The Coming Democratic Crackup

Exclusive: Though the mainstream media is focused on Republican divisions, a more important story could be the coming Democratic crackup, as anti-war Democrats resist Hillary Clinton’s pro-war agenda, writes Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

If the Democratic Party presses ahead and nominates hawkish Hillary Clinton for President, it could recreate the conditions that caused the party to splinter in the late 1960s and early 1970s when anti-war and pro-war Democrats turned on one another and opened a path for decades of Republican dominance of the White House.

This new Democratic crackup could come as early as this fall if anti-war progressives refuse to rally behind Clinton because of her neoconservative foreign policy – thus infuriating Clinton’s backers – or it could happen in four years if Clinton wins the White House and implements her militaristic agenda, including expanding the U.S. war in Syria while continuing other wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya – and challenging Russia on its borders.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at NATO conference in Munich, Germany, Feb. 4 (Official Defense Department photo)

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at NATO conference in Munich, Germany, Feb. 4, 2012. (Official Defense Department photo)

Clinton’s neocon policies in a prospective first term could generate a “peace” challenge similar to the youth-driven uprising against President Lyndon Johnson and the Vietnam War in 1968.

Indeed, in 2020, anti-war elements of the Democratic Party might see little choice but to seek a candidate willing to challenge an incumbent President Clinton much as Sen. Eugene McCarthy took on President Johnson, leading eventually to the chaotic and bloody Chicago convention, which in turn contributed to Richard Nixon’s narrow victory that fall.

A difference between Johnson and Clinton, however, is that in 1964, LBJ ran as the “peace candidate” against the hawkish Republican Barry Goldwater (who incidentally was supported by a young Hillary Clinton), whereas in 2016, Clinton has made clear her warlike plans (albeit framing them in “humanitarian” terms).

After winning a landslide victory against Goldwater, Johnson reversed himself and plunged into the Vietnam War, fearing he otherwise might be blamed for “losing” Indochina. With Clinton, there’s no reason to expect a reversal since she’s made no secret about her plans for invading Syria under the guise of creating a “safe zone” and for confronting nuclear-armed Russia along its western borders, from Ukraine through the Baltic States. In her belligerent rhetoric, she has compared Russian President Vladimir Putin to Hitler.

Courting Bibi

Clinton also has vowed to take the U.S.-Israeli relationship to “the next level” by embracing right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who expects to convince President Hillary Clinton to end any détente with Iran and put the prospect of bombing Iran back on the table. Clinton would seem to be an easy sell.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to a joint session of the U.S. Congress on March 3, 2015. (Screen shot from CNN broadcast)

Another feature of the LBJ-Hillary comparison is that the Democratic Party’s turn against the Vietnam War in the 1968 and 1972 campaigns prompted a collection of pro-war intellectuals to bolt the Democratic Party and align themselves with the Republicans, especially around Ronald Reagan in 1980.

Those Democratic hawks became known as the neoconservatives and remained attached to the Republican Party for the next 35 years, eventually emerging as Official Washington’s foreign policy establishment. However, in some prominent cases (such as Robert Kagan), neocons are now switching over to Clinton because of the rise of Donald Trump, who rejects the neocon passion for interventionism.

In other words, just as Johnson’s Vietnam War escalation — and the resulting fierce opposition from anti-war Democrats — set in motion the neocons’ defection from the Democrats to the Republicans, Clinton’s enthusiasm for the Iraq War, her support for escalation of the Afghan War, and her scheming for “regime change” wars in Libya and Syria are bringing some neocon hawks back to their first nesting place in the Democratic Party.

But a President Clinton’s transformation of the Democratic Party into “an aggressive war party,” whereas under President Barack Obama it has been “a reluctant war party,” would force principled anti-war Democrats to stop making excuses and to start trying to expel Clinton’s neocon pro-war attitudes from the party.

Such an internecine battle over the party’s soul could deeply divide the Democrats between those supporting Clinton – as “the first woman president” and because of her liberal attitudes on gay rights and other social issues – and those opposing Clinton because of her desire to continue and expand America’s “perpetual wars.”

The Sanders Resistance

Some of that hostility is already playing out as Clinton backers express their anger at progressives who balk at lining up for Clinton’s long-delayed coronation parade. The stubborn support for Sen. Bernie Sanders, even after Clinton has seemingly locked up the Democratic nomination, is a forewarning of the nasty fight ahead.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

The prospects are that the animosities will get worse if Clinton loses in November – with many anti-war Democrats defecting or staying home thus infuriating the Hillary Democrats – or if Clinton were to win and begin implementing her neocon foreign policy agenda which will involve further demonizing “enemies” to justify “regime changes.”

If anti-war Democrats begin to resist, they can expect the Clinton-45 administration to stigmatize them as (fill-in-the-blank) “apologists” and “stooges” of “enemy” powers, much as happened to protesters against the Vietnam War and, more recently, to Americans who objected to such U.S. interventions as the Iraq War in 2003 and the Ukraine coup in 2014.

Yet, few Democratic strategists seem to be aware of this looming chasm between anti-war and pro-war Democrats. Many of these insiders seem to believe that the anti-war Democrats will simply fall in line behind Hillary Clinton out of fear and loathing for Donald Trump. That may be the case for many, but my conversations with anti-war activists suggest that a significant number will vote for a third party or might even go for Trump.

Meanwhile, most mainstream media commentators are focused on the divisions between the pro-Trump and anti-Trump Republicans, giving extensive TV coverage to various stop-Trump scenarios, even as many establishment Republicans begin to accommodate to Trump’s populist conquest of the party.

But it’s clear that some prominent Republicans, especially from the neocon camp, are unalterably opposed to Trump’s election in November, fearing that he will turn the GOP away from them and toward an “America First” perspective that would repudiate “regime change” interventions favored by Israel.

Thus, for many neocon Republicans, a Trump defeat is preferable to a Trump victory because his defeat would let them reclaim command of the party’s foreign policy infrastructure. They also could encourage President Clinton to pursue their neocon agenda – and watch as pro- and anti-war stresses rip apart the Democratic Party.

So, the establishment Democrats – with their grim determination to resuscitate Hillary Clinton’s nearly lifeless campaign – may be engaging in the political equivalent of whistling past the graveyard, as the ghosts of the party’s Vietnam War crackup hover over Election 2016.

[For more on this topic, see’s “Neocons and Neolibs: How ‘Dead’ Ideas Kill”; “Yes, Hillary Clinton Is a Neocon”; and “Would a Clinton Win Mean More Wars?”]

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

74 comments for “The Coming Democratic Crackup

  1. Wayne Price
    May 18, 2016 at 17:59

    This is a slightly-off essay. Unfortunately perhaps, there is no such split in the Democratic Party at this time–Bernie and his followers have NOT opposed Hillery as being too much a war-monger. Bernie has hardly raised the issue at all. That it may arise as an issue later on is possible, even to be hoped-for, but it is wishful thinking on the author’s part to say it is a current issue.

  2. Evangelista
    May 17, 2016 at 21:21

    Afterword (but not the last word):

    After hashing through all the possibilities, with hopes or fears, imagining the most likely benign, or gruesome, to get a pretty solid pre-conventions idea who you will have to choose between in November, look to the Oregon Primary results:

    Oregon has something called “Motor-Voter”, an establishment experiment scheme where under voter rolls are compiled from motor vehicle operators’ license records. The scheme effectively ‘registers’ every motor vehicle operator as a ‘voter’.

    Oregon also has black-box vote tabulation.

    The combination provides a vast pool of votable ‘voters’ to the black-box operators. ‘Voters’ in single-quotes because many, if not most, have no interest in voting, and no idea what the ‘registration’ means (if they know about the scheme to begin with). The emplacement of “Motor-Voter” is the achievement of Nirvana (apologies to Buddhists) for voting manipulation practitioners and affictionados: All the voters they need to manipulate any results they desire or wish for (or are paid to produce), with no Brooklyn-Register purge scandal fiascos necessary, possible, or, if undertaken for fun, detectable. There is, of course, a remote possibility of minor difficulties in event ‘in-box’ (or ‘en-camera’, as the intellectulallic may say) voted ‘motor-voters’ might be doscovered to have had their voting right suspended for failing to pay their parking fines, but a three percent house-margin would be able to cover vote-losses deriving from that (at least in all but the poorest neighborhoods in places like, say, Fergusson, MO).

    Thus, the Oregon Primary results should show what the National Controllers deemed to be required. From these we should be able to judge the ‘mood of the nation’, meaning the ‘mood’ the nation is to fall into. On the Republican side, since there is no candidate but Trump, and ‘none’ being not a recognized vter option in Oregon (so even if the back-box is stuffed fit to bust with electronic ‘no’s’ and ‘none’s’ Trump will win), Trump will win.

    On the Democrat side, however, there is a Bernie Sanders, who could give Trump a run, and hold down Democrat cross-over to Trump, and Hillary Clinton, who is, of course, the National Controllers’ doll (or puppet, or sawdust-filled dummy, martinet, or what have you), but who, in addition to repelling the whole rational element of th Democratic party provides such a broad (no pun intended) target for Donald Trump’s particular type of humor, could be unelectable (especially if indicted — can you imagine the campaign ads: “Get Hillary out of Jail (for the duration); Vote her into office!”…).

    So, if you see Sanders winning big in Oregon, showing him the odds-on favorite of boxed and booted Oregon Motor-Voters (and their handlers, the black-box controllers), you can reasonably expect there to be a delegate convulsion in the Democratic Party Convention, with delegates defecting from Clinton to Sanders, to provide a last-minute cliff-hanger ‘Triumph of the Will of the People’ Sanders For President win.

    If this occurs the presumption will be that with his entourage of the enthusiastic idealistic young voters, bolstered by minority and women voters, Sanders will have a real chance to beat Trump, with his entourage of enthusiastic old voters. Or at least get close enough he can be believably swung over to a win inside the black-boxes (Bernie, they recognize, being a lifetime politician, will fold to the Controllers’ will, as Obama has, as Hillary has declared her willingness to, and so forth).

    The only fly that might come into the ointment might be Trump’s lawyers, who could make an issue of the U.S. Constitution defining the age of majority (when people in the United States become mmbers of the “We the People” who own the nation and have decision-making rights) to be twenty-one years, and that condition making all under-twenty-one years of age voters only ‘practicing-voters’, whose non-decision-making votes will have to be discounted from the totals…

    I tell you, this year’s election is so much fun that if I had died ten years ago I would have had to come back just to spectate it.

  3. Jaime Ramirez
    May 17, 2016 at 21:01

    Military interventionism is by no means the only major issue dividing the 2 camps. As many people support Bernie & refuse to vote for Hillary because of Bernie’s recognition of the urgency of massive action against climate disruption & Hillary’s relative disregard for the environment. As many people also support Bernie because of his strong support for economic justice & fairness & reduction of the huge wealth divide in America & refuse to vote for Hillary because of her tepid support or indifference towards these issues. As many people, if not more, support Bernie for his call to get corporate influence out of government & refuse to vote for Hillary because of her longtime support for & involvement with Wall Street, Walmart, Monsanto & other big business. These are all critical issues & the differences between the 2 candidates could hardly be more stark. This is populist vs. corporatist, dove vs. hawk, environmentalist vs. industrialist, principled leader vs. party loyalist, truthteller vs. equivocator

  4. J'hon Doe II
    May 17, 2016 at 18:48


    What do neocons and neolibs have in common…?

    Hillary has strong traits of both while Trump is a stripe-changing lizard.

    The question is, how do we fund our neocon wars while continuing tax cuts for neolib corporatists ?

    The answer is AUSTERITY!

    A crucial realism is that Bernie Sanders represents the last gasp for a rapidly dying “We The People.”

    Ahead lies the zoo of a Dickens-Thatcher/Huxley-Reagan authoritarian dystopia of urban jungles and defunded homeless shelters in American suburbia. (Imagine us as Palestinians under the guns of Israeli Netanyahu soldiers in the “outdoor prison”of Gaza.)

  5. TellTheTruth-2
    May 17, 2016 at 15:22

    WAR MONGER Hillary Clinton as President would be a national nightmare!

    • MarkU
      May 18, 2016 at 05:14

      National nightmare is putting it too gently, she would be a nightmare for the whole planet!

  6. Steve Naidamast
    May 17, 2016 at 14:40

    Actually Sanders and Stein do have dissimilar positions on certain issues.

    For example, Sanders has not said one word how he would reduce the military budget since he almost always votes to support it along with his support for their wars.

    From what I understand, Jill Stein would break down the military to where it should be.

    Sanders is also a Zionist, which would put him at direct odds with Stein who is not and she has made consistent statements that she would favor the Palestinians in her dealings with Israel.

    • TellTheTruth-2
      May 17, 2016 at 15:23

      That’s a worse nightmare than Clinton … they slip Communist/Zionist Bernie Sanders in on us.

    • Jaime Ramirez
      May 17, 2016 at 21:11

      Of the 22 or so original candidates to the major parties, Sanders was clearly 1 of the 2 most pacifist candidates (the other being Rand Paul). His votes to fund wars have been based on making sure our people going to battle have enough equipment & support: he always puts our people first, & been a firm supporter of our veterans.

      Bernie also is among the least Zionist & most critical of Israel of all the original candidates.

      He just hasn’t put that much emphasis on these issues as his other passions, since he’s careful not to unduly alarm the powerful military industrial complex, which already has enough trouble with his positions on domestic issues.

      People just love to criticize him because he’s not pure enough, even though he’s the best on these issues you’re ever likely to get from either party of the corporatist/militaristic Duopoly.

  7. J'hon Doe II
    May 17, 2016 at 12:03

    The dismantling of world peace and freedom by (a) neoconservatives, whose credo is Military Power and (b) neoliberals, whose religion is Economic Power calls for a serious recognition of the roots of these ideological monstrosities.

    The first step in disease cure is study of the chemical/biological construct of the malignancy.

    Neocons and Neolibs are as insidious parasites feeding themselves destructively on the earth and humanity — these IDEOLOGIES must be defeated. First step for insurgence is total understanding of their reasoning/mentality.

  8. Bob Van Noy
    May 17, 2016 at 10:37

    Once again Robert Parry accurately describes our current political situation. Mr. Parry, like myself, recognizes a similar Democratic Party fracture between anti-war democrats and status quo democrats represented by the Hillary supporters. I will go a bit further though and point out that Nixon, being advised by the likes of Roger Ailes politically, and the assembly of what would formally become CREEP, came up with the very heart of Republican political philosophy, and that is: the wedge issue. The wedge, for Republicans, is what they do. It has been perfected by Karl Rove who has made a career of its use. They very successfully in 1968, separated the student peace movement from the blue collar Union working class by propaganda. It was a master stroke by a master politician, and a new kind of cynicism that America hadn’t experienced before.Much Nixon’s terrible team remains in the background, thanks to President Ford’s pardon, and still is working its deception.

  9. Nicetry
    May 17, 2016 at 09:33

    I am curious how the current technologically-sapped attention span of the “Average American Voter” is going to affect this election.

    I think a large part of the problem is that of the people who do manage to register to vote, are there more than a few of them who are willing to truly engage the hard truths about “Our Candidate” and rebel against their established party?

    I hope that the average voter will remember that our beliefs and values when it comes to WAR are vastly more important than social issues like who can use what restroom at the mall.

    We are talking about obliterating millions of people’s way of life, having them tortured, disfigured, permanently disabled, and killed. It’s incredible to me that we rationalize that someone’s stance on WAR is equally important to how they feel about what kids eat for lunch at school.

  10. Peter Loeb
    May 17, 2016 at 09:14


    I don’t agree with you all. That’s (almost) not the point.
    Many of you have so much to say.Thanks.

    —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA USA

  11. Peter Loeb
    May 17, 2016 at 07:38


    This is the essay Robert Parry was born to write, In it we turn
    our focus from political “events” of today and last week
    (many fabricated by all sides) to options in the future.Much
    based on prediction of probable future facts, This article has
    a strong basis in past electoral history. The probable
    results can be expressed in many ways but Parry has done
    a magnificent job. Indeed this focus on likely future
    political and geopolitical realities is the manner we should
    begin to think. These are the paths with which we contend.

    The appropriate response may be—ho hum!–another
    demonstration. Along with Gabriel Kolko in his epilogue
    and Radicalism”) more vital is a comprehension of how
    the system works which is to say —FAILS to work.

    (Full disclosure: This writer refuses to vote for either H. Clinton
    or D. Trump in November. With Robert Parry’s continued
    informative and perceptive articles I will engage the”victor”
    when appropriate. Meanwhile I continue to engage
    in as deep education and analysis of the past as I can
    afford. I refuse to support so-called “red-blooded”
    Americans which to my way of thinking are “world bloodied”

    Once more, deepest thanks to R. Parry and hoping for
    more inciteful analyses.

    —Peter Loeb, Boston,MA, USA

  12. Evan
    May 17, 2016 at 07:36

    I recall that in the Vietnam War, there was something called a “draft,” which helped galvanize anti war sentiment, as people witnessed the large numbers of vets flying home in bags. Now there are fewer US casualties, and they are people who voluntarily enlisted. Also, the mainstream media is under much better control today, and e-voting computers are more hackable. A successful popular revolt within the Democratic Party is much more difficult today than in the past.

    Such opposition can also be easily suppressed by another 9/11 “Reichstag Fire” style event.

    • Jaime Ramirez
      May 18, 2016 at 01:45

      There are plenty of other reasons to oppose the establishment corporatist neolibs/neocons of the Democratic Party than just their military adventures. The real enemy of our democracy is the control of the military industrial complex (MIC) over government, media & society (remember, Ike warned of this 65 years ago). We need to focus our efforts on removing that control, which is to oppose every enabler of MIC, Republican & Democrat & media, & to support those who state their opposition to the MIC & corporate control over government in no uncertain terms (like Bernie & Jill both do). It is why global warming has become such an existential threat to our survivability. It is why wealth disparity has reached its greatest extent since the eve of the Great Depression. It is why our national debt has become unmanageably enormous. And why suppression of information on & no independent investigation of 9/11 has occurred to find out once & for all the real causes & perpetrators of that tragedy. And on & on…

  13. exiled off mainstreet
    May 17, 2016 at 02:15

    After the Nevada fiasco, Sanders should consider seeking the Green Party nomination (following the California primary). It is obvious that the Clinton machine won’t relinquish control even if they are defeated, and there is enough evidence of fraud for Sanders to say they didn’t play fair, so I can choose to continue on as an independent. For those who say Trump would be worse, I say, preposterous. The Clintons have set a standard for corruption which can scarcely be matched. It reveals the degeneration of the yankee imperium into a miasma of banana republic style corruption.
    Realistically, on the issues, Trump is taking the popular position opposed to the extra-legal “trade” agreements which export jobs and eliminate health, safety and environmental regulations by allowing corporate arbitrators to sideline the rule of law. Can Clinton’s claim to now be opposed after she had described such extra-legal corporate sellouts as “the gold standard?” On militarism, Trump seems less dangerous than Clinton, who has advocated no-fly zones in favor of terrorists destroying civilization in Syria. In Libya, Clinton was the war criminal who spearheaded the illegal US overthrow of that country. As Mr. Parry documented in a posting earlier this year, Clinton’s terrorists engaged in a mass murder of Africans settled in Libya as a result of Khaddafi’s pan-Africanist views. Once this becomes common knowledge, as it inevitably will once Trump brings up this issue, Hillary’s firewall which has enabled her to survive, unquestioning loyalty of the less sophisticated elements of the minority population, will vanish since voting for her after her connection to this mass-murder has been revealed would be inconsistent with the dignity of those voters.
    On pensions, Trump has indicated no cuts in Social Security. Clinton, the wife of the man who was prevented by the Monica Lewinski scandal from being the first to suggest hiving Social Security off to Wall Street parasites, cannot be trusted on this issue. The fact is the Clintons are carrying the baggage of decades of corruption, militarism and fraud. They are simply unacceptable at this point in history.

  14. delia ruhe
    May 17, 2016 at 01:08

    A party crackup might be the answer to the habit the Dems have got into of papering over the fact that for years they have been campaigning Left and governing Right, as Obama has amply demonstrated. In fact, they could probably go on forever in that mode, and many registered Democrats among the electorate would continue to fall for it.

    I will have to take Robert Parry’s word for it that the crackup will be along the pro/anti-war fault line. While I, too, expect Hillary to start a new war in the Middle East — and it’ll fairly likely be against Iran, given that Bibi is her heart’s current longing — I have misread Dems several times in the past on the question of more war. I wouldn’t count on the supposedly anti-war types to have a problem with it.

    If it is indeed Iran, it won’t take much to reduce the JCPOA to dust: a couple well-placed lies out of the White House should do it. How she will handle the other members of the P5+1 could be interesting to watch — or it could be a yawn, given that they’re all Washington vassals, who were only along for the optics in the first place.

    Anyway, something has to badly shake up Washington and the whole political system. It might just as well start with an earthquake under the useless Democrat Party.

  15. Stephen Sivonda
    May 17, 2016 at 00:43

    All that Mr. Parry says is exactly as I feel about it. Right down to possibly voting for Trump. Get the damn Neocons the hell out of politics….forever.

  16. May 17, 2016 at 00:31

    (quote) If the Democratic Party presses ahead and nominates hawkish Hillary Clinton for President, it could recreate the conditions that caused the party to splinter in the late 1960s and early 1970s when anti-war and pro-war Democrats turned on one another and opened a path for decades of Republican dominance of the White House. (end quote)

    Overall I agree. However, I would point out that – if we are talking about the White House and not Congress – since 1960 there have been 28 years of Democrats and 28 years of Republicans in the White House. Since 1976, there have been 20 years of Democrats and 20 years of Republicans in the White House. And since 1992, there have been 16 years of Democrats and 8 years of Republicans.

    • Jaime Ramirez
      May 18, 2016 at 01:23

      Yeah, I think this idea of decades of Republican rule is ludicrous, considering what a patently demonstrable failure their policies have been & their inability to come up with new ones, and the fact that their party seems to be disintegrating simultaneously. As I look around, I think the numbers are with the anti-establishment progressives, & that is the contingent that’s growing, because of the vast majority of millennials & younger going in that direction, because that is the direction of their only hope for a sustainable future.

  17. Lance Jobson
    May 16, 2016 at 23:59

    Neo-con or paleo-con, they’re both war mongering criminals in the employ of the military-industrial-security complex. They run interference for and provide the violent strategy of military force for their New World Order across the globe.

    The Remedy: Massive civil disobedience in protest and to demand a shut-down to the fossil fuel industry, wars for oil and gas resources, ecological destruction and global warming caused by burning fossil fuels and endless wars for control of diminishing resources. The U.S. Empire’s war machine must be stopped.

  18. jo6pac
    May 16, 2016 at 22:02

    I’m in Calli and I will vote for bernie in the pre-election then Green in Show Time. The Lesser of 2 Evils is Still F$$$$$$ Evil.

  19. Dennis Rice
    May 16, 2016 at 21:18

    “The Establishment is running out of schemes.” Gerald Celente

    We are witnessing a political revolution against both parties. Americans are fed up with “Business as Usual.

    And whether it is the Republican’s unwilling choice of Donald Trump or the Democratic Establishment’s choice of Hillary Clinton, the mainstream media continues to call for Bernie Sanders to get in line behind Hillary Clinton, when in actuality it is the Democratic Establishment that should get in line behind Bernie Sanders, who can beat Donald Trump more handily than Hillary Clinton can.

  20. F. G. Sanford
    May 16, 2016 at 20:47

    The incessant voting “strategies” – which really amount to variations on the “lesser evil” theme – have been beaten to death deader than Ralph Cramden trying to play “Carnival of Venice” on his old cornet. It’s time for a new tune. Here’s the reality. The ONLY viable threat to the status quo – and it MUST be a real threat in order to work – is a pledge to vote “Trump” if the Democratic Party nominates Hillary Clinton. Before you balk, think about the realities. And believe me, I’m no Republican. I’ve only ever given cash money to two political candidates, and they were both Jewish Democrats. Trump will be a weak, malleable and indecisive leader who worries constantly about his “ratings”. His cabinet will be composed of a motley assortment of sycophants, none of whom will collectively subscribe to a contiguous ideology. Every liberal watch group, alternative media source, consumer advocacy agency and civil rights organization in the country will undergo a nearly immediate crystallization, calibration and coordination of their efforts to achieve “good government”. It’s the only way to bring on the collective will to produce a reincarnation of the Church Committee hearings, the Assassination Records Review Board, Watergate hearings, and a slew of other needed investigations followed by appropriate prosecutions. These, of course, would be “updated” to deal with the transgressions foisted upon the American people during the past fifteen years. Trump has no vested interest in preserving the prevailing mythology, and opposing such initiatives would hurt his “ratings”. Hillary, on the other hand, is an established prevaricator with a long track record as a “deep state” sellout and a quid pro quo operative in the ongoing strategy to protect the duopoly. She’ll “look forward, not backward”, insure that the critical players receive pardons where needed, and squash every attempt to achieve real reform. She will curb any potential indictments, investigations or reform initiatives. Sorry, folks, but a vote for Jill Stein is a wasted vote. So is a vote for Hillary Clinton. Want real change? Vote for Bernie if he gets the nomination, or vote for Trump. I’m not sure where Webster Tarpley is coming from with his incessant fear-mongering about Donald Trump. I’m starting to think maybe he’s the one with early onset Alzheimer’s Disease. Hillary is far more dangerous, and unless the DNC finally perceives her to be unelectable, she could be the next – and in the advent of war with Russia, the last – President of The United States of America.

    P.S.: Why is it that I can now only read the other comments if I click on the “Leave a Reply” button? Something very odd…

    • Joe Tedesky
      May 16, 2016 at 23:23

      So, are you suggesting that a Trump presidency will push the American public towards the left, or at least back to some kind of semblance of sanity? I will confess, how I am at the point of possibly voting with principle, and throwing my vote away, because I don’t wish to suffer from any guilt because I voted for an American anti-Christ. I too think Webster Tarpley maybe taking his Trump fearmongering a little to far, but seeing police put up riot barricades to coral the anti-Trumpsters is disconcerting to no end. I will say this, if it were only between Hillary and the Donald, why I’d vote for the Donald twice. Once for Trump, and the second vote, because Hillary probably hacked my first vote for herself.

      • dahoit
        May 17, 2016 at 11:50

        I believe Trump to be ideologically free,a most welcome turn of events,especially with Zionism dominating America.

    • Zachary Smith
      May 17, 2016 at 23:23

      P.S.: Why is it that I can now only read the other comments if I click on the “Leave a Reply” button? Something very odd…</blockquote?

      For a brief while that worked for me, but recently I must actually write a short "reply" or wait until the thread ages quite a lot, at which time all the comments appear.

    • Jaime Ramirez
      May 18, 2016 at 01:17

      Only 40% of the electorate has said they are willing to vote for either Hillary or Trump, & this is before the general election when you know they’ll tear each other to pieces & drive each other’s favorability ratings even further down into record negativity. The vast majority is up for grabs, & I believe a majority of them would be willing to vote for Bernie. Therefore I strongly urge us to pressure Bernie into running 3rd Party for the good of the nation. He has every reason to, considering how shabbily he’s been treated by the Democratic Party & how contrary to his set of principles either a presidency by Hillary or by Trump would be. We are at a point where we can’t afford to continue as we have for the past 3 1/2 decades or experiment with a megalomaniac who has no idea how to run a country. I do think Bernie could win. But it’ll take a lot of people power to support him & to support & inform each other. We have more power than we realize when we use it effectively.

    • Brad Owen
      May 18, 2016 at 04:28

      Tarpley can best answer for himself, but He holds a Doctorate in History, especially economic history (speaks several languages too, including Latin, I think). His World Crisis radio show is predicated upon the observation that the World Crisis is frankly a Fascist one. He sees the Trump phenomena as corresponding to the situation in Germany circa 1929-32. He has an excellent program to stop the World Depression underway. He’s a Dirigist. He’ll be speaking at the Left Forum in NYC some time this month. We’ll be able to view the results of it, on his website

  21. Realist
    May 16, 2016 at 20:08

    You didn’t include me in your poll of anti-war Democrats, Robert, but if you had, I would’ve told you that we cannot wait through four years of escalating hot and cold wars with Russia and China to get rid of Killary in 2020 and teach the Democratic Party a lesson it should have learned in 1968. Voting for Jill Stein or writing in Bernie Sanders on your ballot will not deprive Killary of winning in 2016. To do that enough people have to vote for a candidate with a realistic chance to beat her. The only such person right now is Donald Trump. Right now Obomber and the Democrats are so crazed with war fever than I’d vote to insert Trump or whatever VIABLE candidate would end all these wars immediately. Unfortunately, no one but Trump has presented himself or herself in such a capacity. When the Green Party (or the Libertarian Party) has won ANY election for a public office perhaps they can be taken seriously, but not yet. Yes, that is sad, but true.

    • Jaime Ramirez
      May 18, 2016 at 01:05

      We should no longer abide by the 2 party system that has been forced on us. We must vote against the corporatist Duopoly.

      Only 40% of the electorate is willing to vote for either Hillary or Trump (an average of 20% each). That means the majority is up for grabs, & I believe a majority of that majority would be happy to vote for Bernie. By my calculations, the ratio of people who prefer to vote Bernie:Hillary:Trump if those were the 3 choices is about 3:2:2, or in percentage terms about 42:28:28.

      Bernie lost badly to Clinton in Georgia, yet polls taken over the weekend show Trump beating Hillary by 4% & Bernie beating Trump by 5%. Same story for Ohio & Arizona, other states in which Hillary walloped Bernie. Bernie also beats Trump by a wider margin than Hillary’s 1 point margin in Pennsylvania & Florida, 2 other states Hillary beat Bernie soundly in the primaries.

      With all the ways the primaries have been rigged for Hillary & against Bernie, there’s plenty of justification for Bernie not to support her & to run 3rd Party (the Green Party is offering to put Bernie at the head of their ticket with Jill Stein). All of us who are tired of this rigged economy & these rigged elections should try to make it happen. And failing this, either vote for Jill Stein or write in Bernie’s name. And keep on supporting minor parties & independents against the corporatist Duopoly, & build a new party of anti-corporate environmentalist progressives or form a coalition of existing progressive minor parties with independents & Bernie supporters fleeing the Democratic Party. Meanwhile the establishment & anti-establishment factions of the Republican Party are likely to soon split for good as well.

  22. Brad Owen
    May 16, 2016 at 19:32

    You are right Mr. Parry. The crack-up of both Rs and Ds is fast approaching. People tend to think things will go on as they always have…until things stop going on as they always have. It’s like that Tsunami that swept through the Indian Ocean 10 or so years ago. Everyone saw the vids on Youtube…people on their vacations, at some resort hotel on some island paradise, lounging around the pool, like what’s been done a thousand times before…then the tide comes in…and in…and in…and they are all swept away by the raging waters. It’s like all the contingency plans the National Security Establishment had for the ongoing Soviet/Warsaw Pact threat projected out for decades…then in 2 or 3 years it all VANISHES before our eyes. There are such things as dramatic DISCONTINUITIES that disrupt smoothly-flowing timelines, and we’re getting caught up in one, IMO. I can’t believe people seriously entertain stopping Mr. White-Trash Billionaire, who’s just seeking to join the Wall Street Billionaire’s Club, with Mrs. Loyal Servant to said Club, OR vice versa, and they’re all just seeking to protect their Money Rackets, their War Rackets, and their other, lucrative Rackets, AT OUR EXPENSE, when WE are expected to bail THEIR sorry asses out, when they make dumb-ass decisions. Either Sanders, and if he falters or falls, then Stein and the Greens; either one represents the revived New Deal, AND FDR’s economic Bill of Rights…THIS “Train-of-Thought” has been derailed for FAR too long (in an effort to revive the previous Robber Baron Era), and it’s time to get it back on TRACK.

  23. May 16, 2016 at 19:31


    I doubt we will have the time for these 4-years-from-now prognostications to materialize.

    ONE way the US could quickly devolve into martial law–which i insist “our” leadership wants– is if one or both of “our” national political conventions devolve into violence just months from now—a thing I expect WILL happen.

    I honestly think we have got to abandon our nobles-oblige entirely re these future American nuances as tho the World waits upon us and our cuteness and entitled view of ourselves……..POLITICAL OR ECONOMIC EVENTS WILL SHOVE OUR BACKS TO THE WALL AND VERY SOON imho, and at this point I am discouraged enough to want it. Bring it on!

    2LT Dennis Morrisseau USArmy [ Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR retired.
    POB 177 W Pawlet, VT 05775
    802 645 9727 [email protected]

  24. Pablo Diablo
    May 16, 2016 at 19:27

    I cannot vote for Hillary. If it’s not Bernie, it will be Jill Stein. I’ve never missed a vote, but I’ve never voted for the lesser of two evils. After I voted for Shirley Chisholm, I realized, better to vote Independent than vote for someone I don’t believe in. At least, it lets the two parties know I didn’t like either “lesser”, but still cared enough to vote. Trump says Putin is an intelligent man and we should work together. Hillary just wants to build that pipeline across Syria and continue USA corporate dominance.

    • Jaime Ramirez
      May 17, 2016 at 21:27

      My first presidential vote ever was cast for Shirley Chisholm. I, too, have voted 3rd party or independent much of the time. I also will vote for neither Hillary nor Trump. It’s probably either writing in Bernie or voting for Jill.

      The Green Party, by the way, is making overtures to the Bernie camp to have him on their ticket in the lead position with Stein as his running mate, & based on how shabbily & unfairly Bernie’s been cheated, I’m hoping he’ll go for it. After all, 1 of his longtime goals has been to reduce the power of the Duopoly & increase the power of minor parties, & this would be a grand opportunity to accomplish just that. If enough of us encourage his team to do that, it just might happen. It would be doing the American public a great service, since 60% have expressed their unwillingness to vote for either Hillary or Trump, while I think a majority of that pool would be willing to vote for Bernie. I don’t see a Sanders 3rd party run as harming Hillary more than Trump, & I think there’s even a chance he could win, given public sentiment this time around.

  25. Kenneth Fingeret
    May 16, 2016 at 19:19

    Hello Robert Parry and Everyone,
    What I am forecasting is the total disintegration of the Democratic Party (not sure of the time frame) with the majority of them moving to their real parties the Republicans plus others on the right wing. The rest will either form a new party and or move into established parties on the left.

    • Jaime Ramirez
      May 17, 2016 at 21:19

      I expect the sequence to be thus:
      Sanders supporters leave the Democratic Party in droves & collaborate with independents and/or progressive minor parties to form a new party or coalition which will rival the major parties. There will be a battle royale between establishment & anti-establishment Republicans. If Trump & anti-establishment members can maintain their hold on the party, the establishment Republicans could move over to the even more corporatist Democratic Party. Then we’ll have 1 purely corporatist (& also militaristic) party, 1 progressive/socialist/environmentalist party, & 1 or more parties representing anti-establishment elements of the Republican Party. It’s also possible we’d have Cruzian religious fundamentalists in 1 party as well.

  26. Michael K Rohde
    May 16, 2016 at 17:46

    Our foreign policy since Iraq 2 has been more or less administered per the wishes of the right wing in Israel. Does anything else need to be said in this regard as far as explaining American behavior in the Middle East?

    • Abbybwood
      May 17, 2016 at 14:34

      When we stand in the voting booth come November 8th of this fall, whether we gaze at the name Clinton or Trump what should jump out at all of us will be the name Bibi Netanyahu, cause that is who we will be electing.

      I won’t vote for Gary Johnson because I don’t support his agenda. I may have to vote for Jill Stein as a protest vote.

      But until then I am awaiting the primary results today from Oregon and Kentucky. Then I will vote for Sanders on June 7th in the California primary and keep hoping and praying FBI Director James Comey has a spine and some guts (and the hard evidence) to bring an indictment against Hillary Rodham Clinton.

      The Super delegates, come late July, will NEVER be able to nominate her then and Sanders will get the nomination and he will easily beat Trump.

      Then the Neocons can go straight to hell where they all belong.

      • GM
        May 17, 2016 at 19:43

        Coney has no authority to indict or not indict Clinton. It’s up to the AG to which Clinton has very close ties. ie: her campaign manager is a former Justice official and the AG formerly worked for a law firm that represented the Clintons. At most it is within the scope of Comey’s authority to recommend charges…or to recommend against.

  27. Jeanine Hull
    May 16, 2016 at 17:44

    I have been a huge fan of Robert Parry’s for years, but i fear he is becoming unhinged with his specious and unremitting attacks on Clinton. i have been extremely unhappy with her support for military interventions, not only in syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, but also Ukraine and Libya. Who knows where else she saw a need for force but was not successful. So yes, she has a history of war-mongering. And that was why i didn’t immediately jump on the HIllary bandwagon several months ago. But since that time two things have happened. We have seen Obama turn into the president we all wanted for the previous 7 years–freed from the obligation to toe the line of his donors, he is speaking up and speaking out more authentically. Likewise, Clinton’s hawkishness has become similarly reduced, and her natural inclination to diplomacy has taken higher precedence in her responses. She has had to protect her left flank against spurious attacks about being ‘soft.’ i think she may be finding her authentic voice which is a blend of toughness and diplomacy as necessary. I want the Sanders supporters and Hillary supporters who are less trigger-happy, like me, to provide the bulwark she will need to withstand republican challenges of being too ‘soft,’ She has proven she is not soft. Now she needs to prove that she is no Dr. Strangelove. I believe that she is a reasonable person who doesn’t want anyone stuck in a pointless war. She saw what happened in Iraq–she is not going repeat history. I trust her to calibrate and deliberately balance the need for strength with power and diplomacy. I know Parry doesn’t–that’s his right. We won’t know until she is elected and tested. The one thing i do know, is that Donald Trump will only care about how big his fingers are, and if he has to bomb to prove that they’re as big as putin’s, that’s what he’ll do. We do not get to design our perfect candidates. We get to chose from what the wisdom of american voters and billionaires provide us. I will take Hillary any day over the crazy man who only cares about himself. And if Parry cared about the world, he would think about this before writing this kind of specious nonsense again.

    • Curious
      May 17, 2016 at 14:52


      Your comment was an interesting example of a politician in full ‘C.Y.A.’ mode to get as many ears as possible during an election cycle. If you are convinced she can change her stripes I believe that is a fantastic leap of imagination. You mention Iraq and how “she will not repeat history” Have you taken just a little time to look into Libya, Honduras, Syria, the coup in Ukraine with her surrogate Nuland, the background effort in Afghanistan, just to name a few of her blood curdling vampire games.

      If she “saw what happened in Iraq” how do you validate, or defend the rest of her ploys? One look at her laughing over the sodomy and murder of a Libyan leader should make you vomit. Libya had the highest standard of living in all of Africa, as in, free education, ample housing, and a very good record with educating women, far more than our own US of A. But she pulls an Albright (it was all worth it, the killing of thousand of children) and says it was all worthwhile to take down one man who had the audacity to go away from the US oil dollar along with other anti US “policies”.

      The safe zones in Syria will only back her own evil and financially supported terrorists in order to somehow make Syria a US puppet. Assad is just an aside.

      She is dripping in blood and the informed know this aspect of her gyrations. Just ask the neocons who are jumping ship if you disagree.

      She is as bloody as any politician can get around the world, and she should be feared, not defended. Since when is it ok to kill hundreds of thousands of human beings for some agenda that is deep within her. Just remember, since the US can only talk about people smiling (as if that’s a gift), a shark has a very big smile just before it eats you. Hillary is a shark covered in blood of the innocent.

    • Oliver
      May 18, 2016 at 04:13

      Thank you jeanine , I agree with your opinions . Hillary hatred / demonisation(assuming always she is fundamentally evil or wicked) is distorting some writers normally more astute perception .It’s possible to see others in shades of grey and not black and white . Too many people forget that .

    • May 19, 2016 at 12:01

      “She saw what happened in Iraq–she is not going [to] repeat history.” – but the fact is she already has, in Honduras (by proxy), Libya and Syria — your arguments are filled with internal inconsistencies and (unwitting?) blindness. With all due respect, you seem to be the epitome of the old cliche – “my mind’s made up – don’t confuse me with the facts.”

  28. Larry
    May 16, 2016 at 17:26

    You know, Mr. Parry, I completely agree with you on literally everything and have for years and years (and more years), and I’ve learned tons and tons of both broad and nuanced information from your reporting and your perspective, and I have been and will continue to be sincerely grateful for you and your work. Your work has been life-changing for the better for me and many, many others.

    But now I think this article of yours today and other recent handwringing about the Dems is ‘Way too much ado about something real enough but still barely tethered sensationalism’.

    I don’t really understand the panic. I guess I’m counting on Projected Cartoon Hillary being More Realpolitick Hillary once in office. Also, she could lose every voter in the country who actually counts themselves as truly progressive and no-holds-barred antiwar, and she’d more than make up the difference with the women’s and other anti-Trump voter turnout.

    Not Every Democratic Voter Feels As Intensely As You And I Do About Keeping The Peace In The World In The Exact Way We Both Prefer It To Be Kept.

    And if we’re building Alamos in Latvia and wherever else, it doesn’t mean there’ll have to be a San Jacinto. We made it to Gdansk and Solidarity and The Great Berlin Wall Fall once and survived Reagan once and can do it again in its current Trumpian form. Maybe pull back a wee bit enough from each negative possibility to relieve the slight bit of Worry Myopia that seems to have come over so many loyal and diehard Dem perspectives.

    Obviously I hope I’m right. If not, my eternal apologies in advance!

  29. Charles
    May 16, 2016 at 17:24

    R. Parry says, “some prominent Republicans, especially from the neocon camp, are unalterably opposed to Trump’s election in November, fearing that he will turn the GOP away from them and toward an “America First” perspective that would repudiate “regime change” interventions favored by Israel.”

    Sheldon Adelson’t willingness to spend $100M to elect Trump should dispel this notion. If Adelson finds Trump superior to Clinton, who has been totally subservient to the Netanyahu government, it’s pretty clear that anyone with the Republican label is ok.

    • dahoit
      May 17, 2016 at 11:45

      Adelson can’t give Trump 100 million,its illegal.
      I think Adelson is stirring the pot to get those who dislike the Zionists confused.
      Divide and conquer.
      A different tact than the usual demonization by the ZioMSM.

  30. Bill Cash
    May 16, 2016 at 16:37

    I have the same concerns but things are different this time. Hillary might get us into more wars but so might Trump. Adelson is now supporting Trump so we know Netanyahu wins with either Drumpf or Hillary.
    Climate change is a sure thing. It is happening and will continue to happen. Hillary believes it and wants to do something about it. Trump, I think in his latest belief, doesn’t believe in it and wants to abolish the EPA. I will fight Hillary on her warlike behaviour and Trump if he listens to those advisors which I believe is where he’ll turn. Adelson’s support is a pretty sure indicator.

    Let’s turn Trump back into Drumpf Then try to say Dump Drumpf 5 times quickly.

    • J'hon Doe II
      May 16, 2016 at 17:24

      Trump, crazy like a fox???

      “Print the Money”: Trump’s “Reckless” Proposal Echoes Franklin and Lincoln

      Posted on May 14, 2016 by Ellen Brown


      “Print the money” has been called crazy talk, but it may be the only sane solution to a $19 trillion federal debt that has doubled in the last 10 years. The solution of Abraham Lincoln and the American colonists can still work today.

      “Reckless,” “alarming,” “disastrous,” “swashbuckling,” “playing with fire,” “crazy talk,” “lost in a forest of nonsense”: these are a few of the labels applied by media commentators to Donald Trump’s latest proposal for dealing with the federal debt. On Monday, May 9th, the presumptive Republican presidential candidate said on CNN, “You print the money.”

      The remark was in response to a firestorm created the previous week, when Trump was asked if the US should pay its debt in full or possibly negotiate partial repayment. He replied, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.” Commentators took this to mean a default. On May 9, Trump countered that he was misquoted:

      People said I want to go and buy debt and default on debt – these people are crazy. This is the United States government. First of all, you never have to default because you print the money, I hate to tell you, okay? So there’s never a default.

      That remark wasn’t exactly crazy. It echoed one by former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who said in 2011:

      The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default.

    • dahoit
      May 17, 2016 at 11:43

      The EPA doesn’t protect the environment.It is a sham agency,doing the work for Big Business.Ask the Navaho.Ask West Virginians.
      It started out well,but has been co opted like every other govt agency.

  31. Paul Donham
    May 16, 2016 at 16:21

    What is important for Bernie is to always encourage young people to REGISTER TO VOTE. I don’t see or hear him saying this. My bet is that many young Bernie supporters are not registered. He should hit colleges hard.

  32. Adele Roof
    May 16, 2016 at 16:17

    You’re spot on with this analysis. I have always ended up voting for the Democratic candidate, but this year, if it’s Clinton, I will not be able to do that and live with my conscience. She’s a warmonger, and her pandering to Netanyahu is sickening and also terrifying. I keep praying for a miracle before it’s too late, such as Bernie’s winning by a landslide the rest of the primaries, or the FBI finding something reprehensible in one of her e-mails.

    • Kiza
      May 16, 2016 at 23:37

      You can be absolutely sure that FBI has found plenty of both top secret and reprehensible (about her self-enriching “charity”) in her emails. But FBI is her protection detachment, it took this investigation to control it and castrate it. I am now sure that nobody is above the law, unless the corrupt and nepotistic elite is behind this nobody such as the Clintonts.

  33. Joe Tedesky
    May 16, 2016 at 15:43

    I wish that Bernie would switch over to the Green Party. Commenters on this site, have made a great case for how it would be beneficial if we were to elevate a third party into American politics. I, at this point in time, am planning to write in Bernie Sanders. I realize, how by voting for the third candidate, by some people’s standards, is like throwing your vote away, but I need to live with myself as well. Trump says some provocative things that I like, but he also goes so far off the rails with his race baiting, that I shudder to where his racial rhetoric might take us all. Seriously, with all of what this country is already up to, I don’t think we need to escalate racial tension, anymore to what it already is. Many of us here on this comment board are discussed with Hillary’s e mail scandal, but why is her situation okay with the Democrate Party? Shouldn’t her disgard for security protocol be enough to disqualify her from being in the running? Reading how Eric Holder threw a fund raiser for Hillary, and how some employees at the Justice Department donated 75k to her campaign, doesn’t give one hope for seeing Hillary pay any consequence for her security breaches. The only good thing I have noticed as a result of this 2016 presidential campaign, is seeing America’s youth rally behind a old Jewish Progressive guy from Vermont. I’m hoping America’s future is our youth, with an agenda that includes fair treatment for all people, and not just for the one percent.

    • Erik
      May 16, 2016 at 17:02

      I too wish that he had chosen better, and presume that he chose some secondary position rather than lose, although that sacrifices all influence for his supporters.

      Progressives will do better to find a candidate who isn’t concealing a bias in the Mideast like Sanders, and has a better idea of the structural problems of control of elections and mass media by economic concentrations, and the dominance of administrations by military agencies. We are not limited to Jewish candidates like Sanders and Stein, who will suddenly forget vague positions on Israel after election. Commenters should propose real progressives for a third party.

      • Joe Tedesky
        May 16, 2016 at 22:29

        Erik, I don’t have a problem with voting for a candidate of Jewish decent, but I do have a problem voting for anyone who tows the Likud Zionist line of racism, which currently exist. Bernie, and Jill, both seem to at least show fairness, beyond what the Likud Zionist regime offers the beleaguered Palestintian’s who are now occupied, and suffering under Israeli rule. Appreciate, your input.

        • J. Zeigler
          May 17, 2016 at 13:14

          bullshit…Jews are just like the Muslims…will always have their agenda….it’s always Israel first…

          I actually live and work in Shanghai….the US is a bloody joke…

      • Zachary Smith
        May 17, 2016 at 23:18

        We are not limited to Jewish candidates like Sanders and Stein, who will suddenly forget vague positions on Israel after election.

        Stein represents a chance to “throw away” the Presidential part of a ballot, for she will never be elected. For the first time I looked up her stance on the Palestinians and – like you – found it vague. Since she’s not going to be listed in 2016 Indiana, none of this really matters to me.

        In this election cycle the Palestinians are screwed no matter who gets into the White House. So I must look at other issues.

        • TruthTime
          May 18, 2016 at 18:50

          Are you kidding? Jill Stein advocates giving no weapons or funding to the Israel Likud Nutty-yahoo government. The very weapons they use to kill, maim, and dehumanize a Native race in their biggest Open Air Concentration Camp on Earth.

    • Joe L.
      May 16, 2016 at 18:27

      Joe Tedesky… For me, I just don’t understand why people would write in Bernie Sanders name rather then simply shifting their vote to another Party with a similar premise. I think it would make much more sense to vote for someone like Jill Stein, who has a very similar platform to Bernie Sanders, rather than writing down Sanders name where the ballot will be completely dismissed and the mainstream media will never report about it. Instead, if Bernie Sanders supporters supported Jill Stein, who is in the race, then the vote would actually count – writing in Bernie Sanders, when he is not in the race, is “actually” throwing away your vote. It would be nice to see Bernie Sanders switch to run with Jill Stein and the Green Party – that would really change things. If people truly do believe in what Bernie stands for then what does it matter what Party someone comes from? I don’t understand the party loyalty where people identify themselves as Republican or Democrat? I am Canadian but I don’t identify myself as NDP, Liberal, Green, or Conservative. I try to vote for whom reflects my convictions best regardless of Party and my vote is my own and as long as I vote for anyone in the race then it is never a wasted vote (of the aforementioned parties, I have only not voted for the Conservatives). Cheers.

      • Joe Tedesky
        May 16, 2016 at 22:43

        Joe L, I always like reading your comments. The other day, on another post, I asked everyone how we could all coordinate ourselves, to vote on at least one of the third party candidates. Realizing how we would all have to either pick Bernie, or Jill, because if we all picked between one or the other, we would stretch the already thin margin out even further to the point of disappearance. As, you may have noticed, I am at least trying to put some thought into this process of picking a viable choice for the presidency. All, I can say, is it is good that this is May, and November is in round numbers six months away, so at least I have time to develop a plan. Be a good Canadian and help us all make a good pick.

        • Joe L.
          May 17, 2016 at 12:49

          Joe Tedesky… I also always like reading your comments because they give me hope for the United States. Well, I actually lived in the US for about 2 years and I don’t know how you guys don’t go insane with your incredibly “long” electoral process. Canada had it’s election last year and the election cycle was, I believe, the longest that we have ever had at “3 months” and I just changed the channel every time that some political commercial came on – I became sick of all of them. I can understand the US having a longer election cycle but US politicians were campaigning at the same time as our politicians from last year – no wonder why American elections need so much money.

          Joe Tedesky, I admit that I am a little scared of this US election because, just as a human being, I am so tired of these wars and looking at the refugee crisis that we caused or our governments did meanwhile our politicians point fingers in any direction that is not their own. I am afraid of both Trump and Clinton but I believe that Clinton is the bigger danger to the world. Even under Obama, who I actually had a lot of hope for early on, the wars have expanded and the US administration keeps flagrantly poking at Russia, China, Iran, North Korea etc. I would say that power is shifting in the world and if the US, and the west, keep poking at other nations then at some point there will be a strong response. Now I believe that Obama is an awful President but Clinton makes him look like a teddy bear. I just imagine if Clinton becomes President that we will be reading stories about Clinton saying that the Iranian’s are breaking their obligations, attaining WMD’s, and then threatening to invade them – history repeating itself.

          I really wish that I could vote in this election especially with how much the US effects the rest of the world but it is not my election and I can only hope that Americans see these two really bad choices and instead shift their vote to a third party. My belief is that if enough Americans voted for a third party, even if it did not win, that it would send a very chilling message to the establishment parties that their days are numbered if they don’t start listening to the American people instead of corporate and geopolitical interests. Anyway, it is your vote and I wish you guys all the luck in the world because it could very well dictate the future of the world for better or ill moreso than any election in my country. Cheers.

    • Joe L.
      May 16, 2016 at 18:32

      Joe Tedesky… one other thing that I would add, if Hillary is the Democratic Leader – is it not the perfect time for the American people to vote for a third party when both mainstream choices are awful and there really is no lesser of two evils? Einstein’s definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results – doesn’t that seem true for voting for either Democrats or Republicans at this point? It seems to me that both Republicans and Democrats always speak of change but it ends being much the same – war, corruption etc. Anyway, it is not my vote but I believe the only truly wasted vote would be for someone that is not even in the race!

      • May 16, 2016 at 21:05

        Joe L. – I agree. “It ends being much the same” because the foreign policy of the US was laid out (and is continually tactically updated by the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR]) even before the end of WWII. And US foreign policy is intimately linked with domestic economic policy, which boils down to protecting US dominance as the pre-eminent capitalist economy. But capitalism is now in crisis all over the so-called civilized world. A Bernie Sanders, as essentially a New Deal liberal, looks backward to REPAIR the problems capitalism has engendered – but those solutions will never be enacted because there is no real mass movement to change the rules of the game in terms of domestic economic policy as well as foreign policy, even in terms of turning things back to the way they were prior to 1975. Hillary Clinton (as Bill Clinton before her) has sold her soul to upholding the status quo as laid out by the CFR and the economic barons on Wall Street. Trump is not a stupid person but IS a member of the economic elite and therefore his vision is limited by that very membership and there is no where else to turn but what he knows – other members of the economic and foreign policy elite aka CFR, Wall Street, “private” solutions to public matters, etc.. We see this in his now beginning to turn away from the outrageous “policy” sound bites that got him all the free coverage from the capitalist MSM as well as the unable-to-connect-the-dots followers of a so-called “beholden-to-no-one multimillionaire”. Just remember: politics has always had to do with money and wealth – how they are gathered and how spent and who gets most of it – so in that sense, Trump has been and is no less a politician than Hillary Clinton, or Bernie Sanders, or any of the other Republican also-rans. Not only Hillary is a fraud – Trump and Bernie are too.

      • Joe Tedesky
        May 16, 2016 at 22:58

        Funny, true story; once when I was in eighth grade I couldn’t make up my mind who to vote for, for class president, so I voted for myself. I won by one vote, and I wasn’t even a candidate. My term in office suffered an almost scandal, when one girl in our class (one of the loser candidates) accused me of hanging with the kids who smoked cigarettes behind Waterway Plumbing….Sister, shut that down right away. Also, under my leadership our class accomplished a project which brought in 40k that year for the church carnival…back in 63 that was a boat load of money. And my dad found something else for me to do when Father offered to take us boys swimming, so it all worked out pretty good for me in that summer of 63, after all.

        • Joe L.
          May 17, 2016 at 13:58

          Gregory V. Driscoll, Joe Tedesky and everyone else… This is loosely related but one thing that came to mind while I am listening to music is where is all of the political music these days? I am 42 years old but I seem to remember the John Lennon (Imagine), CCR (Fortunate Son), Def Leppard (God’s of War), Black Sabbath (War Pigs), Genesis (Land of Confusion), Rage Against the Machine (Killing in the Name) etc. It just seems to me that this is a missing piece of the puzzle where most times I turn on modern music it just seems to talk about bling and really just unimportant things. I know this might seem somewhat off-topic but I do believe that it has relevance and maybe shows our level of distraction these days with our “stuff” rather then what our governments are doing in the world today. Just a thought…

    • jo6pac
      May 16, 2016 at 22:05

      As a poor member of the Green Party bernie needs to stay away, he’s the problem not the answer.

      • Joe Tedesky
        May 16, 2016 at 23:03

        I’m not against voting Green. I just want us all to vote for one of the two. Read my comment above.

    • David Smith
      May 17, 2016 at 10:31

      Sanders is a fake. A real socialist would make residential landlordism the core issue, it is how the poor pay for the middle class and Propertied Class. Sanders sole function is to get HRC into the White House, he has been running for Vice-Prez the whole primary. It will be a HRC/Sanders ticket, Sanders will back up HRC talking nice, they will win by a narrow margin, Republiscum will keep Congress. Lord Satan will smile.

      • David Smith
        May 18, 2016 at 12:55

        Watch your mouth Kent. If you disagree use sound terms in informal logic. It is natural for a “bot” to use fallacies, but fallacies don’t cut it

  34. Kent Bott
    May 16, 2016 at 14:39

    Count me in for providing absolutely NO support for $hillary Cheney Kissinger’s presidency!

  35. Sally Snyder
    May 16, 2016 at 14:24

    Here is an article that looks at a recent email from Hillary Clinton’s private server about the situation in Syria:

    This single email gives us an interesting glimpse into the connection between Hillary Clinton and the private sector players that drive America’s ongoing agenda in the Middle East.

    • Brad Benson
      May 16, 2016 at 15:27

      Interesting. Saved the link. Thanks!

Comments are closed.