Hillary Clinton’s Very Bad Night

Exclusive: The magnitude of Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire drubbing has establishment Democrats wringing their hands as it dawns on them that no candidate in modern U.S. political history has bounced back from a 22-point loss in that first-in-the-nation primary to win the White House, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

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.

Among Democrats, no one who lost by even half that margin in New Hampshire has recovered to win the party’s nomination. In 2008, Barack Obama lost to Hillary Clinton by 2.6 percentage points; in 1992, Bill Clinton lost to Paul Tsongas by 8.4 percentage points; in 1984, Walter Mondale lost to Gary Hart by 9.4 percentage points; in 1972, George McGovern lost to Edmund Muskie by 9.3 percentage points.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

In two of those cases, New Hampshire did favor neighboring politicians Sen. Tsongas from Massachusetts and Sen. Muskie from Maine but Tuesday’s 22-point margin for Vermont Sen. Sanders cannot be explained simply by making the “nearby-favorite-son” argument. Sanders swept nearly every demographic group, including women, losing only to Clinton among New Hampshire’s senior citizens and the state’s small number of non-white voters. Sanders’s margin among young voters was particularly impressive, 82 percent, roughly the same proportion as the Iowa caucuses last week.

If Hillary Clinton hopes to overcome her New Hampshire drubbing, she would have to look for encouragement from the legacy of Republican George W. Bush who lost the 2000 New Hampshire primary to Sen. John McCain by a margin of 49 percent to 30.2 percent, but even Bush’s landslide loss represented a smaller margin of defeat than Clinton suffered on Tuesday.

A Worried Establishment

Clinton’s failure to generate momentum or much enthusiasm in her pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination presents the Democratic Party establishment with a dilemma, since many senior party leaders fret about the risk that Sanders, a self-described “democratic socialist,” might lead the Democrats to the kind of electoral disaster that Sen. George McGovern did in 1972.

Though the Democrats rebounded in 1976 with Jimmy Carter’s victory amid Republican disarray over Richard Nixon’s Watergate scandal, the Republicans soon reestablished their domination over presidential politics for a dozen years with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. For the Democrats to reclaim the White House in 1992, it took a “New Democrat,” Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, to repackage the Democratic message into one proposing “neo-liberal” (anti-regulatory, free-trade) economics, embracing Republican tough-on-crime tactics, and rejecting “Big Government.”

President Clinton also emphasized “micro-policies,” best illustrated by his call for “school uniforms,” rather than proposing “macro-policies” for addressing poverty and other structural problems facing Americans. Though the economy performed fairly well under Clinton his success lessening pressures from liberal groups he also opened the door to Wall Street and other corporate excesses (by supporting deregulation of the financial and media industries).

At that point in the 1990s, the “neo-liberal” strategies had not been tested in the U.S. economy and thus many Americans were caught off-guard when this new anti-regulatory, free-trade fervor contributed to a hollowing out of the Great American Middle Class and a bloated Gilded Age for the top One Percent.

The full consequences of neo-liberalism became painfully apparent with the Wall Street Crash of 2008 and the resulting Great Recession. The suffering and hopelessness now affecting many Americans, including the white working class, has led to an angry political rejection of the American Establishment as reflected in the insurgent candidacies of Donald Trump and Sanders.

A Legacy Campaign

Hillary Clinton (like Jeb Bush) faces the misfortune of running a legacy campaign at a time when the voters are angry about the legacies of both “ruling families,” the Clintons and the Bushes. Though Sanders is a flawed candidate faulted for his muddled foreign-policy prescriptions, he (like Trump) has seized the mantle of fighting the Establishment at a time when millions of Americans are fed up with the Establishment and its self-serving policies.

In some ways, the Iowa and New Hampshire results represented the worst outcome for establishment Democrats. Clinton’s razor-thin victory in Iowa and her slashing defeat in New Hampshire have left Democratic strategists uncertain as to whether they should rally behind her despite her lukewarm to freezing-cold reception from voters or try to recruit another candidate who could cut off Sanders’s path to the nomination and represent a “more electable” choice in November.

If Clinton continues to stumble, there will be enormous pressure from Democratic leaders to push her aside and draw Vice President Joe Biden or perhaps Sen. Elizabeth Warren into the race.

If that were to occur — and, granted, the Clintons are notoriously unwilling to admit defeat — the Democrats could experience a political dynamic comparable to 1968 when anti-Vietnam War Sen. Eugene McCarthy challenged the prohibitive favorite President Lyndon Johnson and came close enough in New Hampshire to prompt Sen. Robert Kennedy to jump into the race — and to convince Johnson to announce that he would not seek another term.

Many idealistic Democrats who had backed McCarthy in his seemingly quixotic fight against Johnson were furious against “Bobby-come-lately,” setting up a battle between two anti-war factions of the Democratic Party. Of course, the history of the 1968 campaign was marred by the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and then Robert Kennedy, followed by the chaotic Chicago convention, which handed the nomination to Johnson’s Vice President Hubert Humphrey.

Then, after Republican Richard Nixon secretly sabotaged Johnson’s Vietnam peace talks, Nixon managed to eke out a victory over Humphrey.

While Campaign 2016 reflects a very different America and the key Democratic issue is “income inequality,” not the Vietnam War some parallels could become obvious if the presumptive nominee (Johnson in 1968 and Clinton in 2016) is pushed out or chooses to step aside.

Then, the Democratic choice would be plunging ahead with a back-bench candidate (McCarthy in 1968 and Sanders in 2016) or looking for a higher-profile and more mainstream alternative, such as Biden who (like Humphrey) would offer continuity with the sitting president or Warren who shares many of Sanders’s positions (like Robert Kennedy did with McCarthy) but who might be more acceptable to “party regulars.”

A Warren candidacy also might lessen the disappointment of women who wanted to see Hillary Clinton as the first female president. At the moment, however, the question is: Did New Hampshire deal a death blow to Hillary Clinton’s campaign or can she become the first candidate in modern U.S. political history to bounce back from a 22-point loss in the first-in-the-nation primary?

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

53 comments for “Hillary Clinton’s Very Bad Night

  1. Geo Noeg
    February 14, 2016 at 00:23

    Then there’s the matter of US SOS Clinton’s role in the 2009 Honduran coup…

  2. L Garou
    February 13, 2016 at 16:24

    The Democrat leadership, in a nutshell..

    Long Live The Wicked Witch!
    “So say we all”!!
    (fingers crossed)


  3. Jon Shafer
    February 11, 2016 at 21:23

    Frankly, I do not trust Hillary. Not one damn bit. Like so much of Washington “group think,” she is an effective liar. She must account for 4 American deaths at Benghazi, that it had evolved into a secret CIA operation. She was involved in the Gen. Paetreus scandal, as well as the faked Navy Seals bin Laden operation which resulted in Seals dying in a mysterious helicopter crash (dead men tell no tales). Check an AP FOI request that resulted in heavily redacted material that was missing DNA proof, that it was a CIA operation. Surely, Hillary knows this. Hillary also brought in Asst Sec Victoria Nuland who engineered the forced regime change to the Ukraine’s Nazi-connected government, not to mention the MH17 shoot down cover-up under which the US government had no verifiable evidence. A BBC report contained eyewitness testimony of a Ukraine fighter jet downing the MH17. BBC unexplainably censored its own report. None of this, of course, makes Bernie Sanders a saintly candidate where so little attention has been given to an endless war foreign policy. Yet Sanders speaks much more to my liking overall. No way could I support Hillary. She is deceptive and dishonest, and manages to do so with a straight face, which makes her even more unsettling.

  4. Leif Knutsen
    February 11, 2016 at 14:06

    I liked the way Dr. James Hansen put it some years ago now: “Government has become a self licking ice cream cone.” You do not bring that animal to its knees by putting it on a diet with a little less ice cream as Hillary will do. You must cut a hole in the bottom of the cone and let the ice cream drip and then run out to be lapped up by the masses as Bernie will do with the help of “We the People.” Time is short and tweaking and diddling is just a recipe for the continued slide to planetary ecocide at this point.

    February 11, 2016 at 02:10

    Despite New Hampshire’s “modern history”, it is still a flyweight state, and its primaries are suitable only for eliminating flyweight candidates, such as Carly and Christie.

    The African-Americans in South Caroline are allegedly solidly committed to Hillary. What can Bernie do? One possibility is to stand up for the residents of Flint, MI. It seems that their water is still drawn from the polluted river. If so, Bernie should denounce the Nero-like state officials who refuse to take charge by, e.g., diverting Lake Huron water to Flint.

  6. Pat
    February 11, 2016 at 00:54

    First, a small quibble. As I understand the exit poll data in the link provided, Sanders won 50 percent of the non-white vote to Clinton’s 49 percent.

    Second, if Sanders’s foreign policy is “muddled” (which I don’t entirely buy; this point of view includes presumptions based on incomplete information) or lacking (which I do accept, with caveats), it’s still a far cry better than Elizabeth Warren’s or Joe Biden’s. Warren has even less of a foreign policy than Sanders. Her “Mideast policy” is support for Israel, 100 percent, without reservation. Sanders at least has criticized Netanyahu and admonished Israel for the disproportionate number of Palestinians killed in its “defensive” operations. (In fairness, Warren was among the 21 senators, including Sanders, who did not approve Israel’s assault on Gaza in July 2014). Her policy for fighting ISIS is for nations in the region to “step up and play a leading role.” Like, you know, they have to “get their hands dirty.”

    Biden is another matter. He’s got foreign policy experience out the wazoo, but as with Clinton, it’s more a liability than an asset. He isn’t as hawkish as Clinton on direct military invention, but make no mistake, he is a neoliberal interventionist of the highest order. I recently listened to a speech he gave a couple of years ago at Harvard. He had the audacity to claim that human rights are at the core of U.S. foreign policy. During the Q&A, he was challenged by a student asking how he could make that claim when the United States was allied with Saudi Arabia. Biden replied that the United States makes alliances that serve its own interests, and if those allies violate human rights, we tell them in no uncertain terms to cut it out. He further justified the hypocrisy by asserting that exposure to U.S. values eventually would make these countries see the error of their ways … well, at least he hoped it would. Biden has a reputation as mild-mannered, like a goofy uncle. But his answer to this and other questions — indeed his entire speech — displayed the arrogance of American Exceptionalism in its purest form. Then there was his role in the coup in Ukraine. Nuland was seen passing out cookies, but we tend to forget Biden, because the cameras were turned off when he made his deals — and not even for the benefit of U.S. security, but for the enrichment of corporate America. Then he had the bill sent to U.S. taxpayers.

    Sanders is understandably light on foreign policy. He’s a senator from a small state, with committee assignments reflecting his priorities of economic inequality, strong labor unions, green jobs, revitalizing infrastructure, and moving away from fossil fuels. That said, he has a framework of a foreign policy, and it is based on non-interventionism, inclusion of countries such as Russia and Iran in peace negotiations, recognition that the Cold War is over and cutting back on defense spending accordingly, taking the first steps toward nuclear disarmament, and becoming a world leader not by having the biggest military, but by ensuring the economic rights of all Americans (FDR’s “economic bill of rights”). We don’t know how he’s going to this. But we do know how Clinton and Biden would achieve their goals, because we’ve seen them in action. How could Sanders possibly be any worse?

    • Annie
      February 11, 2016 at 02:30

      Pat, very good summary! I totally agree with you.

    • onno
      February 11, 2016 at 07:56

      I have been watching Hillary Clinton during her campaign and debates and the I realize she was married to Bill who probably was the best lying president in history so the two really make a good match.

      Secondly, from her crying outburst during 2008 campaign in 2008 and today’s campaign nothing has changed when Hillary opens her mouth out come the lies with viciousness that should worry the American voter.

      Finally, as Secretary of State het track record of NOT accomplishing ANYTHING is well documented. She only accumulated more miles than Albright at taxpayers expense

  7. Regina Schulte
    February 10, 2016 at 19:09

    In addition to all of the above reasons for favoring Sanders as the Democrat nominee,, I add a
    more “ad hominem” one: I am simply weary of Hillary Clinton. In one role or another, she has been with the executive branch for twelve years. From my perspective she has simply worn thin
    to the point that I can’t imagine four or (God, help us) eight more years of her and Bill. There is good female talent and intelligence on the near horizon, so the cause for a woman president won’t die if Clinton loses.

  8. Bill Bodden
    February 10, 2016 at 18:34

    If Bernie Sanders wins, he will very likely get the same treatment Jimmy Carter received. The oligarchs in Congress and at both party headquarters will gang up on him. Instead of Tip O’Neil and Robert Byrd for the Democrats during Carter’s presidency, it will be Chuck Schumer (D-Wall Street and Israel), Nancy Pelosi (D-DLC and Israel) and Debbie Wasserman Schulz (D-DNC and Israel) against Sanders. Of course, Mitch McConnell (R-Various plutocrats and Israel) and Paul Ryan (R-Various Plutocrats and Israel) will pile on for the Repugnants. Accordingly, not much is likely to be accomplished which will have its consolations. Bernie’s veto will prevent more wars, sell-offs and destruction of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and more tax cuts for the plutocrats who bribed congress for them.

    If instead Clinton gets the nomination she could persuade informed voters that Trump just might be the lesser evil, and who knows what that loose cannon will bring?

  9. Zachary Smith
    February 10, 2016 at 18:14

    At the RT site I saw this headline:

    Despite Bernie’s landslide victory, Hillary receives more New Hampshire delegates


    If this is true, then winning – even by a landslide – is meaningless.

    • David Smith
      February 11, 2016 at 00:45

      RT is a bit off. New Hampshire has 24 Primary Voted delegates: 15 to Sanders and 9 to HRC. These must go to respective candidates. NH has 8 Superdelegates, not decided by voters, but these are “pledged” and can vote any way at the convention. 6 Supers “pledged” to HRC and 2 “unpledged”. So it appears that HRC and Sanders have 15 delegates from NH. However there are 712 Superdelegates and 4,051 Primary Voted delegates. Superdelegates practically function as tiebreakers, being only 15% of the 4,763 delegates at the convention. If Sanders continues getting 60% of the Primary Voted delegates, the party controlled Superdelegates will shift to Sanders, and it will be 2008 revisited for HRC.

  10. James
    February 10, 2016 at 18:01

    the author refers repeatedly to – and appears to treat at face value, – the Dem establishment’s supposed .’worries’ about Sanders’ dubious ‘electability.’ That makes no sense to me, except as a regurgitation of an HRC talking point. There’s *no* public opinion research or polling whatsoever, certainly none currenty, which shows him as ‘unelectable.’ On the contrary, and I think that that’s precisely what worries them – that *he’s all too electable*, as he is showing, to their utter horror. And not just in the primaries. The polls show him shellacking Trump, more than HRC does, and showed him tied with HRC nationally. And if his election comes to pass, then the party (small p) is over. It’s over tor the ‘New Democrats’, the ‘Third Way’ neoliberal hacks, the Wall Street tuning forks, etc. Surely *that* is what worries them, isn’t it? Why is the HRC canard of his ‘unelectability’ adopted as a premise of this article? Hillary’s people don’t really believe that, and why should we?

  11. doris
    February 10, 2016 at 17:56

    A Sanders/Warren ticket would be awesome! With Alan Grayson, Dennis Kucinich, Robert Reich, Jill Stein, and Cynthia McKinney in the cabinet.

    • Brad Owen
      February 11, 2016 at 05:16

      And Webster Tarpley as Fed Chairman. THAT would be truly revolutionary, as EVERYTHING hinges on who steers the “money power”. We could have an executive government, by-passing the congress, which is effed-up by oligarchs. They all would need to wear helmets and flak-vests though, and STAY in the bunker for the duration.

      The Sanders Movement can give him a congress to work with though.

  12. Robert
    February 10, 2016 at 15:57

    The odds makers still rate her a near certainty to be the next prez. Trump is a distant 2nd at 3 to 1. I’m afraid she will recover with the help of electronic voting machines.

  13. Christopher C. Currie
    February 10, 2016 at 15:56

    Hillary is unelectable, because she is still relying heavily on the current willingness of our mainstream news media to continue to cover up how DISASTROUS Hillary’s record was as Secretary of State. Unlike Hillary, Bernie didn’t play a key role in creating a bloody multi-sided civil war in Syria that has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians and created 11 MILLION Syrian refugees (nearly a million of whom risked drowning while fleeing to Europe). Hillary also played a key role in creating a bloody civil war in Libya. Hillary carried on George W. Bush’s neocon clandestine Ho-Chi-Minh-like insurgency tactics to create “regime changes” in the Middle East which is a MORALLY DEPRAVED objective to begin with, and which predictably created DISASTROUS HUMAN CONSEQUENCES including the creation of a “breeding ground” in Syria for the development of ISIS as a formidable land-grabbing military force. In other words, Hillary Clinton’s four years as Secretary of State left the United States facing a significantly higher level of danger than the level of danger that existed when she first became Secretary of State. So Bernie is right. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly demonstrated not only mean-spirited (neocon) judgment, but she has also demonstrated extraordinarily POOR judgment which is likely to plague the United States as well as the Middle East for many years to come!

    • Bob Van Noy
      February 10, 2016 at 17:04

      I agree with you Christopher C. Currie that Hillary is unelectable. I think the Republican establishment recognized this months ago and their secret is that they want to run against her.
      I also agree with posters who pointed out the “success” of Ross Perot as a spoiler, indeed that dynamic could come into play in some form in this election.
      I think that Elizabeth Warren is the key to a Democratic victory. A Sanders Warren ticket would win in my opinion, or a strong Warren endorsement of either candidate would probably win but many like myself would still not vote for Hillary. An early hint of a Sanders cabinet position would also probably win. As a Presidential Candidate, Warren would have won this cycle. In any case I see Senator Warren as the key going forward.

    • dahoit
      February 11, 2016 at 12:28

      If only the MSM would reveal her abject reign as SS.Chaos,death and war,she is the harpy of the apocalypse.
      I’m starting to realize she is an actual absolute moron,and nothing like the MSMs portrayal.

  14. John P. Teschke
    February 10, 2016 at 15:55

    If Hillary wins on superdelegates despite losing the primaries contest, a likely event, I am sure that Trump, the probable GOP candidate, ends up on top. He is actually more reasonable on Middle East issues, accepting that the Russian effort in Syria is in our interests.
    Meanwhile, Bernie should use the evidence posted by Parry on this very website on January 12 that the emails issued on December 31, when it was hoped no one would notice, establishes her liability for war crimes in her spearheading the effort to replace Khaddafi in Libya with elements whom, as those emails indicate, she knew would include a preponderance of Jihadi barbarians. By the way, Sanders or a surrogate should bring up this issue, since Hillary’s present popularity with minorities would evaporate once her fingerprints on the Libya coup which resulted in the collateral damage of a mass-murder of sub-Saharan Africans in Libya. Hillary’s status as an unindicted war criminal should disqualify her from any public office, let alone the presidency.

  15. Brad Benson
    February 10, 2016 at 15:49

    You are wrong on this one Mr. Parry. Bernie is a movement. The young people and the people that thought Obama would bring “hope and change” have had enough. No ersatz Democrat will do and no Republican will be able to beat Bernie. After that, we’ll see if he can take on the shadow government..

    As for Bernie’s “muddled foreign policy” he is a victim of the current Washington Group-think in regard to the Middle East, but he’s learning fast and talking to the right people–especially in regard to Israel.

  16. Zachary Smith
    February 10, 2016 at 15:24

    I don’t understand the “superdelegate” stuff, but the existence of this factor is proclaimed to make Clinton continue as the overwhelming favorite.

    As of right now, with 92% of the vote reporting, Bernie Sanders is projected to have won 13 delegates from New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton is projected to have won nine. There are still two delegates left to be allocated. This is good and bad news for Sanders. It’s good that he won so decisively that he actually netted four convention votes. It’s also good because it demonstrates that he can do as poorly as Clinton (currently 38.3%) in future states and still get 41% of the delegates.

    But, by the same logic, this is devastating news for Sanders. Even winning 60% of the vote, he barely scratched the surface of Clinton’s lead, which thanks to superdelegates currently stands at 394-42. The same proportional rules that make it impossible for Clinton to put Sanders away also make it nearly impossible for Sanders to overcome a 350 delegate deficit.


    It’s beginning to look as if the “fix” is on for President Hillary in 2016.

    • rosemerry
      February 10, 2016 at 16:49

      ‘many senior party leaders fret about the risk that Sanders, a self-described “democratic socialist,” might lead the Democrats to the kind of electoral disaster that Sen. George McGovern did in 1972.’

      I understood that it was the likelihood that McGovern might win that made the Dems change the rules so that a popular Dem the bigwigs did not want (ie he was too good for the people, like Bernie perhaps) could not win in the future. Even if the Repubs win instead- after all, since Clinton, how different are they??

    • David Smith
      February 10, 2016 at 18:14

      Zachary Smith, your comment got me looking at this SuperDelegate issue. The Democratic Convention will have 4,763 Delegates, total. 4,051 will be selected by Primary Voters and are committed. 712 are the SuperDelegates and are uncommitted. Superdelegates are Democratic Governors/Senators/Reps/Party Leaders. Superdelegates are ” pledged” but can vote any way they want at the convention.According to AP , the Superdelegate split is 355 for HRC, 14 for Sanders, and 341 unpledged ( OMalley dropped out had 2). To win the nomination, 2,382 votes are needed.

      • Lisa Gale
        February 11, 2016 at 00:05

        And isn’t it interesting that one of those “Super Delegates” is Bill Clinton, himself. Only in the DNC can the husband of the candidate hold a vote that is worth more than the voters themselves.

        • David Smith
          February 11, 2016 at 01:25

          Not true. The 712 Superdelegates are just 15% of the 4,763 delegates at the convention. 85% of delegates are Primary Voted, and must go to the candidate the voters chose. Superdelegates are merely “pledged” and can vote for any candidate, and will vote for the one clearly winning. If Sanders continues to get 60% of primary vote he will have over the 2,382 votes needed to win, without a single superdelegate, but he has 14. If HRC continues at 40%, even with all 712 superdelegates she won’t get to 2,382.,

  17. Abe
    February 10, 2016 at 15:12

    Both [Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie] Wasserman-Shultz and [host of the MSNBC talk show Hardball Chris] Matthews are doing their best to ensure a Clinton nomination. Wasserman-Schultz is working hard to limit dissent within the party and to stymie the Bernie Sanders campaign. Matthews gives talking point cues to Clinton and her supporters and rails against the bogeyman of socialism he believes Sanders represents.

    Both are blatant in their shilling for Clinton. Both have a financial interest in her victory; expressed as debt and expectation respectively. Both are the Democratic establishment. And both are facing the inexorable tide of anti-establishment opposition from their own party.

    It looks like the money might not do it this time. The Clinton-DNC-MSNBC revolving door of funding and access is facing an uprising from the base that their usual techniques may not be enough to defeat in conventional electoral warfare.

    Clinton and the Democratic Establishment: the Ties That Bind
    By Eoin Higgins

  18. Abbybwood
    February 10, 2016 at 15:12

    What will it mean to Clinton and Trump and Sanders if Bloomberg pulls a Perot?

    Which candidate would benefit from his running? Because he would certainly stand zero chance. He would simply be running as a spoiler to somebody. But, who??

    • Brad Owen
      February 11, 2016 at 05:02

      The oligarch will split the right wing. Both Trump and Clinton lose. This advantages Sanders and the broad Left; libs, progs, new dealers, socs.

  19. February 10, 2016 at 15:11

    What Americans seem not to fully understand is how dangerous the shadow government running this country is. That they will go to any and all lengths including outright murder to make certain that whoever runs this country is in their pocket goes without saying. Hillary is their gal. Elizabeth Warren? Doubtful–unless they know something about her that we don’t.

    But one thing is certain: These trade deals are deadly. And remember who started this: Bill Clinton is not, and never was, a friend of democracy in America. The trade deals are meant to destroy the sovereignty of this country; if we don’t get someone who understands this and will throw all his/her weight against them, we can kiss the United States of America good-bye. Read Joseph Plummer: Tragedy and Hope 101.

    • John E. Reuter, Esq. (Ret.)
      February 10, 2016 at 22:42

      Inshort. Thanks for the Joseph Plummer reference.

    • Curious
      February 11, 2016 at 01:58

      yes, well said Inshort. I heard about a book called ‘Fooling America’ too.

      But to agree, the shadow government is quite dangerous and most Americans don’t know this. They like to grind Putin under their thumbs by saying he was part of the KGB, but forget that ‘Bush the elder’ was head of CIA. (sorry CIA types on this good site, but I was wondering why that’s never mentioned)
      And sadly, our corporate media plays along. Their job quite simply is to obfuscate the complexities of our society and reduce it to red vs. blue, liberal vs. conservative, simplify, simplify, etc. so they have their rah-rah rallying points, war doctrine/dogma, and their flag colored posters pre-made for the next venue.

      In that context I am completely baffled by any support of Ms. Clinton. I understand the rallying points as they are obvious: gender, some knowledge of issues, and reasonably well spoken. But to hear her try to solve the Syria problem plays right into the hands of the puppeteers. A ‘no fly zone’ ‘protected area’ etc which would just re-create the open sieve border of Turkey and Syria so she can continue on with her Syria playground in the sand, and to have her salivating over a leaders’ torture and death by quoting an Emperor of Rome? It’s all a bad idea. So how does a Sec of State, with a supposed first hand knowledge of the issues not come up with a peaceful solution, but rather an extension of the bloodshed and more misery to a sovereign country? Today, even the Pope said there are now 50 Gaddafis instead of just one. But why would she care?

      As long as they can keep reducing an entire country down to just one man, who has to go, we are toast in the international community, or hopefully so.

      The 911 event created a collective nervous breakdown within most people of this country and puppeteers could use this rage/fear and direct it for their own purposes.

      What I witnessed during the Vietnam War was a similar rage/fear against communism, or some phantom menace (now defined inexplicably “existential”) but what the “shadow government” didn’t quite predict was so may people pushing back and just sick of war, death, dying and napalming the innocent. Today a lot of college students haven’t even heard of Kent State and most of them would probably say ‘they deserved it’ but that is because they are not subject to the draft or even the draft lottery so they don’t get personally nervous about how their birthday would change their lives (men that is). They’ll just blab something and go back to their violent video games. But this was another collective nervous breakdown in the country brought on by the puppeteers, or as you put it, “shadow government”.

      I didn’t want to get on a soapbox but some of the doo-doo comments by our current politicians running is horrifying. ” carpet bomb, sand glow in the dark” (please Raphael Cruz, go play at Chernobyl for awhile)…. I thought Palin was/is an idiot proven over and over, but when she said basically ‘water-boarding is our way of baptizing’ (I don’t even want to look up the direct quote because it’ so offensive) I thought the GOP would be smart enough to shut that down especially with the ‘evangelicals’ in their corner. But no. Forget about this thing called the Geneva Convention, and double down with a Trumpism roughly stated ‘and I would do so much more’ and people are voting for this lunatic. But of course ‘Bush the younger’ can’t properly state it either to not offend his brother. International law? What’s that? We make our own rules.

      That said, I do wonder if you would have an opinion on our current government pie chart. How are we a democracy when over 50% of our budget goes to the Pentagon, which happens to be the least “democratic” organization known to mankind? Last time I checked there are not too many elected people within that organization, and God forbid if you have an opinion that’s outside the chain of command or the ‘need to know’ basis most people are under. To carry that further for “the people”, our corporations, now defined cynically as ‘people’ are also the least democratic part of our society but they are paying for these dweebs who are running for office. So, what part of our budget in this country of freedom goes to democracy? and I’m not talking about organizations like USAID etc.

      …a longish vent, but I wonder about where we are going and who can even drive or steer this bus. None of our existing candidates can, and they can’t even steer their own campaign bus.

      • Curious
        February 11, 2016 at 09:36

        That wasn’t a very focused reply by me. The words got away from me before I could properly cull them which left me with an unintended ‘jazz riff’ and drivel.

        The proper response would have been: I agree with your comment about people working in the shadows and behind the Oz curtain, which is something I’ve seen all too well. Normally I would bite my tongue, or in this case, my fingers, and let other people add wisdom to the discussion. Also, the better people are informed, the wiser they will be. But I don’t witness a lot of people in daily life trying to get more informed. Most people just want to see a theater production without seeing the ropes, pulleys and lighting behind the scene, which I understand.

        This production, theatrics, or the false media madness most people have been saturating themselves with, needs to be properly examined because it is becoming very serious in a lot of ways. It’s really hard for me to believe we can have another ‘Citizen Kane’ and that our media would play along like good William Randolph Hearst (or Murdoch) digital soldiers and that most people will swallow the bait, and the hook as well. This should be an Era of Renaissance and a new, informed public who can access the facts better on their phone than anyone could have done with computers only 15 years ago. But a lot of people don’t do this simple step and yet they can regurgitate stats from a sporting event better they can regarding their own representatives, senators or the very people they sometimes vote for. It’s maddening and polarizing.

    • onno
      February 11, 2016 at 07:44

      Right on. But you still assume that the president is elected by the people and that is not true, this just for the show. Votes are manipulated by the Media, 0,01% rich, banks, large corporations and especially the defence industry that sees blood developing in the Middle East and Ukraine/Russia.As we have seen in the past 70 years there hasn’t been a strong president Like Truman said to Eisenhower; As a commander his orders were followed as president of the USA NOTHING will happen’ In other words US policies are initiated and carried out by the Washington administration. Therefore, the Washington Power Elite doesn’t want a strong president but a weak one. We see that also with the UN and its branches Ban-ki-Moon and predecessors are weak leaders like in NATO. Strong and popular leaders are murdered like JFK (Hoover conspiracy) and Dag Hammarskold of the UN. In the USA murder is part of the Washington policies foreign or domestic and because of its large bureaucracy NOBODY will be made responsible or will be prosecuted.

  20. David Smith
    February 10, 2016 at 14:56

    A spooky echo of 2008. A guy no one has heard of, coming out of nowhere, offering rhetoric, that seems a solution to America’s plight, and crushing HRC’s fantasy of the White House.

    • fosforos
      February 10, 2016 at 15:06

      Obama’s rhetoric was as empty as the Clinton’s. And what was “crushing” about a White House job third in line for the presidency?

      • David Smith
        February 10, 2016 at 15:59

        fosforos, you failed to understand a single word of my comment.

    • John
      February 10, 2016 at 19:12

      If you haven’t heard of Bernie Sanders long before this campaign started, you haven’r been paying attention…

      Unlike Obama, he has an EXTENSIVE record to look at.

    • RuthieTruthie
      February 10, 2016 at 19:26

      David Smith……You never heard of Bernie Sanders??? Where have you been??? You have to quit watching all those Disney cartoons. :o)

      • David Smith
        February 10, 2016 at 23:44

        John& RuthieTruthie you underestimate me and, like fosforos, fail to understand my comment. I first heard of Sanders in 2011, a media article calling him the Socialist Senator from Vermont. Vermont being a hardcore Propertied Class Enclave, I was suspicious. I went to his website, and my suspicions were confirmed: nothing but vague pseudo-left rhetoric. Sanders and Obama are creatures carefully cultivated by the Propertied Class that merely appear to offer solutions to America’s plight. Obama appeared refreshing after Dubya’s dead end horror, Sanders appears refreshing after the hypocrisy of Obama/HRC. The Propertied Class is calling the shots, you just can’t see it.

  21. LJ
    February 10, 2016 at 14:48

    Perot received 17% nationally in the 1992 election. Without Perot Clinton does not win the Presidency PERIOD

    • fosforos
      February 10, 2016 at 15:03

      Yes , Sanders is a flawed candidate. If (alas, we can’t yet say when) the Clinton drops out, however, there are much better alternatives that Mr. Parry leaves unmentioned. Should they wake up, the Dems could nominate their strongest possible ticket: Al Gore for President and Elizabeth Warren for Veep. They would be odds-on not only to take the White House but also to sweep to majorities in both Houses, gerrymanders be damned. Only the Demoncruds’ congenital propensity to lose might prevent that outcome. In which case we can, and should, expect a very strong showing for Dr. Jill Stein. Go Greens!

      • Dick Chicanery
        February 10, 2016 at 18:24

        Al Gore already won the presidential election once. The “supreme” court ought to award him the presidency rightfully his. They already awarded the presidency wrongfully and dishonestly to george the stupid.

  22. Kent Bott
    February 10, 2016 at 14:28

    In reality … it is Hillary Clinton that has the “muddled foreign-policy prescription” … more of the same! Her foreign-policy “experience” has been anything but successful.

    • rosemerry
      February 10, 2016 at 16:44

      Yes! Sanders’ fault is that he is just like the present leaders-warmongering, pro-Israel, pro-invasion by the “exceptional nation”. Who is faulting him? Not the real people who see the cronyism at the “top”.

      • Ethan Allen
        February 10, 2016 at 17:39

        Re: Rosemary Feb 10 @ 4:44 PM
        If you actually believe the “talking points” you’ve stated here,

        “Yes! Sanders’ fault is that he is just like the present leaders-warmongering, pro-Israel, pro-invasion by the “exceptional nation”. Who is faulting him? Not the real people who see the cronyism at the “top”.”

        and sincerely consider yourself to be one of “…the real people who see the cronyism at the top”., then you would be well served by taking another look at exactly which candidate it is that is actually a part of “the cronyism at the top”, and which is challenging the greed and corruption that such existing cronyism represents.
        “The public good before private advantage.”
        As Usual,

        • Peter Loeb
          February 11, 2016 at 06:46


          “warmongering, pro-Israel, pro-invasion by the “exceptional nation”….”
          Rosemerry, above

          These few words encapsulate my profound concerns about
          Bernie Sanders. (I rarely have “profound” concerns. Let
          me enjoy it for a moment.)

          Re: Sanders warmongering:

          While voting against the Iraq war,this US adventure, the
          stated goal of which was to establish a “democratic”
          (read: pro US) government but in fact destroyed the
          country and its people (an oft-repeated storyline for
          US invasions), was financed primarily by “SUPPLEMENTAL

          I have heard that Bernie Sanders supported all or nearly
          all of these supplementals.

          The “cronyism” while almost universally opposed by
          the public, has been a constant characteristic of
          US government for centuries.

          Personally, I find it nearly impossible to support the
          fabricated “revolutionary” socialism of Bernie Sanders.
          I don’t perceive the US as being particularly “revolutionary”
          at this time. Angry. Not “revolutionary.

          It bears repeating that winning primaries for both political
          parties is not to be confused (as it invariably is) with
          winning a national election.

          As President, if it should come to that, both Sanders and
          Trump would be disasters for the concerns so well-stated
          by Rosemerry. My deeper concerns are how we with
          these primary interests should respond when the disaster
          is elected. It is fair to predict that whoever it may be will be
          will be a disaster.

          —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

          • Steve Naidamast
            February 11, 2016 at 15:39

            I agree with all the statements being made about Sanders. So why hasn’t anybody suggested voting for Jill Stein. Right now she of course has no chance but I am not going to vote for a “lesser of two evils” between the Republican and Democratic candidates…

  23. Drew Hunkins
    February 10, 2016 at 13:56

    Of course never forget, there’s nothing “extreme” at all about Sanders’ progressive populist platform, nothing at all. The only extreme thing about it is that it’s extremely at odds with a status quo in which:

    -45% of Americans are living near or below the poverty level.
    -Precarious employment with rampant un and underemployment are stalking the nation like a haunting specter.
    -We see pitiful wages, scant benefits and virtually no vacation time for tens of millions of US workers.
    -We see massive and unconscionable student loan and consumer debt (spent on necessities) that are utterly destroying the demand side of the economy and forcing 20 and 30 year olds into their parents’ homes for housing.
    -30 million Americans with no health insurance or are saddled with burdensome and back-breaking copays and deductibles.

    If Sanders is “extreme” count me as an extremist as well as tens of millions of Americans who have had enough!

    • Bart
      February 10, 2016 at 16:35

      – The kleptocracy and its running dogs are pushing the ruinous TPP slave trade deal.

    • Ethan Allen
      February 10, 2016 at 18:17

      Re: Drew Hunkins Feb 10 @ 1:56 PM
      Your closing statement….

      “If Sanders is “extreme” count me as an extremist as well as tens of millions of Americans who have had enough!”

      …is spot on!
      The contention that Sen. Sanders is a political extremist is absurd! He is waging a campaign against the extremists that have captured virtually all the institutions of our government and economy by way of their corruption of our political system; he is proposing a peaceful public political revolution at the ballot box; one that every citizen can support simply by putting aside their complacency, indifference and cynicism, an getting off their collective rear-ends and voting. That is not extremism, that is being a functioning citizen in a democracy.
      “The public good before private advantage.”
      As Usual,

    • Roch
      February 11, 2016 at 17:46

      Very well said. PresClinton of ‘hermetically sealed’ phrase is an insane asylum term! We do not want Clinton1%.

Comments are closed.