreement to debate Bernie one last time this month, so this is her karmic return.)

The latest polling of California by the Public Policy Institute of California – the California polling outfit that I trust the most – has Billary Clinton at only 2 percent ahead of Bernie Sanders, 46 percent to 44 percent.

In March, Billary had been beating Bernie in California 48 percent to 41 percent in PPIC’s polling; the momentum in the nation’s most populous state is Bernie’s.

Bernie’s massive rallies and TV ads in the state appear to have been helping him. (Billary, by contrast, has been having expensive, exclusive fundraisers at rich people’s homes instead of rallies, and has been using her husband as her surrogate, and, to my knowledge, has yet to air any TV ads here in California.)

I stand by my recent prediction that Bernie will win California, although probably within single digits. I had predicted that he’d win by low single digits, but now I can see him winning by high single digits or perhaps even low double digits. We’ll see.

Don’t get me wrong – I still expect Billary to drag her tired, center-right/Democrat-in-name-only, 1990s-era carcass into the July Democratic Party convention with more pledged delegates than Bernie, but her losing the most populous blue state so close to the convention sure would help Bernie’s argument that he’s the stronger candidate to face off with Donald Trump.

Continuing along the lines of that note, while Billary has reneged on her promise to participate in a tenth and final debate with Bernie this month, it looks like Bernie and The Donald are going to have a debate before the June 7 California presidential primary election – which is a wonderful upstaging of the suddenly-now-debate-shy Billary.

True, it’s unusual for a candidate who has yet to sew up his or her party’s presidential nomination to debate the opposing party’s presumptive presidential nominee, but what has been normal about this presidential election cycle?

Regardless of its level of orthodoxy (which is quite low), I love the symbolism, the visuals, of an imminent Sanders-Trump debate: Billary is “too busy” to debate Bernie a final time before the June 7 California primary, but/so Bernie is going to debate Trump.

The political optics will be of Bernie already taking on Trump even before the Democratic Party primary convention. Sweet.

Only if Bernie does horribly in the debate with Trump could it harm him politically, but I don’t expect him to do horribly.

Of course, it strikes me that there still is time for the Democratic National Committee to try to quash the Sanders-Trump debate – because it’s brilliantly unorthodox and because it circumvents the DNC’s (that is, Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s) iron fist – and if they (well, if she) can try, she probably will try.

After all, the “Democratic” National Committee isn’t about democracy; it’s about installing Billary Clinton in the White House.

And under a President Sanders, that would change in short order, starting with his promise to fire the corrupt Billarybot Debbie Wasserman Schultz as head of the DNC and to return the Democratic Party to its progressive roots.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Craven Billary backs out of final debate

Clinton, Hillary -- cartoons  --  21 -- liar, lying

In a move that further demonstrates her lack of good character and certainly does nothing to dispel the widespread belief that she always wanted (and therefore got) a small number of debates, Billary Clinton announced yesterday that she won’t participate in a tenth and final Democratic Party presidential debate this month, even though she’d promised to do so in February.

Reports The Associated Press:

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton [yesterday] declined an invitation from Fox News to participate in a debate with rival Bernie Sanders in California before that state’s June 7 primary.

Clinton and Sanders are competing aggressively in California as primaries wrap up.

But Clinton is close to getting the delegates she needs to seal the nomination. Sanders says he has a chance to pass her in pledged delegates, though he admits he faces tough odds. Then he would have to persuade many superdelegates to switch their support to him.

Campaign spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said Clinton will compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while also turning her attention to presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.

“We believe that Hillary Clinton’s time is best spent campaigning and meeting directly with voters across California and preparing for a general election campaign that will ensure the White House remains in Democratic hands,” Palmieri said.

Clinton’s decision was quickly criticized by Sanders.

“I am disappointed but not surprised by Secretary Clinton’s unwillingness to debate before the largest and most important primary in the presidential nominating process,” he said in a statement.

“Democracy, and respect for the voters of California, would suggest that there should be a vigorous debate in which the voters may determine whose ideas they support,” he said. “I hope Secretary Clinton reconsiders her unfortunate decision to back away from her commitment to debate.”

Bill Sammon, Fox News vice president and Washington managing editor, said the decision was unfortunate.

“Naturally, Fox News is disappointed that Secretary Clinton has declined our debate invitation,” he said, “especially given that the race is still contested and she had previously agreed to a final debate before the California primary.”

As I type this sentence, the Democratic National Committee’s website still lists a “TENTH DEBATE” for this month at a location that is “TBD.”

How a candidate conducts herself or himself during her or his campaign is indicative of her or his character — or lack thereof.

Billary Clinton, who clearly has calculated that she could back out of the final debate that she agreed upon without harming herself politically, deserves to lose California on June 7 — and the nomination in July.

She has owed it to Californian and to all American voters to fulfill her commitment to the 10 debates. After all, in the 2008 cycle there were more than 20 Democratic Party primary season debates.

If Billary Clinton can’t debate Bernie Sanders one more time, how can she take on Donald Trump? And how can she sit in the Oval Office if she can’t even fulfill her promise to debate? If she won’t debate Bernie Sanders one last time, how tough could she be, and how can we take her word on anything when her word very apparently is worth dog shit?

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Lesser-of-two-evils Billary: Plummeting poll numbers ‘mean nothing to me’

What, me worry? Even though Billary Clinton, like Donald Trump, is upside down in favorability polls by double digits (Bernie Sanders’ favorability is 23.3 percentage points above Billary’s) and even though Trump is overtaking her in the presidential match-up polls, Billary says that she’s not at all concerned.

As Billary Clinton continues to nosedive in the nationwide match-up polls against Donald Trump, the more and more likely it appears to be that the Democrats’ late-July convention will be contested — and justifiably so.

The poll numbers are horrifying, and should have the Democratic Party hacks/Billarybots shitting their little lemming pants.

Real Clear Politics’ average of presidential match-up polls right now has Trump at 0.2 percent ahead of Billary Clinton, while The Huffington Post’s average of match-up polls has Billary at only 1.6 percent ahead of Trump.

Meanwhile, RCP’s polls average has Bernie Sanders at 10.8 percent ahead of Trump, and HuffPo’s has Bernie ahead of Trump by 10.2 percent.

It’s funny — sick-and-pathetic funny, not ha-ha funny — that Team Billary and the Billarybots have accused Bernie Sanders and his campaign of misleading his followers about his chances of winning the party’s presidential nomination when Team Billary actively is misleading Billary’s followers about her chances against Trump in November.

“Polls this far out mean nothing,” Billary proclaimed today on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “They certainly mean nothing to me.”

Billary most likely is lying that she’s not at all concerned about her tanking poll numbers. If she’s not lying (but I put it at more than 90 percent that she is), then she selfishly and recklessly is putting her egomaniacal desire to win the White House far above the best interests of the American people — which would be that we not have a President Trump.

Bernie, meanwhile, correctly has stated of the Billary-vs.-Trump match-up that the voters view Billary as “the lesser of two evils.”

Reports Yahoo! News today:

… “That’s what the American people are saying,” the Vermont senator said on ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos” [today]. “If you look at the favorability ratings of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, both of them have very, very high unfavorables.”

According to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Sunday, 58 percent of registered voters view Trump unfavorably, while 54 percent view Clinton the same way — the highest unfavorable ratings for likely general election candidates in the history of the survey. (A CNN/ORC poll released earlier this month found similar record unfavorable ratings for Trump and Clinton.)

“We need a campaign, an election, coming up which does not have two candidates who are really very, very strongly disliked,” Sanders said. “I don’t want to see the American people voting for the lesser of two evils.

“I want the American people to be voting for a vision of economic justice, of social justice, of environmental justice, of racial justice. That is the campaign we are running, and that’s why we are getting the support we are.”

Sanders also pointed out that he is consistently polling better against Trump than Clinton.

“If you look at virtually all of the polls done in the last six, seven weeks, in every one of them, nationally polls and statewide polls, we defeat Trump by larger margins — in some cases, significantly larger margins — than does Secretary Clinton,” he said.

Clinton’s lead over Trump has fallen from 11 points last month to just 3 (46 percent to 43 percent) in the new NBC/WSJ poll — a figure within the poll’s margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. The same poll showed Sanders well ahead of Trump, by 15 points (54 percent to 39 percent) in their theoretical general election match-up.

And an ABC News/Washington Post poll released [yesterday] showed Trump with a 2-point lead over Clinton (46 percent to 44 percent) — an 11-point swing from early March, when Clinton led the real estate mogul by 9 points (50 percent to 41 percent).

On CNN’s “State of the Union,” Sanders said that he still believes Clinton could defeat the presumptive Republican nominee in the fall, but that his appeal to independent voters ought to make the so-called Democratic super-delegates rethink their support for her.

“I’m not saying she cannot beat Donald Trump. I think she can,” the independent senator and self-described democratic socialist said. “There’s a good chance she can. I am the stronger candidate because we appeal to independents — people who are not in love with either the Democratic or Republican Party, often for very good reasons.”

Sanders continued: “Any objective assessment of our campaign versus Clinton’s camp, I think, will conclude we have the energy, we have the excitement, we have the young people, we have the working people, we can drive a large voter turnout, so that we not only win the White House but we regain control of the Senate,” Sanders said.

Clinton, for her part, dismissed the latest poll results.

“Polls this far out mean nothing,” she said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “They certainly mean nothing to me.”

Sanders’ interpretation of the polls is pretty fucking unassailable.

HuffPo’s average favorability rating for Billary Clinton is 55.2 percent unfavorable to only 41.2 percent favorable; for Donald Trump, it’s 57.2 percent unfavorable to only 38.9 favorable; and for Bernie Sanders, it’s 50.3 percent favorable to 41 percent unfavorable.

So Billary is in the hole by 14 percentage points, Trump is underwater by 18.3 percentage points, and Bernie is above water by 9.3 percent — a full 23.3 percent better than Billary (and 27.6 percent better than Trump)!

“Polls this far out mean nothing,” Billary claims, but, again, who doesn’t already know Billary and Trump pretty well by now? Billary and Trump have been around for decades; they’re not exactly unknown quantities. How much can Billary move the needle against Trump at this juncture?

And for how long, exactly, are we expected not to panic while Billary’s poll numbers continue to tank? Indeed, doesn’t Billary’s use of the intensifier “certainly” in “They [the polls] certainly mean nothing to me” indicate that she indeed is panicking?

This is, admittedly, an unusual presidential cycle — one in which the Coke Party and the Pepsi Party apparently finally are being held to account by the electorate for the fact that since at least the 1980s, they have sold out the average American to their corporate campaign contributors.

Donald Trump tapped into this national discontent and dispatched the Repugnican Tea Party establishment fairly easily and fairly quickly.

Of course, Donald Trump isn’t the answer; he is the answer to the United States’ socioeconomic problems like Adolf Hitler was the answer to Germany’s socioeconomic problems — and a President Trump probably would end up much the same.

But the rise of Trump — who, if actually elected (or not elected — I mean, George W. Bush wasn’t legitimately elected in 2000, but he took the White House anyway), would be the first U.S. president in my lifetime who had not first been a U.S. senator or the governor of a state — can only be explained by the fact that the electorate is done — stick-a-fork-in-it done — with the calcified duopolistic political system.

The majority of us Americans — or at least the largest plurality of us, anyway — aren’t party hacks, and we’re way beyond sick and fucking tired of being the two parties’ chumps. We’re done playing Charlie Brown to the two parties’ football-yanking Lucy.

The poll numbers — the favorability numbers and the presidential match-up numbers — prove Bernie Sanders’ assertion that the electorate views Billary as the lesser of the two evils that are Trump and Billary and that of the three candidates still standing, he is the one whom the electorate likes the most.

And I agree with Sanders’ assertion that the voters would rather vote for someone whom they actually like than vote for someone primarily to block the election of someone whom they hate even more than they hate their own party’s candidate.

This indeed is the dynamic that we’re seeing in this unusual presidential election cycle, which is unusual for so many reasons, not just the for the pathetic fact that Billary and Trump both are hated more than they are liked by double digits, but also for such reasons as that Billary is the first former first lady who ever ran for the presidency and that, again, Trump, if elected, would be the first president in my lifetime who hadn’t first been at least a governor or a U.S. senator.

It’s the truth that Billary is the lesser of the two evils, even though of course the Democratic Party hacks no doubt are going to attack Bernie for having uttered this unpleasant truth publicly. Billary isn’t unlikable if we just don’t ever utter that she is unlikable, you see; but whoever utters this glaringly obvious fact is, indeed, responsible for her unlikability!

In any event, the Democratic Party establishment is over just as the Repugnican Tea Party establishment is over. It’s just been a slower collapse.

Billary & Co. have been able to use her surname to keep the gig going much longer than it should have, but sooner rather than later, the Democratic Party is going to fall to us progressives, whether it happens with Bernie Sanders or whether it happens with another leader.

The writing is on the wall.

P.S. Why is Bernie polling better than both Billary and Trump in the polls? Well, like Trump is, he is seen as an outsider, even though he has been in D.C. since the early 1990s, first as a U.S. representative and then a U.S. senator.

But because Bernie has been an independent in his congressional career, his claim to being an outsider — untarnished by the long-standing corruption of the pro-corporate Democratic Party — is pretty valid. He hasn’t been just another go-along-to-get-along Democratic Party hack, with which D.C. is crawling and slithering.

While Trump is the wrong answer, Bernie is the right answer, and, thankfully, around 10 percent more of the electorate realize this than don’t.

Again, the only thing stopping a President Trump at this point are the Democratic Party super-delegates and the decisions that they make at the convention in July. Which will be more important to them? Not hurting Billary’s feelings and/or incurring her wrath — or actually winning the White House?

I put it at about 60-40 that the super-delegates will ignore the flashing lights and blaring siren and will coronate Billary — who will lose to Trump. (Yes, I give Billary less than a 50-percent chance of beating Trump.)

Oh, well. If we have a nation left after President Trump, his presidency should be more than enough to usher in another golden age of progressivism.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Preventing President Trump is up to the Democratic Party super-delegates now

513917024-people-raise-their-arms-as-republican-presidential_1

Getty Images photo

Supporters of Donald Trump raise their right arms to “pledge their allegiance to him” at a rally in Orlando, Florida, in March. (It’s not at all Nazi-like.) Billary Clinton right now polls only 2 or 3 percentage points ahead of Der Fuehrer Trump, whereas Bernie Sanders polls ahead of Trump in the low double digits. Delusional individuals who believe that Trump couldn’t possibly beat Billary in November need only remind themselves that it long was believed that Trump couldn’t possibly win the Repugnican Tea Party presidential nomination.

In April 2015, “Saturday Night Live’s” Kate McKinnon’s Billary Clinton (watch the video above) hilariously proclaimed (to the horror of her communications aide): “Citizens! You will elect me! I will be your leader!”

Prescient.

Today, the real Billary Clinton proclaimed on CNN: “I will be the nominee for my party… That is already done, in effect. There is no way that I won’t be.”

Billary was even wearing a blue pantsuit when she made this pronouncement. Watch:

Just: Wow.

The hubris.

OK, here’s the deal: It’s up to the super-delegates at the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia in late July to determine whether Bernie Sanders or Billary Clinton will be the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee. Only they, with their votes, have the power to give Billary or Bernie the magic 2,383 delegates that either needs to win the nomination.

It’s actually not up to Queen Billary, as much as she and her henchweasels, including, of course, Democratic National Committee head Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have done their best to rig the game in Billary’s favor and to shove Billary down our throats.

Why, you ask, would the super-delegates give the nomination to Bernie, since he trails Billary by around 275 pledged delegates?

Here’s why: Polls of the nationwide electorate show Billary beating Donald Trump by only 2 or 3 percentage points, whereas in the polls Bernie Sanders beats Donald Trump by the low double digits.

Real Clear Politics’ average of the match-up polls right now puts Billary at only 3.1 percent ahead of Trump, whereas RCP right now puts Bernie at 11.6 percent ahead of Trump.

The Huffington Post’s average of the match-up polls right now puts Billary at only 2.2 percent ahead of Trump — and puts Bernie at 10.6 percent ahead of Trump.

With about five and a half more months to go before Election Day in November, could these poll numbers change? Sure.

But both Billary Clinton and Donald Trump have been on the national stage for decades now. How many voters by now aren’t familiar enough with both of them that they’re going to change their minds between now and November? How much movement can we really expect to see?

Is Trump enjoying a bit of a bounce from his recently having emerged as the sole survivor of the overcrowded field of Repugnican Tea Party presidential wannabes?

Probably.

But I expect Trump to overtake Billary in all of the polls any day now — and what will happen at the Democratic Party convention in July if, by that time, nationwide polls have had Trump beating Billary by a decent margin (say, by at least 5 percent)?

What will the super-delegates do?

Which will be more important at the convention: coronating Billary, even though there’s a very good chance that she’ll lose in November, or stopping Donald Trump by nominating Bernie Sanders (assuming that Sanders is still polling significantly above Trump at that time, say, by at least 5 percent)?

It comes down to this: Do the super-delegates go with the winner of the majority of the pledged delegates if, as expected, Billary goes into the convention with more pledged delegates than does Bernie? Or do the delegates look to November and decide which candidate has the better chance of beating Trump?

Is winning the White House in November not the objective?

Is Queen Billary’s colossal ego, including her sense of entitlement, more important than keeping the White House in Democratic hands?

Yes, there is a strong case to be made that the winner of the most pledged delegates should be the nominee — it’s the only democratic way to do it, right? — but isn’t the purpose of the convention to pick the strongest challenger for November?

And we can change the rules of the game for next time — I repeatedly have advocated for the abolishment of the super-delegates, in fact — but for this round, the rules of the game are that the super-delegates, also called “unbound” delegates (pledged delegates are “bound” delegates), may vote however they please; they are not bound to vote with how those in their states voted.

It easily could come down to only the Democratic Party’s super-delegates being able to stop a President Trump by picking the stronger, nationally popular Bernie Sanders as the party’s champion instead of picking the weak, nationally unpopular Billary Clinton — no matter how the people have voted and caucused up to that point.

Buckle up. It’s going to be an even bumpier ride than it has been as of late.*

*Seriously, the more that the nationally despised and increasingly desperate Billary’s poll numbers tank, the more that she and her desperate surrogates will attack Bernie Sanders and his supporters, such as by calling yelling at the state party convention in Las Vegas on Saturday “violence” when, in fact, there was only shouting and no physical violence.

In their desperation and sense of entitlement they’ll lie through their fangs even more than they already have been. They will take slander and libel to a whole new level.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Bernie takes Oregon, Billary (barely) takes another former slave state

Updated below (on Wednesday, May 18, 2016)

With 99.9 percent of its precincts reporting, Billary Clinton won the presidential primary in Kentucky today by only 0.5 percent (46.8 percent to 46.3 percent), while with just over 61 percent of Oregon’s precincts reporting as I type this sentence, it’s Bernie with 53.1 percent to Billary’s 46.9 percent.

Kentucky has been called for Billary and Oregon has been called for Bernie. This brings “fringe” candidate Bernie to 20 states won thus far.

Here’s the updated map, with Bernie’s wins shaded green (Billary’s are in puke yellow and the states that have yet to vote are in gray):

File:Democratic Party presidential primaries results, 2016.svg

Note the states that Billary won/“won” by not even 2 percentage points:

  • Iowa: 49.9 percent Billary, 49.6 percent Bernie (0.3 percent difference)
  • Massachusetts: 50.1 percent Billary, 48.7 percent Bernie (1.4 percent difference)
  • Illinois: 50.5 percent Billary, 48.7 percent Bernie (1.8 percent difference)
  • Missouri: 49.6 percent Billary, 49.4 percent Bernie (0.2 percent difference)
  • And now, Kentucky, by a whopping 0.5 percent

The only win within 2 percentage points that was Bernie’s was Michigan, 49.7 percent Bernie to 48.3 percent Billary, a difference of 1.4 percent.

I’m happy that Bernie is staying in the race until every last state has voted. This is what democracy looks like: Giving all of the people a voice.

Whether Bernie wins or loses, at least the people of each state will have had the opportunity to weigh in on the next leader of the nation.

The Billarybots hate this, which tells you volumes about their character, their ethics and their morals.

P.S. Speaking of character, ethics and morals, compare the map above to the map of the states right before the Civil War:

It’s a chilling fact: For the most part, states (and former territories that now are states) that had slavery (like, um, Kentucky) have voted for Billary, and states (and former territories that now are states) that were free (like, um, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, which used to form the Oregon Territory) have voted for Bernie.

The two graphics are worth thousands of words.

Update (Wednesday, May 18, 2016): With 100 percent of its precincts now reporting, Kentucky still sits at only a 0.5 percent difference, and as I type this sentence, Oregon, with 92.6 percent of precincts reporting, stands at Bernie with 55.8 percent and Billary with 44.2 percent, a difference of 11.6 percent.

I expect Bernie to win California on June 7. Yes, that’s a prediction. I don’t predict that he’ll win it by a double-digit margin, as he won the other Left Coast states of Oregon and Washington, but I expect him to win it by at least two or three percentage points.

I make this prediction even though The Huffington Post’s average of polls of California right now has Billary ahead by 9.1 percent and Real Clear Politics’ average of California polls has Billary up by 9.7 percent right now.

I have seen precious little enthusiasm for Billary here in California thus far. If my prediction is wrong and she does win the state, it will be because she’ll get the geriatric vote (seriously) — people who are voting for her but just don’t talk about it (including the fact that they’re not on social media voicing their politics). And also, I suppose, it will be the support of younger people who are just too embarrassed to admit that they’re actually voting for Billary.

If Billary does win California, which I put at less than a 50-percent chance, I expect it to be by less than two or three full percentage points. It might even come as close as Kentucky or Iowa or Missouri (that is, no more than half of one percentage point).

Let me make it clear that while I support Bernie winning every delegate that he possibly can, I expect Billary Clinton to clinch the nomination. The super-delegates pretty much by definition are Democratic Party hacks, and hacks do what they’re told to do, and Billary going into the convention in July with more pledged delegates than Bernie — which is likely to be the case (she still leads him by about 275 pledged delegates, as has been the case for a while now) — will give the super-lemmings delegates the excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway: crown Billary.

I expect the super-delegates to give the win to Billary even though Bernie Sanders is doing two to three times better than she is in the match-up polls against Donald Trump. Real Clear Politics right now has Billary ahead of Trump by only 5.2 percent and Bernie ahead of Trump by 13 percent. Horrifyingly, The Huffington Post’s average of the match-up polls has Billary only 3.3 percent ahead of Trump and Bernie with a much more comfortable margin of 12.1 percent.

With Billary only around 3 percent to 5 percent ahead of Trump in the match-up polls right now — and this is because the nation’s electorate apparently hates Billary just a little less than the nation’s electorate hates Trump — you’d think that the Billarybots would be a lot nicer to us Berners instead of painting pretty much all of us as sexist, misogynist, violent animals who are just like Trump’s supporters.

But no.

The Lemmings for Billary are determined to go right off of that looming cliff that is in plain, clear view.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Bernie has nothing to apologize for

Corrected and updated below (on Wednesday, May 18, 2016)

In a Saturday, May 14, 2016 photo, supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders react as U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., speaks during the Nevada State Democratic Party’s 2016 State Convention at the Paris hotel-casino in Las Vegas. The Nevada Democratic Convention turned into an unruly and unpredictable event, after tension with organizers led to some Bernie Sanders supporters throwing chairs and to security clearing the room, organizers said. (Chase Stevens/Las Vegas Review-Journal via AP) LOCAL TELEVISION OUT; LOCAL INTERNET OUT; LAS VEGAS SUN OUT Photo: Chase Stevens, AP / Las Vegas Review-Journal

Associated Press photo

Thuggish supporters of thug-in-chief Bernie Sanders thuggishly display their displeasure at the Nevada Democratic Party convention in Las Vegas on Saturday. They were supposed to take their railroading by the pro-Billary Clinton Democratic Party establishment silently and meekly, like a good Democrat caves in to evil, you see.

Billarybots, frustrated that Bernie Sanders won’t drop out of the race like he’s supposed to do, are trying to make a big deal of the reported fracas in Las Vegas on Saturday. (So much for what happens in Vegas staying in Vegas…)

No one has been hurt, mind you, but the Billarybots are going to maximize the charge that “Bernie bros” are thugs and that they are poor, civilized, wholly innocent victims. I mean, their candidate is a treasonous Repugnican-Lite sellout who is disliked more than she is liked by the American electorate by double digits in most polls, whereas the opposite is true of Bernie, who is beloved by millions, so what else do they have?

Reports The Associated Press today:

Under pressure from Democratic Party leaders to denounce ugly tactics by his supporters, Sen. Bernie Sanders instead struck back with a defiant statement [today] that dismissed complaints from Nevada Democrats as “nonsense” and asserted that his backers were not being treated with “fairness and respect.”

It followed chaos at the Nevada Democratic Party convention Saturday night, where Sanders’ supporters threw chairs, shouted down speakers and later harassed the state party chair [Roberta Lange] with death threats.

Gravely alarmed, Democrats pressed Sanders to forcefully denounce it. The dispute stands as the most public rift yet between the Sanders camp and other Democrats, and may undermine the party’s attempt to maintain a unified front as frustration mounts among Hillary Clinton supporters that Sanders is continuing his campaign with no clear path to victory.

“Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals,” Sanders said.

But far from apologizing for anything his supporters did, Sanders repeated, in detail, their complaints that they were railroaded in the delegate process Saturday night, something Democratic officials deny. “The Democratic leadership used its power to prevent a fair and transparent process from taking place,” he said.

Sanders issued his statement moments after speaking with Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who told reporters that Sanders had condemned the violence in Las Vegas. “This is a test of leadership as we all know, and I’m hopeful and very confident Sen. Sanders will do the right thing,” said Reid, D-Nev.

The head of the Democratic Party, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., also condemned the events in Las Vegas. “There is no excuse for what happened in Nevada, and it is incumbent upon all of us in positions of leadership to speak out,” she said.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who was booed when she spoke at the convention, told reporters [today] that she’d feared for her safety and said Sanders should give a “major speech” calling on his supporters to reject violence and opt for unity. …

Gee, what to say? Debbie Wasserman Schultz is another DINO shill for Billary who has been instrumental, as head of the Democratic National Committee, in ensuring that Billary be crowned, the democratic process be damned, and also on Team Billary are the ineffectual and uninspiring center-right Harry Reid, who should have stepped down as Democratic “leader” of the Senate years ago, and Barbara Boxer, who used to be a progressive years ago but who over the past several years has become worthless (I’m quite happy that she decided not to run for re-election this year; had she run, I would not have voted for her over her support for Repugnican Lite Billary alone; no true progressive could support Billary Clinton).

So of course all of these DINO assholes on Team Billary are going to trump up the Las Vegas fracas. They have a horse’s ass in this race.

Let’s unpack that Vegas fracas: Chairs were thrown. Horrors! OK. One probably shouldn’t throw a chair at a public gathering, but no one was injured by any flying furniture. Speakers were shouted down. Oh, boo fucking hoo! It sucks to be shouted down, but it doesn’t put you in the hospital.

Count three: Death threats! Hmmm. Until and unless any of the alleged “death threats” is investigated by law enforcement, I wouldn’t rule out that a Billary supporter or supporters did it or even that the supposed recipient(s) of any death threat(s) fabricated it. There is no proof that any supporter of Bernie Sanders issued a single death threat to anyone. We have only allegations.

As far as death threats go, let law enforcement handle any alleged death threats, and in the meantime, if there is a claim of a death threat in the midst of a heated political campaign, take it with a grain of salt until and unless it’s investigated by law enforcement and proven to be actual.

I wasn’t there, but the Vegas fracas sure looks trumped-up to me — trumped-up for political purposes by the Billarybots exasperated by the fact that not all of us have given up, sold our souls to Satan, and settled for Billary.

What’s funny, I think, is that as a U.S. senator in October 2002, Billary voted for the Vietraq War, in which more than 4,000 of our troops died for the unelected Bush regime’s lies for Big Oil and for the war profiteers (including Dick Cheney’s Halliburton, with its no-bid contracts with the federal government in Iraq), and in which tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis died.

Bernie, as a U.S. representative in October 2002, voted against the Vietraq War, but the Billarybots actually would have everyone believe that war hawk Billary Clinton, whose talons are dripping with blood, is the candidate of peace while Bernie Sanders, democratic socialist of Vermont, is the ruthless, evil leader of murderous hordes!

This is some fucking bullshit.

Bernie Sanders has nothing to apologize for. He wasn’t even fucking there in Las Vegas on Saturday. He didn’t throw any chair. He didn’t shout anyone down. He didn’t issue any death threat (although it can’t be long before a crazy, lying Billarybot alleges that he has).

Nor can Bernie Sanders be held responsible for anything and everything that anyone claiming to support him does or says. Bernie can’t control millions of people, and we are responsible for our own words and actions.

At the Bernie Sanders rally that I attended here in Sacramento last week, at which at least 15,000 people attended and where I was for several hours, I didn’t see even a verbal altercation. Not one. I saw nothing but peaceniks, so there’s no fucking way in hell that I’m going to sit back while the Billarybots try to paint us supporters of Bernie Sanders as thugs. (Unlike the typical effete Democratic Party hack, I believe in fighting back.)

But, of course, this isn’t even about what happened in Vegas (that certainly wasn’t going to stay in Vegas).

No, what this really is about is the Democratic Party hacks/the Billarybots trying to bring Bernie Sanders and his supporters to heel — you know, the way Billary said that “super-predators” must be brought to heel.

These are the last gaps of the obsolete, irrelevant, self-serving Democratic Party establishment — the corrupt-beyond-belief Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the worthless Harry Reid, yes, even the now-pathetic Barbara Boxer, et. al., et. al. — who want to claim victimhood even while they’ve hardly been nice themselves, but have used the Democratic Party as a vehicle to their personal enrichment while the Democratic Party, year after year, more and more serves the moneyed elite at the expense of the rest of us, the commoners, the rabble.

These Democrats in name only are not nice people. Oh, they don’t throw chairs or even shout (that would be “uncivilized”!), but the damage that they have caused to millions of Americans (and to millions throughout the world) through their cowardly caving in to the Repugnican Tea Party and to their corporate sugar daddies over and over and over again and their craven selfishness and their having dragged the once-venerable Democratic Party so far right that with each passing year the two duopolistic parties are more difficult to distinguish, is much, much, much worse than is an airborne chair.

The smooth-talking weasel in the business suit is much more harmful and much more dangerous than is the person who tosses a chair or shouts. Don’t be fooled by the fine garb and the “polite” behavior. Underneath lurks the rabid wolf.

Bernie Sanders is correct to point out how much the Billarybots have disrespected the democratic process throughout the entire presidential primary season. He would be guilty of dereliction of duty to democracy if he did not. Every opportunity to unfairly and unjustly boost Billary over Bernie, the Billarybots have taken. This is the context in which the events unfolded in Las Vegas on Saturday, context that the guilty Billarybots of course don’t want to discuss.

Even the Associated Press news story isn’t neutral and unbiased. Look at the word choices: “ugly tactics.” I have a bachelor’s degree in journalism. In a news story you can describe events, but you don’t judge them, such as with the adjective “ugly.” A “defiant statement.” (Bernie Sanders is defiant!) “Gravely alarmed.” Hyperbolic much?

“[F]rustration mounts among Hillary Clinton supporters that Sanders is continuing his campaign with no clear path to victory.” Is the AP writer’s opinion that Sanders should shut down his campaign? (Or is the writer supposedly merely reporting the facts?) Why should Sanders shut down his campaign when Billary hasn’t secured the 2,383 delegates necessary for the nomination?

Sanders’ statement on the Las Vegas drama proclaimed: “Our campaign of course believes in non-violent change and it goes without saying that I condemn any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals.”

But that wasn’t enough for the AP writer, who notes, “But far from apologizing for anything his supporters did, Sanders repeated, in detail, their complaints that they were railroaded in the delegate process Saturday night…”

Why should Bernie Sanders apologize for something that he did not do? Why does the AP writer have a stake in the Democratic Party hacks’ assertion that Bernie should apologize for something that he did not do?

Why would Bernie’s condemnation of “any and all forms of violence, including the personal harassment of individuals” not be enough for anyone?

Why should Bernie not reiterate the grievances of his supporters in Nevada? (Because the rabid Billarybots want him to act like a castrated man; they’re to lie and to attack and he’s to just stand there and take their hypocritically sex-based abuse, lest they call him a misogynist for defending himself. This, my friends, is neo-feminism.)

This bullshit is enough to make me want to shout and throw a chair.

Because I’m a “Bernie bro” and that’s all that we’re about, right?

It’s fine, though. The Billarybots/Democratic Party hacks do themselves no long-term favors by attacking Bernie Sanders and his supporters. Fact is, the ranks of independent voters, disgusted by the treasonously self-serving D.C. elite and their Coke Party and Pepsi Party, are growing while the ranks of the party hacks, both of the Democratic Party and the Repugnican Party, are dwindling.

The Democratic Party hacks don’t have enough numbers to win a presidential election on their own. If they make Billary their nominee, there is a good chance that they’ll see startling evidence of this on Election Day in November.

And we progressives are patient. The Billarybots are just trying to shove their widely despised candidate into the White House, even if they must cheat to do it (they have no conscience, so cheating comes easily to them). They think in the short term, because their lemming-like brains are incapable of long-term thought.

By continuing to alienate us progressives — who are Berners now because he’s our champion right now, but who will remain progressives long after this presidential election has come and gone — the DINO dinosaurs only speed up their own inescapable extinction.

P.S. Here’s an Associated Press photo of Bernie supporters protesting in Las Vegas on Saturday:

Do they look as dangerous to you as they do to me?

P.P.S. You should read the AP story in its entirety. It’s a wonderful piece of “unbiased” “news” reportage. It includes these humdingers, too:

… It [Las Vegasgate] comes as Donald Trump is wrapping up the nomination on the Republican side, yet Democrats remain divided and now some Democrats fear that Sanders’ supporters are starting to mimic backers of Trump in their sexist and aggressive behavior.

Democrats also fear that the unrest in Nevada could be a taste of what is to come at the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia this summer.

Stephanie Schriock, president of EMILY’s List, an influential political committee devoted to electing women that is backing Clinton, said in a statement: “These disgraceful attacks are straight out of the Donald Trump playbook, and Bernie Sanders is the only person who can put a stop to them. Sanders needs to both forcefully denounce and apologize for his supporters’ unacceptable behavior — not walk away.”

… The Nevada Democratic Party sent a letter to the Democratic National Committee accusing Sanders supporters of having a “penchant for extra-parliamentary behavior — indeed, actual violence — in place of democratic conduct in a convention setting.”

Sanders dismissed that as “nonsense.” “Our campaign has held giant rallies all across this country, including in high-crime areas, and there have been zero reports of violence,” he said.

“It is imperative that the Democratic leadership, both nationally and in the states, understand that the political world is changing and that millions of Americans are outraged at establishment politics and establishment economics,” he said. …

Yup. The Democratic Party troglodytes ignore the changing political landscape at their own political peril.

Slanderously comparing Bernie Sanders’ supporters to Donald Trump’s supporters (replete with “sexist and aggressive behavior”) is complete and utter bullshit, the epitome of unfairness and untruthfulness — there have been no documented cases of any violence at any Sanders rally — and Billarybots Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the head of EMILY’s List, which is a blatantly sexist organization that endorses Billary even though she’s never met a war criminal she didn’t love (including Madeleine Albright and Henry Kissinger, who is buddy-buddy with Donald Trump, too) it’s enough for the sexists of EMILY’s List that Billary is a woman, you seehardly are unbiased sources for this “news” story.

Correction and update (Wednesday, May 18, 2016): Rachel Maddow’s coverage of this “controversy” is fairly enlightening. Las Vegas political “journalist” Jon Ralston apparently has shilled Team Billary’s version of events without having even bothered to talk to Bernie’s supporters, which is typical of a pro-establishment/establishment “journalist,” and very apparently there is no video of any chair actually having been thrown — only video of one individual raising one chair off the ground and then putting it down again.

So that (along with yelling) constitutes the “violence” that the Billarybots claim happened in Vegas on Saturday. Fucking liars.

Rachel Maddow — who (along with all of MSNBC) as of late has been slanted toward Billary but who still can do real journalism, unlike Ralston — interviews a Nevadan delegate for Bernie named Angie Morelli who is quite well-spoken and who gives us a lot more context to the events in that convention hall in Vegas on Saturday — again, context that the Billarybots don’t want mentioned, because it weakens their self-servingly exaggerated narrative of events.

Reportedly one or more supporters of Bernie Sanders publicly released the phone number and other personal contact information of the state’s Democratic Party chair, and nasty messages were left for her. “Death threats” some of them have been called, but I’ve only heard one voice message proclaiming that for her crimes against democracy she should be publicly “hung” (sic), not a direct death threat as in “I am going to kill you.”

If the voice message about public hanging isn’t a false flag, yes, of course that would be intimidation, but, again, there is zero proof that any Bernie supporter did it, indeed, no proof that any of the nasty messages was left by a Bernie supporter. Some, most or all of these messages were created by Billary supporters trying to tarnish Team Bernie with a false-flag campaign, for all that anyone knows.

That said, one or more Bernie supporters might be guilty of verbal intimidation, but that would be a tiny minority of Bernie supporters (and, again, Bernie Sanders can’t control and can’t be blamed for the words and actions of millions of people).

And verbal intimidation is a form of violence if you use a broad definition of the term “violence,” but most people’s own personal definition of “violence” includes physical violence, of which there was none perpetrated by a supporter of Bernie Sanders in Las Vegas on Saturday — none of which there is any evidence, anyway. (Morelli claims that the only act of violence at the convention that she is aware of is that a Billary supporter intentionally shoved her.)

So when the Billarybots claim that we “Bernie bros” have become “violent,” they’re not just exaggerating — they knowingly are lying, slandering and libeling for attempted political gain.

As I just wrote earlier today:

With Billary only around 3 percent to 5 percent ahead of Trump in the match-up polls right now — and this is because the nation’s electorate apparently hates Billary just a little less than the nation’s electorate hates Trump — you’d think that the Billarybots would be a lot nicer to us Berners instead of painting pretty much all of us as sexist, misogynist, violent animals who are just like Trump’s supporters.

But no.

The Lemmings for Billary are determined to go right off of that looming cliff that is in plain, clear view.

P.S. Yet another update: Rolling Stone claims to have verified that at least three male supporters of Bernie Sanders left nasty messages for the chairwoman of Nevada’s Democratic Party.

Rolling Stone actually contacted these three individuals, of whom it reports:

… None of them were [sic] present at the convention, or even live in Nevada. They watched from their homes in Texas, Georgia and Utah, and felt the brazen theft they saw validated their actions. All of the men we spoke to reject the idea that their words could be interpreted as threats or harassment. And all of them were concerned about the media contorting their words. So, in their words — edited only for length and clarity — here is what they had to say for themselves. …

I read what the three young men had to say for themselves, and overall I’d say that they are young and socioeconomically struggling and thus frustrated (which is a fairly redundant way to describe our young people here in the U. S. of A.), fairly new to paying attention to politics and therefore passionate, and more or less contrite that their passion gripped them to the point that they sent nasty messages to the head of Nevada’s Dem Party. (I’d say more, such as about testosterone and how it can make a young man behave, but I’ll stop here.)

Even if these weren’t three socioeconomically frustrated young men who let their political passion get the best of them, even if they were just three flat-out evil men, three people, or even 3,000 people, aren’t representative of a movement of millions, yet the Billarybots gleefully are pretending that this is the case, as happens in political dogfights.

As far as intimidation goes, anyone who is demonstrated to have broken a law (or even terms of service) should be dealt with accordingly, but if we’re going to define the term “violence” broadly, let’s also include the act of not just exaggerating, but quite intentionally lying in order to try to disempower an entire group of people based upon the words and actions of only a tiny fraction of them.

It is a lie that supporters of Bernie Sanders were physically violent in Las Vegas on Saturday. No one was physically stricken by a Sanders supporter or even physically harmed.

It is a lie that even a sizable chunk of Bernie Sanders’ supporters are prone to violence or even to intimidation, so it’s even a much bigger lie to assert that “Bernie bros” (itself a sexist term) are just like Donald Trump’s worst supporters.

In any group of millions of people, a small number are going to act like juveniles or otherwise utter words and/or commit actions that could be used by the group’s opponents to try to embarrass and disempower the entire group. That is no lie.

P.P.S. For the record, I don’t represent Bernie Sanders. I represent myself. I always have and I always will. I am an American citizen, not a campaign worker (paid or even volunteer), so I’ll say whatever the fuck I wish, as the First Amendment gives me the right to do.

The term “Bernie bro” is funny to someone like me, a gay man, but whatever; its widespread use only shortens the political survival of both the pseudo-feminists (themselves spiteful, mean-spirited, man-hating sexists) who use it and the Democratic Party that stopped representing the interests of the people many years ago.

Finally, there are many forms of violence if we want to define the term broadly. Limiting the number of debates, as corrupt national party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz blatantly did (apparently the promised 10th debate between Billary and Bernie this month isn’t going to take place, by the way) is a form of violence. Party operatives (from Wasserman Schultz on down) doing everything in their power to give their preferred candidate an advantage (a.k.a. cheating and rigging the game), as has happened in Nevada and throughout the nation, is a form of violence.

The people who perpetrate this anti-democratic bullshit aren’t “nice.” They’re perpetrators of violence. It’s that their violence is indirect and passive-aggressive and widely socially considered (incorrectly) to be acceptable, but it causes as much harm as textbook violence, if not even more.

When these passive-aggressive perpetrators of violence finally evoke a response in their victims, they then hypocritically accuse their victims of being the violent ones.

This is textbook bullshit. Worse, it’s pretty much PSYOP.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Billarybots want Liz Warren to be a spoonful of sugar to sweeten the ordeal

Senator Elizabeth Warren listened to testimony during a Senate committee hearing in 2013.

Getty Images photo

The call of many Billarybots for U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts to be Billary Clinton’s running mate at least is an admission of how weak a presidential candidate Billary is. But while such a team-up would benefit Billary, how would it benefit Warren and her future political career to be a probably-invisible vice president with probably little to no influence within the second center-right Clinton administration?

There is chatter among the Billarybots now that Queen Billary making Elizabeth Warren her running mate would be the spoonful of sugar that would help the rest of us choke down the bitter horse pill that is Billary.

Billary booster Michelle Goldberg of Slate.com, for instance (although she’s not nearly the Billary booster that Salon.com’s mega-Billarybot Amanda Marcotte is), recently wrote this (links are Goldberg’s):

On Thursday we learned, via Politico, that had Joe Biden run for president, he would have asked Elizabeth Warren to be his running mate. According to reporters Glenn Thrush and Annie Karni, Biden has “recently told associates that Warren would be an equally smart pick for Hillary Clinton.” The Huffington Post reported that several people in the Clinton campaign are also pushing for Warren.

They are right. Choosing Warren would be an uncharacteristically bold and thrilling move for the cautious Clinton, one that would help unite Sanders supporters behind her candidacy while throwing its feminist promise into high relief. Clinton is already playing the woman card; now, to belabor a metaphor, she should double down.

One of the many dispiriting things about this primary season is the degree to which Clinton’s baggage has dampened excitement over the prospect of our first female president. She’s been near the center of power for so long that her possible presidency seems less like a breakthrough than a wearying inevitability.

Further, in order to get close to power, she’s consistently subsumed idealism to realpolitik; her career is littered with grim compromises, from reluctantly backing welfare reform to voting to authorize war in Iraq. Thus some progressive women who enthusiastically support Clinton feel like they have to apologize for it.

Other progressive women who’d like to vote for a female president feel like they can’t enthusiastically support Clinton. Obama’s campaign created an incandescent sense that America was on the cusp of history. That magic is missing from Clinton’s long slog.

If you haven’t said it yourself, you’ve surely heard it: “Of course I want to see a woman in the White House, but…” Warren on the ticket would annihilate many of those “buts.” She would help to neutralize some of Clinton’s very real flaws; it would be harder to accuse Clinton of doing the bidding of big banks while running with Warren, the scourge of Wall Street.

Warren’s presence would give disappointed supporters of Bernie Sanders a reason to rally to the Democratic banner. And by Clinton’s side, she would make it blazingly clear what an epochal moment this is for American women. She’s a choice who could electrify both Clinton’s fiercest progressive critics and her most devoted acolytes.

Of course, an all-woman ticket carries real risk — that’s the flip side of its audacity. Already, Clinton is likely to face misogynist headwinds, and Warren would make them stronger. People sometimes claim that the deep, widespread antipathy to Clinton, particularly among men, is unique to her and has little to do with her gender.

Warren’s political career shows us that this is not the case. When she ran for Senate in Massachusetts four years ago, she was regularly disparaged as both a liar and a crone; the Boston Herald referred to her as “Granny.” We were constantly reminded that while people admired her competence, they weren’t sure they liked her. (One poll found that even Democrats found her opponent, Scott Brown, more likable.) Warren won thanks to a large gender gap: According to a CNN exit poll, Brown won 53 percent of the male vote, but Warren carried 59 percent of the female vote, and women were the majority of the electorate.

It’s possible, then, that Warren could exacerbate rather than ameliorate some people’s — particularly some men’s — resistance to Clinton. As T. A. Frank points out in Vanity Fair, social science research shows that when minorities team up to form a duo, they are judged in more stereotypical terms than they are individually. “If this is a reliable dynamic, then it means that Clinton is seen by voters first and foremost as a Democratic presidential candidate, and not simply a female,” Frank writes. “But if she were to pick Warren as a running mate, gender could start to color many people’s views much more.” …

[Clinton] is not going to win this race by persuading white men who are uncomfortable with women in power. She will do it by turning out the Obama coalition, probably adding more married white women to it. Warren can help her do that. She’s shown that she’s eager to, leaping into the Twitter fray against [Donald] Trump.

If a vice presidential candidate’s job is to attack, Warren is ready. Watching her go after the short-fingered orange chauvinist from now until November will be a pleasure. The fight for the first female president should be a joyful feminist crusade, one that progressives can join without reservation. Warren can make it one.

I agree with some of what Goldberg has to say, and it’s refreshing to witness a Billary supporter actually publicly acknowledging that Billary is not an exciting candidate. Billary’s being an uninspiring candidate — demonstrated by the fact that thus far democratic socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont has won 19 states and has won 1,437 pledged delegates to Billary’s 1,717 (45.6 percent to 54.4 percent, a gap of only 8.8 percent) — long has been the elephant in the donkeys’ room.

What is disappointing about Goldberg’s piece is that she apparently primarily attributes the lack of enthusiasm for Billary to the fact that Billary has been around so long (well, if Goldberg’s primary attribution isn’t actually supposed misogyny, that is; charges of misogyny are peppered, predictably, throughout her piece). But Billary Fatigue is only one piece of the puzzle.

Hell, I’ll even ignore the piece of the puzzle that I could label the “Clinton Scandal Fatigue” piece. A much larger piece of the puzzle than how long she has been around on the national stage is Billary’s long history of political opportunism and flip-flopping, such as how she publicly called herself “moderate and center” just back in September 2015, but now calls herself a “progressive” since she’s running against the actually progressive Bernie Sanders, who has done quite well for a “fringe” candidate.

(A more concrete example of Billary’s famous flip-flopping is her miraculous embrace of a $15-an-hour minimum wage only after both New York and California adopted a phased-in $15-an-hour state minimum wage when her current presidential campaign always has supported only a $12-an-hour federal minimum wage — and still does on its website.)

Billary’s being a multi-millionaire who certainly wouldn’t want to even try to try to try to live on $12 an hour herself and who demands hundreds of thousands of dollars per speech and her having been part, with her hubby, of the now-thank-Goddess-defunct Democratic Leadership Council, which turned the Democratic Party from the people’s party to the corporate weasels’ party, are other huge pieces of the puzzle as to why so many of us who lean left of center don’t like and don’t trust Billary.

Billary has said that Bernie isn’t a real Democrat when she really should look into the magical mirror that she surely possesses like a Disney villainess. (Actually, I’m sure that she has, and when she asked the mirror, “Who is the most Democratic of them all?” the mirror answered, “Bernie Sanders,” which no doubt sent her into a flying-on-her-broomstick rage.)

But the Billarybots don’t like to discuss these inconvenient truths.

Instead, they frame quite-legitimate opposition to Billary as misogyny, which apparently does a lot to relieve their cognitive dissonance that their “heroine” actually is just yet another self-serving political asshole, but which harms the cause of feminism because the so-called “feminists” defend abject slimebags like Billary Clinton, whose center-right socioeconomic politics harms women and families here at home and whose right-wing war hawkishness harms women and families abroad — yeah, that’s really feminist!

Indeed, the “lean-in” “feminism” of today is “feminism” that has become twisted into women demonstrating that they can be just as big as assholes as can men; they can be just as selfish and ruthless, just as financially and politically corrupt, and they can kill just as many innocent people in military actions in a show of “strength.” Woo hoo! “Feminism”!

Since liberalism became warped as “neo-liberalism,” which actually is just conservatism masked as something good, we can call today’s “feminism” “neo-feminism.”

And dragged into this stinking mess should not be Elizabeth Warren, whom I consider to be a true feminist, not a neo-feminist.

Sure, Warren could help Billary greatly in the likability and progressive credibility departments, but what would Warren and her future political career get out of it?

Most of us Berners — and again, thus far 45.6 percent of us who have participated in the Democratic Party presidential primary elections and caucuses have chosen Bernie over Billary — would be disappointed, I surmise, were he to become Billary’s running mate (something that I don’t see happening, as I really don’t see Billary asking him, and I rather doubt that he’d accept even if she actually did ask him).

Most of us Berners would, I surmise, view Bernie’s agreeing to Billary’s running mate as his selling out — big time — on his progressive principles and promises.

Why, then, would we feel much, if any, differently about progressive Elizabeth Warren joining Billary on the ballot?

Leave it to a neo-feminist to see it (a Billary-Warren ticket) as an issue of matching biological sex rather than of matching political philosophy; Warren should join Billary because they’re both women, you see.

And this also gets to how much power the vice president of the United States of America actually has, which is not much; the vice president pretty much sits back and either hopes or dreads that the president dies or otherwise no longer can serve in the capacity.

It gets to the public visibility of the vice president, too. We’ve seen little of Joe Biden over the past seven-plus years. He wonderfully wiped the floor with Pretty Boy Paul Ryan’s limp body in the vice presidential debate of October 2012 and he vowed to take on cancer in his last year in office after his son died of brain cancer a year ago this month at age 46, but other than that, how much influence Biden has had on the Obama presidency has not been very clear. If he’s had significant influence on Obama, it’s been behind the scenes, for the very most part.

There is no reason to believe than any vice president to a President Billary would have the power to induce her to run a progressive presidential administration, given Billary’s center-right record, given how power-driven and stubborn she is (except, of course, when political expediency induces her to flip-flop, but of course, no matter what she says, she always acts within the center-right, and given how not even a year ago she proudly publicly proclaimed herself to be “moderate and center.”

Given all of that and the historical weakness and the historical invisibility of the vice president, no, for this Berner, Billary picking Liz Warren as her running mate would not “be a reason to rally to the Democratic banner,” as Goldberg conveniently and magically believes.

It’s not that simple, and we Berners are not that simple and stupid. That Team Billary would believe that adding Elizabeth Warren to the ticket would be the magic bullet only further demonstrates the contempt and the condescension that the Billarybots have for us Berners — who are progressives before we’re Berners and who reject Billary Clinton for very good reasons, paramount among them the fact that she’s not even an actual (that is, progressive) Democrat, but is a Repugnican in sheep’s clothing.

To be clear, I have no problem with two women, even two white women, on the ballot for president and vice president. One, I care primarily about a candidate’s politics; his or her demographics are secondary or tertiary or even further down than that on my list. And two: Fuck, the Obama administration marks the first time in our nation’s history that both the president and the vice president were not white men. (When I voted for Obama in November 2008, it felt good to be part of that history, even though Obama turned out to be only a Caretaker in Chief, the one thing that Sarah Palin actually has been right about: that he’s been President Hopey-Changey.)

If two white men on the presidential and vice presidential ticket were OK for more than 225 years of our nation’s history, then I’m fine with two women and even two white women on the ticket, even though the conventional wisdom as of late is that you mix up your demographics; in 2008 John McCainosaurus picked a woman as his running mate and Barack Obama picked a white man, for instance. (Mittens Romney for 2012 reverted to the historical pattern of two white men, of course; my guess is that his patriarchal and historically white supremacist Mormonism was the largest factor in that retrograde choice.)

In a nutshell, again, my primary problems with a Billary-Warren ticket are that Vice President Warren wouldn’t have nearly enough influence to ameliorate President Billary’s deep neo-liberal tendencies and that Warren would harm her reputation and credibility as a progressive by agreeing to be the center-right Billary’s running mate.

Better for Warren to run in 2020 or 2024 or 2028, methinks, at the top of the ticket, than to run with Billary now.

I’d be fine with Elizabeth Warren being Bernie Sanders’ running mate. (Well, probably more like “ecstatic” than just “fine.”) Their genitalia don’t match, but their political philosophies do. Not only would President Sanders allow Vice President Warren much more of a voice and visibility than the vice president ever gets (exempting grand puppet master Dick Cheney, of course), I surmise, but she’d be his natural successor.

Billary would just use Warren to get into the White House, and then, after that, do you really think that Queen Billary ever would allow Princess Warren even the opportunity to step on her regal cape? No, Billary would treat Warren like Cinderella; she’d keep her tucked away from public view as much as possible.

Unfortunately, we apparently are quite unlikely to see a Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren ticket, because the blind, self-serving Democratic Party hacks are poised to incredibly stupidly make Billary Clinton the party’s presidential nominee, even though presidential match-up polls show Bernie doing twice as better against Donald Trump as does Billary.

Real Clear Politics’ average of the presidential match-up polls right now has Billary at only 5.7 percent ahead of Trump, with Bernie 13 percent ahead of Trump. The Huffington Post’s average of presidential match-up polls right now similarly puts Bernie at 13.4 percent ahead of Trump and Billary at only 5.8 percent ahead of Trump.

If beating presumptive 2016 Repugnican Tea Party presidential nominee Donald Trump in November is the goal, then Bernie Sanders has a compelling argument for the super-delegates to pick him over Billary during the party’s convention in late July.

Unfortunately, I fully expect the lemming-like super-delegates to follow Queen Billary right off of the cliff at the convention. She is, after all, the rodents’ Pied Piper.

And also after all, Queen Billary never really can lose. If nothing else, we always can ascribe her predictable loss in November entirely to “misogyny.”*

P.S. It’s worth nothing that Elizabeth Warren is the only Democratic woman in the U.S. Senate who hasn’t endorsed Billary Clinton. One writer argues that this is why Team Billary wouldn’t pick Warren, but I disagree; if Team Billary viewed Warren on the ticket as being beneficial enough, they’d ask her.

The real question is whether Warren, if asked, would say yes or no. Hopefully, she would have her wits about her, realize that Team Billary only wants to use her, and say no. Even Oh, hell no!

P.P.S. Jeff Greenfield, writing for Politico, points out that whoever would be President Billary’s vice president would be “the most marginalized vice president in a generation.” (Ditto for President Trump’s veep, he writes.)

“Neither Trump nor Clinton is likely to allow his or her vice president anywhere near the center of power,” Greenfield posits, adding:

… The challenge is different for a prospective Clinton running mate — and one that no past veep has ever faced. Yes, past vice presidents have found themselves in a battle for the ear of POTUS with key White House aides and Cabinet members.

But they’ve never had the challenge of competing with a presidential spouse who also happens to be a former two-term president.

Indeed, in many ways, Bill Clinton would be a near-perfect choice to be Hillary Clinton’s running mate. His political skills are unmatched; he knows the dangers that confront any White House as no one else possibly can; he’s even got a track record of working with an opposition Congress — something that neither of his successors can match.

Yes, there’s a pesky issue of whether the 22nd Amendment bars a two-term president from running for veep, and one of the Clintons would have to move back to Arkansas to avoid risking the loss of New York’s electors (constitutionally, electors can vote for only one of the two national candidates from their own state).

But the point is that Bill’s credentials — even as first spouse — make him a formidable power source that would confront any real-life vice president. …

The issue isn’t Billy Boy’s supposed greatness (and speculation of him being Billary’s veep is ridiculous, although he very well might end up as her de facto veep) as much as it is how much he would let Billary’s actual veep have any power. And that is not much.

Elizabeth Warren would want to stay far, far away from this fucked-up drama.

*A post-mortem “analysis” of a Billary loss in November also, of course, quite predictably would put blame on Bernie Sanders for having “weakened” Billary when she’s obviously inherently weak. The neo-feminists would continue to ignore Billary’s glaring weaknesses and blame “misogyny” instead.

And most of the neo-feminists’ attacks on Bernie Sanders and on us “Bernie bros” is, ironically, flat-out misandry — it’s just the flip-side of misogyny. How dare a man run against Queen Billary? How dare he criticize her at all, even though that’s what you do in a competitive political campaign? How dare any man — or especially any woman — support a male presidential candidate over the female candidate? (That was a rhetorical question, but I’ll answer it anyway: For pretty much the same reason that a man or a woman rejected Sarah Palin.)

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized