Sen. Sanders Goes to Washington

Exclusive: A sampling of Bernie Sanders backers at a Washington D.C. rally found many ready to vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump but others still angry over how the Democratic establishment sabotaged their cause, reports Chelsea Gilmour.

By Chelsea Gilmour

At a Bernie Sanders rally ahead of Washington D.C.’s last-in-the-nation June 14 primary, I wanted to get a sense of how his supporters would vote in the fall with Hillary Clinton now the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Based on media accounts of how “unruly” Sanders supporters are supposed to be, I was, frankly, somewhat surprised by the number of attendees who said they would vote for Clinton, although this could partly stem from the fact that the rally on Thursday took place in Washington, D.C. which is, by definition, more comfortable with establishment politics.

A sign at a Bernie Sanders rally in Washington D.C. on June 9, 2016. (Photo credit: Chelsea Gilmour)

A sign at a Bernie Sanders rally in Washington D.C. on June 9, 2016. (Photo credit: Chelsea Gilmour)

Many stated they would have no problem voting for Clinton in the general election especially in contrast to the Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump. “I will vote for Hillary in the fall as a vote against Trump but also as a vote for Clinton,” said one young woman from Maryland.

“I have no qualms voting for Hillary Clinton,” said another young woman from D.C., but she added, “I think Sanders’s campaign has been very important to the country during this critical moment.”

“I’ll absolutely vote for Clinton in the fall,” said a government employee originally from Iowa and now residing in Virginia.

Some people were more hesitant about Clinton, such as Kevin Hensler from Maryland, who said he would vote for her, but less enthusiastically than he would vote for Sanders.

Others were not yet ready to commit to voting for Clinton. “I’m an Independent voter. I have a preference towards Hillary at this point but I’m undecided,” said a middle-aged government worker who was attending the event with his 14-year old son, Ryan.

Bernie Sanders supporters rally in Washington D.C. on June 9, 2016. (Photo credit: Chelsea Gilmour)

Bernie Sanders supporters rally in Washington D.C. on June 9, 2016. (Photo credit: Chelsea Gilmour)

“If I could vote, I would vote for Jill Stein [from the Green Party],” said Ryan. “I think the mainstream media and the DNC [Democratic National Committee] have done a very unfair job” of covering the Democratic primaries.

“I’m still undecided,” said a 22-year old man. “I think the media has not been fair towards Sanders. They showed a preference towards Clinton and Trump.”

Still others completely rejected the idea of voting for Clinton in November. “I would rather eat my own hand than cast a vote for Hillary Clinton, and you can quote me on that,” said Nikki Diamantopoulos from Baltimore County, Maryland.

A socialist since she was 17, Diamantopoulos said this was her first time getting actively involved in a presidential campaign. She started a Facebook group called Forward Movement to facilitate a nonpartisan civil discussion about political and social issues. She also designed a Bernie Sanders T-shirt which she gave away to people who made a donation to the Sanders campaign. Through this exchange, she helped raise $2,000-$3,000 in donations to Sanders.

Diamantopoulos said she has been verbally advocating for Sanders in her rural part of Baltimore County, where a number of her neighbors and family members are Republicans and Libertarians. Through open and civil conversations, she said she shared Sanders’s platform and many of her neighbors have switched to supporting him. If he were to get the nomination, her lifelong Republican mother has pledged she would vote for Sanders.

Although rejecting Clinton, Diamantopolous did not indicate whom she might favor in the fall, but she did not seem to support Trump either.

Revolutionary Change

One young man named Adam, who recently moved to D.C. from Virginia, told me that he would vote for Trump if Clinton becomes the nominee: “The way I see it, either Bernie fixes it, or Trump breaks it. I’d rather it be broken than continue on with the status quo under Hillary. … We need a change so people realize the system is broken.”

“My game plan in November is exactly the same as before [if Clinton takes the nomination] — I’m voting for Bernie Sanders,” said Sean Simmons, 27. “We fought to protect a democracy that isn’t even a democracy. … Maybe I’m being stubborn, but I couldn’t vote for any candidate who thinks it’s perfectly okay to cheat in elections. I know people who died for that.”

American flags at Bernie Sanders rally on June 9, 2016. (Photo credit: Chelsea Gilmour)

American and District of Columbia flags at a Bernie Sanders rally on June 9, 2016, in Washington D.C. (Photo credit: Chelsea Gilmour)

Sean said he would write in Sanders. He said he wouldn’t be badgered into voting for the so-called lesser-of-two evils, adding: “The American spirit is not one run by fear. This is a revolution — I’m not afraid.”

In a speech to the rally of several thousand supporters, Sanders repeated his warnings about income inequality and the need for fundamental change to put the government back on the side of the people. He also called for D.C. residents to turn out and vote in the primary on June 14.

“It would be extraordinary if the people of Washington, our nation’s capital, stood up and told the world that they are ready to lead this country into a political revolution,” Sanders said.

Sanders made no mention of his meeting with President Barack Obama earlier in the day or the President’s decision to endorse Hillary Clinton. That prompted Huffington Post to criticize Sanders’s speech for being “divorced from reality.”

But Sanders was making a larger point, that real change always happens from the bottom up, never from the top down — and requires commitment and determination: “What seems radical today will seem mainstream tomorrow, if we stand together and make those changes.” He referenced past fights for women’s suffrage and gay marriage and his current call for a $15 minimum wage, adding:

“What people also understand is that no president, not Bernie Sanders or anybody else, can do it alone. That what we need in this country are millions of people standing up, fighting back, and demanding a government that represents all of us, not just the one percent.”

While Sanders never mentioned Clinton by name, activist and academic Cornel West’s opening remarks alluded to the likely choice ahead: Clinton or Trump.

“In regard to this election, we know that brother Trump is a narcissistic neofascist,” West said. “And don’t let corporate media convince you that simply because you’re not crazy about the milquetoast neoliberal Sister Hillary that something’s wrong with you. But we know the difference between a neoliberal and a neofascist so you make your own decision.”

Other Sanders supporters looked at the bigger picture as they reflected on Sanders’s extraordinary campaign which excited millions of Americans, particularly young people. Ben Jealous, former president and CEO of the NAACP, said in his opening remarks, “The future of America is represented by Bernie Sanders and his run for the presidency.”

At several points during the rally, attendees started chants of “Bernie or Bust” and “Stay in the race.”

An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified Simmons as a veteran.

Chelsea Gilmour is an assistant editor at Consortiumnews.com. She has previously published “The Mystery of the Civil War’s Camp Casey”; “Jeb Bush’s Tangled Past.”; and “The Clintons’ Paid-Speech Bonanza.”]

70 comments for “Sen. Sanders Goes to Washington

  1. Shirley Smith
    June 14, 2016 at 11:49

    I want Bernie Sanders so bad, I just do not understand why people want Hillary Clinton, who will bow down to big money, and who knows what else behind closed doors. Trust should be in people’s minds, we have our sons and daughters in military and Trump or Clinton would love to start a war, in my opinion. Clinton is known to lie. What is it with people. Just because she is a woman should never be the only reason some women vote for her. A real shame for this country.

  2. June 13, 2016 at 00:29

    I’m afraid that’s what the “New Left” said in 1968 and it didn’t work. On the other hand, after five years and thousands more dead in Vietnam, Nixon was finally ALMOST impeached. And bear in mind, Nixon, although devious and conniving, he didn’t do 1/100th of the vile shit Hill & Bill have done. Although considered a right wing power mad oligarch in the early 70’s, by today’s standards Nixon would be a flaming liberal by comparison–that’s how bad things have gotten.

  3. Sebastian
    June 12, 2016 at 12:02

    Let me start by saying that I’ll never vote for a Clinton again! I’ll admit to voting for Bill one time and only once!

    I’m from Wisconsin and we have the Republican version of Clinton here as our Governor. Secret email system, everything cloaked in lies, double speak or some other cloak. Special deals for $ and making sure friends are taken care of.

    How it works is you find a scapegoat and keep bleating about them until the under informed masses get good and lathered up, then drop a big stinking pile of crap on them. Later, it all becomes clear how much everyone’s screwed, you restrict peoples access to information and to vote.

    Poor people understand too well surviving bad times, they don’t understand or believe it will ever get better. That’s why the vote for this lying hack who only cares about white privilege, So, yes, there’s not a dimes worth of difference between Clinton and Trump, save for how they operate. I’ll take mine straight up face to face and not in the back, thank you.

    • Wm. Boyce
      June 12, 2016 at 12:48

      “How it works is you find a scapegoat and keep bleating about them until the under informed masses get good and lathered up, then drop a big stinking pile of crap on them. Later, it all becomes clear how much everyone’s screwed, you restrict peoples access to information and to vote.”

      Correct.

      This is Mr. Trump’s pattern unfolding; the encouragement of violence from his followers, the contempt and denigration of women, “Mexicans,” journalists, judges who are presiding over cases in which he has a personal interest, etc. The red flags from this guy’s behavior are out in the open.

      I’ve heard that there is a group of right-wing radio talk show hosts who are opposing Mr. Trump. It would surprise me and would be a good thing, since many of them hold the same attitudes. Maybe Mr Johnson of the Libertarians will gaing ground and really throw things into doubt. This is 2016, who knows?

  4. M.
    June 11, 2016 at 14:25

    Isn’t Trump the “sheepdog” candidate for the Republicans?

    “Milquetoast” is hardly the adjective I would use to describe Hillary Clinton.

    What does Hillary Clinton mean when she says, “We’re ready to take our relationship to the next level.”? I can’t remember where I saw this. I think it was a link in a Consortium news article. Was it to AIPAC?

    Evil I and Evil II. Maybe they should run together. I’ve often wondered if Trump was asked to run by the Clintons.

    Jill Stein’s foreign policy makes the most sense, and it make the most economic sense. Thanks, Joe.
    Remember when she was shackled to a chair outside of Hofstra University in 2012 – to prevent her from being part of a debate. Wasn’t Debbie Wasserman Shultz the head of the DNC then?

    Stein and Sanders could be a possibility. I like what Scott Ritter had to say about the President being a visionary – see Mark Crispin Miller/Scott Ritter/Ray McGovern talk on eve of New York Primary — found on page 3 of Raymcgover.com. Sorry I need to learn how to do links. I liked what all three of them had to say about everything. I’ve listened to it many times and have encouraged many others to do so.

    Nice article. Interesting comments.

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 12, 2016 at 00:59

      If there were to be a Stein/Sanders ticket, I would like to see Jill as the our country’s first woman president, and Bernie as the humble self giving legislative experienced VP. Not only would this female male team be a first, but it would be great to see the American liberal Jew be represented by these two, for what that would be worth. Also, their Jewishness would be a terrific counterweight up against Netanyahu on so many levels that it would be impossible to make a good Antisemitism charge against them.

    • Abe
      June 12, 2016 at 13:40

      The Democratic Presidential Candidates
      on US Foreign Policy

      Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern with Mark Crispin Miller

      New York City – 17 April 2016 (right before NY primary)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rI5fGfl5OI

  5. M.
    June 11, 2016 at 14:18

    Isn’t Trump the “sheepdog” candidate for the Republicans?

    “Milquetoast” is hardly the adjective I would use to describe Hillary Clinton.

    What does Hillary Clinton mean when she says, “We’re ready to take our relationship to the next level.”? I can’t remember where I saw this. I think it was a link in a Consortium news article. Was it to AIPAC?

    Evil I and Evil II. Maybe they should run together. I’ve often wondered if Trump was asked to run by the Clintons.

    Jill Stein’s foreign policy makes the most sense, and it make the most economic sense. Thanks, Joe.
    Remember when she was shackled to a chair outside of Hofstra University in 2012 – to prevent her from being part of a debate. Wasn’t Debbie Wasserman Shultz the head of the DNC then?

    Stein and Sanders could be a possibility. I like what Scott Ritter had to say about the President being a visionary – see Mark Crispin Miller/Scott Ritter/Ray McGovern talk on eve of New York Primary — found on page 3 of Raymcgover.com. Sorry I need to learn how to do links. I liked what all three of them had to say about everything. I’ve listened to it many times and have encouraged many others to do so.

    Nice article. Interesting coments.

    • Abe
      June 12, 2016 at 13:39

      The Democratic Presidential Candidates
      on US Foreign Policy

      Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern with Mark Crispin Miller

      New York City – 17 April 2016 (right before NY primary)
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rI5fGfl5OI

  6. Jim Hartz
    June 11, 2016 at 12:05

    I’d like to ask Cornel West: what IS the difference between a “neoliberal” and a “neofascist”? Hillary was cheerleader for the bombardment of Serbia, the can opener on the latest version of “regime change” in the history of U.S. Foreign Policy; she signed off on the coup in Honduras which has turned that country into a major Hell Hole on planet Earth; and Libya: on top of the disastrous effects of “regime change” there, her gloating over the murder and sodomization with a bayonet of Gaddafi is one of the most disgusting moments in the history of the United States, akin to Andrew Jackson gloating over the corpse of a skinned Native American warrior. She’s a proven “fascist,” not just a “neoliberal.”

    Thus far, Trump is just a twisted mouth on a stick, a potential global terrorist. Hillary already is one. And when it comes to the spot most likely to spark a nuclear war–Ukraine–Trump is quite reasonable, able to work with Putin; Hillary already referring to Putin as the next “Hitler,” always the mark of a country being set up–targeted–for “regime change.” Then there’s Iran: Hillary will need to repay her debt to AIPAC. You can count on some phony “Gulf for Tonkin”-like incident to set THAT “regime change” effort in motion, maybe revert to Good Ole Bombing, in league with Kissinger and McCain, if Hillary becomes president.

    Not that I’d vote for Trump, but I certainly wouldn’t vote for Hillary. Sanders is good on domestic policy, but pretty much a bust on Foreign Policy, like “firebrand” Elizabeth Warren, now off the bench–now that the coast is clear–verbally humping for a position in Hillary’s cabinet with her recent blistering attack on Trump.

    But no more “lesser of two evils” for me. Taking that route over and over just sucks us deeper down into the Rabbit Hole where the 1%-ers control the capital accumulation process and its all-pervasive logic. “Democracy” is just a mask for that process. What counts is capitalism, in its virulent neoliberal–in fact, fascist form. Fascism is capitalism incarnate, “democracy” its mask.

    Putin has been trying to play “liberal capitalism” against “neoliberal capitalists” who make up the rules as they go, relentlessly pushing for global hegemony. They are both resolved, and economically determined, to prove themselves to be “God’s chosen people.” What a joke. What a sick little planet we live on.

  7. John Puma
    June 11, 2016 at 06:37

    Many Sanders supporters decided in 2008 they would, under NO circumstances, ever vote for HR Clinton. That year they had a surprise, appealing alternative, what followed is a different story.

    This year “we” STILL had no intention to vote for HRC in any campaign (primary/general) under ANY circumstance – only with 100x more determination than 2008.

    Then Sanders’s candidacy provided another surprise, so we did not need to feel shut out of the process from the beginning. But the anti-democratic activities of Clinton, and the DNC, against Sanders, reminiscent of the most vile GOP “strategies” (right down to quite an array of election fraud techniques), did eventually shut down the only viable opportunity the country has to avoid disaster from several sides.

    So a sizable fraction of the anti-Clinton “phenomenon,” among non Republicans, is a long-standing, well-justified political position. It is independent of electoral alternatives to her.

  8. Lalalelu
    June 10, 2016 at 21:38

    The “Democrat” party, ever incensed over the voter suppression tactics employed by the Repugs, have used every trick in the book to suppress the candidacy of Bernie in the primaries. In view of this hypocrisy I cannot compromise my ethics or integrity by continuing support of Democrats so will probably go Green. If Trump wins he, at least, knows the system is rigged & appreciates the corrupting influence of money in elections. .

  9. Wm. Boyce
    June 10, 2016 at 20:59

    I voted for Sanders and do not agree with the concept that he’s some sort of “warm-up act” for the usual Democratic party establishment. He’s gotten far more support in terms of votes and money than all the past candidates mentioned, and no one expected it!
    To not vote for Ms. Clinton is fine, we all have that choice, but I will vote for her in spite of not caring at all for her foreign policy record. On domestic policies, she will be far better than whatever it is that Mr. Trump would do. No one knows what he would do, not even him, I’m convinced. He doesn’t respect the judiciary, journalists, women, minorities; he’s the complete fascist candidate if ever we’ve seen one.
    Think it over, please.

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 10, 2016 at 22:47

      Wm. Boyce I respect your decision to vote for Hillary since it won’t be Bernie running on the Democratic ticket, but at least check out Jill Stein’s foreign policy.

      Peace and Human Rights:
      Establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, and human rights. End the wars and drone attacks, cut military spending by at least 50% and close the 700+ foreign military bases that are turning our republic into a bankrupt empire. Stop U.S. support and arms sales to human rights abusers, and lead on global nuclear disarmament.

      Do some Jill Stein searching on your own. It’s not always about picking a winner, besides Hillary nor Trump are not going to personally come and thank you for that vote anyway. So cast your vote based upon your political philosophy.

    • Wm. Boyce
      June 11, 2016 at 00:11

      Actually, my vote will be based on past experience. In 1980 we voted for John Anderson, a mistake if there ever was one, it helped Ronald Reagan into the White House, along with his operative’s dirty tricks. People in Central America might have suffered a lot less under a second Carter term.

      Then there was 2000 and Mr. Nader’s candidacy. While I accord him every credit as an advocate and consumer protector, he’s a disaster as a politician. No followup, no movement, just enough of a candidacy to throw the results in Florida’s primary results into enough doubt to allow Republican operatives to storm into polling places as if they were the popular movement. When the legal challenges were decided, Mr. Bush got 100% of the black vote – on the Supreme Court. Mr. Gore won the popular vote, and should have been elected. I don’t have to enumerate the foreign policy catastrophes that followed – you know them well.

      So the lesser of evils theory still holds, and Ms. Clinton, for all her flaws, will uphold the ACA, which keeps people like me alive with, you guessed it, health care subsidies. Yeah, it’s voting one’s pocketbook, like it or not.

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 11, 2016 at 01:00

      I understand. Back in the 1980 race, I didn’t vote. At that time I was apolitical. In 2000, and after watching how Bill Clinton destroyed our industrial base, I voted for Bush. I should stop there and quit giving people advice I know, but considering how this presidential race may have a historically low voter turnout, and given there are so many young and old independent voters out there, I would think that Jill Stein may have better than half a chance at winning. Who knows maybe by the time November rolls around, and possibly polls will show how Hillary may trounce Trump, then maybe it would be safe to vote for Jill, and get single payer healthcare if she should win. All I know, is I don’t want to have a repeat of what I did to my soul back in 2000. Good luck, and hope you stay well.

    • Stephen Muir
      June 11, 2016 at 21:15

      Joe I can tell you I voted Nader in 2000 and grow prouder of that, my first presidential vote, with every passing year. I voted Obama in 2008 (NOT in 2012,…fool me once, etc.) and the feeling of betrayal, resentment, and shame for that only gets stronger as he smiles and lies and murders his way out of his last year in office. Breaking out of the two party duopoly is one of those steps that, once taken, brings such a realization of your own power as a free citizen, and such relief from the weight of an icky conscience, you’ll never go back and wonder why it took you so long. (Well, in my case I had to go back once to realize how icky it would make me feel, heh).

      I’ve noticed in the past 2 months or so (as HRC became more and more obviously inevitable in the M.S.M. narrative, hence interest in the Greens started to flare) that there are people ‘working’ the comments full time over at Salon.com trying to disparage and discredit the US Green Party. I interpret this as a sign of how seriously the threat to the duopoly is taken by those who direct these online propagandists.

  10. Bill Bodden
    June 10, 2016 at 18:34

    “What people also understand is that no president, not Bernie Sanders or anybody else, can do it alone. That what we need in this country are millions of people standing up, fighting back, and demanding a government that represents all of us, not just the one percent.”

    And Bernie Sanders and his supporters can’t move politics to the left inside the un-Democratic Party. To Sanders’ credit he got an important conversation going. To keep it alive he or some other leader needs to take the Sandersistas over to form a third party or boost the Green Party. If Sanders remains in the un-Democratic Party he will just be neutered and become nothing more than a footnote in the history books. The oligarchs of this party have always been hostile to any Democrats not conforming to their game plan and have in the past helped Republicans defeat them at the ballot box. Wisconsin provided one of the more recent examples when Obama and the party apparatchiks abandoned the activists opposed to Scott Walker. A third party doesn’t need to have a majority to have significant influence. Check the Tea Party’s record.

  11. David
    June 10, 2016 at 18:24

    Exactly WHO came up with the “Super Delegate” SCAM?

    The concept is for the “Party” to have a way of overpowering the voice of the people.

    There can be NO OTHER explanation. The voters didn’t appoint them!

    Is it modeled after the Electoral College? Another layer of political cronyism to disenfranchise the voters “in case” they vote the wrong way?

    (Clinton claimed she “owned” the nomination before the race started, BECAUSE of crony Super delegates!)

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/hillary-clinton-2016-superdelegates-endorse

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/11/hillary-clinton-2016-superdelegates-endorse

    Any State that endorses “voter suppression” shall have ALL votes VOIDED!

    Entire STATE disenfranchised!

    A proper price for CRIMINAL intent by politicians! Voters can “fix” THAT!

    Also, ABSOLUTELY NO mandatory “Party Line” voting required!

    How can it be considered a “secret ballot” if you must designate your party affiliation on the outside of your ballot with a required signature (under penalty of law) to only vote your “chosen” Party?

    If there IS such a LAW, it is NOT in the best interest of the VOTERS!

    Empower the VOTER, NOT the PARTY!

    ALLOW “Write In ” Candidates, regardless of affiliation!

    Vote YOUR choice, not the Party’s choice!

    One person (not corporations) ONE vote!

    Reinstate “Equal Time, Equal Exposure” as LAW to level the playing field of Media groups with “possible bias”practices. A minute IS a minute!

    As for ANY “Debates”, NONE shall be “sponsored” by Media Groups.

    ALL debates will be scheduled by the Candidates in ADVANCE and shall be held by VOTER supported groups, NOT sponsored by a Media Company with vested corporate interests! Moderators shall be “drawn” at random from a “pool” of names submitted by ALL interested media groups.

    Also, ALL States should hold a PRIMARY election of ALL candidates, and ALL States should hold their primaries ON THE SAME DAY!

    NATIONAL PRIMARY DAY!

    One day or perhaps a WEEKEND and “mail in” ballots MUST be available to those electing or not able to attend a polling place!

    This would eliminate much of the PAC money being shifted from State to State as the “game” plays out. It would FORCE the Parties at the State level to perform on behalf of the citizens of each STATE.

    The “money shuffle” would be eliminated in ONE DAY!

    The “Citizen United” gang would have to allocate their funds and that would be that, NO regrouping, No more “buy ins”, no more reallocation of “power”. They would lose their luster and much of their control!

    This would be better for the Candidates AND the VOTERS!

    No “Caucus” shuffling of votes by dividing and gerrymandering support.

    No “Elite SuperDelegates” with the power to “THROW” the process.

    NO expensive State Conventions, wasting TIME, Effort, and MONEY!

    Just ONE person, ONE vote, on ONE DAY (or two days ON A WEEKEND!) — in EVERY STATE!

    This “Process” is FOR THE PEOPLE, NOT for Control by a “Party”!

    THAT is how WE THE PEOPLE take back the election process!

  12. Dosamuno
    June 10, 2016 at 18:01

    Et tu, Elizabeth Warren?

  13. Abe
    June 10, 2016 at 17:58

    This year we have an interesting situation with the rise of Bernie Sanders. One candidate was declared the frontrunner because of fundraising powers and name recognition and a seeming certainty of victory, and of course I mean Hillary Clinton, and that perceived frontrunner status made her a favorite among the always anxious Black voter, but, Hillary being Hillary, she wore out her welcome as soon as the campaign season began. Her high-handedness, her tone-deafness and the history of her own and her husband’s corruption made discerning voters think twice and take a look at Bernie Sanders.

    Now, Sanders has called himself a socialist. Now he refers to himself as a social democrat, but he stated for the record that he’s not in favor of public ownership of the means of production, so he isn’t a socialist at all. He’s just a Democrat. But the party has moved so far to the right over the years that anyone sounding like most Democrats sounded 40 or 50 years ago gets, is able to call themselves a leftist, even when they’re no such thing.

    Now, Hillary Clinton is leading in the delegate count, mostly because of overwhelming victory in the Southern states. There are few, if any, white Democrats in the South, so that means Black voters stuck with the status quo. Sanders supporters then proceeded to ask what was wrong with those crazy Black people, don’t they love Bernie like they do, but it’s the wrong question to ask if we’re interested in self-determination. The bigger issue is why we’re still allowing ourselves to be herded like sheep into the arms of the Democrats again. We have so little to show for being the most constituency that they have.

    And that question should be our emphasis, not trying to figure out if Bernie is better than Hillary. In any case, saying that he is is damning with faint praise and weeding down the path of the impossible, which is to try to find a better Democratic politician. But the Sanders phenomenon is useful in that it lays bare the hollowness of what [passes] for the left in the United States. Even people who had supposedly staked out a position on the left are showing their true, fair weather colors.

    […] silly doublespeak is emblematic of the Sanders phenomenon, and why so many people are attracted to him.

    Sanders is the Obama of 2016. He has pulled off quite a marketing coup. He isn’t a socialist, but markets himself as a socialist to people who also are not socialists, but they feel better thinking of themselves that way.

    So, everyone is in on the big lie. The Sanders campaign website asks the question, are you ready to start a political revolution? Sanders is marketing the word revolution the same way he’s marketing the word socialist. Revolution has different meanings, but voting for Democrats doesn’t meet that definition by any standard anywhere. We know what Revolutions look like. America had a revolution. It was a counterinsurgency to make sure that slavery would be safe, should the British choose to end it. It was a reactionary revolution, but it was certainly a fundamental, systemic change. Russia had a revolution. China had a revolution. Cuba had a revolution. Grenada attempted one. Ukraine had a right-wing revolution a couple of years ago.

    You get the idea. There’s nothing about voting for a liberal-ish Democrat that fits anyone’s definition of a revolution, but you need not be involved in a struggle of those dimensions in order to be a revolutionary. It would be revolutionary to campaign against the Democratic Party, or to work for a social movement that is not aligned with a political campaign. It would be revolutionary to keep campaigning against the current president, even though he has only nine months left in office.

    The Quadrennial Duopoly Sham
    By Margaret Kimberley
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SliIowCvNDo

    • Peter Loeb
      June 12, 2016 at 06:46

      “SPECIOUS LIBERALISM”

      With appreciation to “Abe” for his perceptive comments.

      In 1969 historian Gabriel Kolko wrote:

      “,,,,It is this illusion of the ‘accidental’ quality of the United States…
      that has led over the past years to a kind of specious liberalism
      which believes one simply replaces individuals in office with
      with other men…rather than solving problems with an altogether
      new system based on a radically distribution of power and
      assumptions as to its application…” THE ROOTS OF AMERICAN
      FOREIGN POLICY: “The Epilogue” p. 134 (paper)

      (In French: “Plus se change, [plus le meme chose”…rough trans:
      “Nothing ever changes, it’s (always) the same thing.)

      Kolko goes on to specify changes in power and how it
      must work to achieve transformative change.

      My other views are expressed above after an Abe comment.
      I never believed the marketing of Senator Sanders.

      And etc. (see Abe above).

      —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

  14. W. R. Knight
    June 10, 2016 at 17:49

    Bernie, you are an independent and have been all your career. Don’t tie your coattails to the democratic party which truthfully doesn’t share your values. You said you wouldn’t run against Clinton, but that is doing the nation a disservice. Go ahead and run. Run as an independent or run with Jill Stein who does share your values. But whatever you do, RUN against Clinton and Trump and WIN! We cannot afford a Clinton or Trump presidency.

  15. Abe
    June 10, 2016 at 17:13

    Bruce A Dixon, Managing Editor of Black Agenda Report, accurately identified candidate Bernie Sanders as “sheepdogging” for Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party.

    Although his view was pooh-poohed by many in the alternative media, Dixon was correct in May 2016 http://www.blackagendareport.com/bernie-sanders-sheepdog-4-hillary when he wrote the following:

    Bernie Sanders is this election’s Democratic sheepdog. The sheepdog is a card the Democratic party plays every presidential primary season when there’s no White House Democrat running for re-election. The sheepdog is a presidential candidate running ostensibly to the left of the establishment Democrat to whom the billionaires will award the nomination. Sheepdogs are herders, and the sheepdog candidate is charged with herding activists and voters back into the Democratic fold who might otherwise drift leftward and outside of the Democratic party, either staying home or trying to build something outside the two party box.

    1984 and 88 the sheepdog candidate was Jesse Jackson. In 92 it was California governor Jerry Brown. In 2000 and 2004 the designated sheepdog was Al Sharpton, and in 2008 it was Dennis Kucinich. This year it’s Vermont senator Bernie Sanders. The function of the sheepdog candidate is to give left activists and voters a reason, however illusory, to believe there’s a place of influence for them inside the Democratic party, if and only if the eventual Democratic nominee can win in November.

    Despite casting millions of voters for the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and other sheepdogs, those leftish Democrat voters are always disregarded when Democrats actually win. Bill Clinton gave us NAFTA, a vicious “welfare reform,” no peace dividend or push for DC statehood, lowered unemployment but mostly in part time and low-wage jobs, and mass incarceration of black and brown people. President Obama doubled down on bailouts of banksters and GM, and immunized them from prosecution but failed to address the most catastrophic fall in black household wealth in history. We got health care for some instead of Medicare for All, the Patriot Act renewed instead of repealed, a race to privatize public education, drone wars and still more mass incarceration of black and brown people. And if President Obama gets his way, we may soon have a global job-destroying wage-lowering NAFTA on steroids, with the TTP and TTIP.

    The sheepdog’s job is to divert the energy and enthusiasm of activists a year, a year and a half out from a November election away from building an alternative to the Democratic party, and into his doomed effort. When the sheepdog inevitably folds in the late spring or early summer before a November election, there’s no time remaining to win ballot access for alternative parties or candidates, no time to raise money or organize any effective challenge to the two capitalist parties.

    At that point, with all the alternatives foreclosed, the narrative shifts to the familiar “lesser of two evils.” Every sheepdog candidate surrenders the shreds of his credibility to the Democratic nominee in time for the November election. This is how the Bernie Sanders show ends, as the left-leaning warm-up act for Hillary Clinton.

    • Peter Loeb
      June 11, 2016 at 07:02

      DEMOCRATS’ MANAGED ELECTION

      I agree with “Abe”.

      If conspiratorial analyses are acceptable (which is rare), HRC being a
      weak candidate would gain by having a racist ogre as an
      opponent. This would scare liberal/progressives into supporting
      HRC. Minority groups are constantly reminded by the cooperative
      media that any sane person would give HRC, anything to
      oppose the ogre (Donald Trump).

      HRC is not only militaristic—a true hawk in her history
      of supporting wars.” regime change” and the like—but also
      as racist as her more crude opponent. She wants to
      bring our relationship with racist, terrorist Israel “to
      a new level”. Like them, Boycott Divest and Sanction (“BDS”)
      is “antisemitic”…as is everything critical of Israel.
      For HRC, “Death to Arabs” is perfectly acceptable
      provided it comes out of the mouths of Israelis. Extermination
      and similar policies are OK too if Israeli.

      And all this is hidden from the liberal/progressives still
      caught in the webs of their dreams of a “revolution” that
      never could have been. The DNC followed perfectly
      Rahm Emannuel’s advice (when Bill Clinton wanted
      to subvert liberal proposals for universal health care
      (Emmanuel was Clintons point man then): “You don’t
      have to worry about the liberals.”)

      So now we get comments like:

      “…Many stated they would have no problem voting for Clinton in the general election
      especially in contrast to the Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump.
      “I will vote for Hillary in the fall as a vote against Trump but also as a vote for Clinton,”
      said one young woman from Maryland…”

      Sell the Palestinians down the river. And the other presumably
      inferior (darker) humans who are probably less than
      human anyway so they say…

      Of note is that in its history, Jewish Zionists argued constantly
      about Jews’ rights and obligations and entitlements to
      THEIR homeland. Almost never considered were the
      rights of the Arab residents. (just as the rights of
      Caananites were never really an issue for Israelites who
      were entitled to “the Promised land” using the sword
      and anything else.)

      As for Senator Sanders, he might begin by leading
      a crusade against the military lobby, even those
      whose contractors end up in Vermont. After all,
      Vermont could be Texas just as well. Imagine
      what the money might accomplish! And if his
      musings about Palestinians’ rights had substance
      he could join in advocating the cut off
      of tax advantages for investment in illegal settlements,
      advocate for a MidEast Nuclear Free Zone,
      with sanctions and embargo for Israel for
      noncompliance…

      How about a trip to Gaza and the West Bank by
      Sanders as well as talks with Palestinian leaders
      forcibly in exile??

      I rather suspect however that Senator Sanders
      will accept his adoration as the great savior and
      return to Vermont where he will advocate for
      more jobs in more defense industries just as
      he has always done.

      —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA. USA

      “Death to the Arabs” is OK with HRC.

    • Dosamuno
      June 11, 2016 at 14:40

      Bruce Dixon, Glenn Ford, and Margaret Kimberly of BAR are three of our best living journalists.
      Thank you for posting this, although I already read the article: others should see it too.

  16. W. R. Knight
    June 10, 2016 at 16:55

    Obama’s endorsement of Clinton is a plus for Sanders. If I were running for president, Obama’s endorsement would be the last thing I wanted.

    • Tsigantes
      June 10, 2016 at 17:26

      “If I were running for president, Obama’s endorsement would be the last thing I wanted.”

      Agree. Talk about negative advertising!

    • SFOMARCO
      June 11, 2016 at 04:16

      As I recall, VP Al Gore wanted no campaigning from Bilious Clinton, never mind an endorsement, for Gore’s bid to become President.

  17. W. R. Knight
    June 10, 2016 at 16:47

    I’m not voting for Clinton or Trump. I’m voting for Jill Stein. You might say that I’m throwing my vote away, but I will tell you that you are throwing away your vote any time you vote for someone you don’t like and don’t want. You are never throwing your vote away any time you vote for what you want,

    Secondly, you might say that one should vote for Clinton because she is the lesser of two evils. My answer to that is that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 10, 2016 at 19:53

      I agree with W.R. Knight. I’m voting my conscience instead of voting for the lesser of the two evils. Both Clinton and Trump are what I consider evil. At the very least both of these overly egotistical celebrities are not what this planets people need at this fragile time in our worlds history. If nothing else, as a third party we could send a message to the establishment, that we are not in agreement with their hidden agenda.

      The Green Party is attempting to get on the ballot in all 50 states….go to this site, and see if your State has Jill Stein represented on your States election ballot;

      http://www.jill2016.com/ballotaccess

    • Stephen Muir
      June 11, 2016 at 20:49

      Right on fellow citizens! This site gives me hope.
      Tweedle-dee Hillary, Tweedle-dum(p) Trump!
      Get it trending millenials!

    • Ann Tattersall
      June 10, 2016 at 21:42

      I, for one, do not see Clinton as less evil than Trump. I will vote for Jill Stein in November, unless some miracle occurs and Sanders is on the ballot. (Stein and Sanders should run on the same ticket.)

  18. Christophe
    June 10, 2016 at 16:45

    Nice analysis Antonio

  19. Abe
    June 10, 2016 at 16:44

    If the Sandernistas’ morale remains high right up to the convention – that is, if they are enabled to maintain a sense of group mission – then the path to a new party to the left of the corporate Democrats will begin to emerge among a significant minority of his activists. By this time, Hillary Clinton will have revealed the broad contours of her lurch rightward to absorb Republican refugees and financiers, dragooning the Democrats into becoming, as historian and activist Paul Street puts it, “objectively, the truer and more fully explicit ruling class party in the country.” Such a hostile environment will compel those with even remotely social democratic sensibilities to seek out or create a “party of the 99 percent” – whether Sanders ultimately embraces Hillary, or not.

    If Sanders folds before Philadelphia – as early as this week, if the White House has its way – then history will treat him as a saboteur of the “movement” that he claimed to lead. But, the disintegration of the duopoly has already begun. A leftish electoral force, closely connected with mass social movements, will messily emerge from the tumult of 2016. The new party (or parties) will contend for the huge political space to the left of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the past, present and likely future presidents spawned by the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), the corporate faction created in the 1980s to move the Party rightward. With victory complete, the DLC shut down after Obama’s election. It now IS the Democratic Party – a lesson that Sanders supporters have been learning all these months.

    Sanders’ Moment of Truth
    By Glen Ford
    http://blackagendareport.com/sanders_moment_of_truth

  20. Lin Cleveland
    June 10, 2016 at 16:40

    I do not for the life of me understand the “hold your nose” and vote against your own conscience mode of thinking. I feel certain that neither a Clinton nor a Trump in the Oval Office would help to solve the problems this world faces. In fact both of them, Trump the bigot, and Clinton, the war-mongering sociopath, embody the very ideals which we who long for peace and stability must work against. Let’s focus on what we stand for so that what we stand against fades into the shadows.

  21. Antonio R cafoncelli
    June 10, 2016 at 16:25

    Trump is a fascist,no doubt about it. It is basically and foremost the new face of neoliberalism and capitalism,estrategized by USA GOP. Trump was chosen by the establishment such as Wall Street, the Pentagon and the industrial military complex in order to save CAPITALISM. They need a new face to save them from socialism, which is the final stage that all humanity will undergo and reach.Dialectic materialism tell us very clear that capitalism needs new strategies to save the system as is quite obvious that the class struggle is making more and more evident the platforms, policies and the political revolution as proposed by Bernie Sanders, that are the biggest threat the establishment is scared of, which inevitably by dialectic process will succeed and replace neoliberalism sooner or later. The great support of the youth to Sanders positions and proposals are the most clear evidence where the future of USA will be.Mussolini was the face of Italian capitalism to save Italy from socialism and Mussolini succeded momentarily, but do not forget that the people and the italian masses later on hanged him and annihilated him.

  22. Fred
    June 10, 2016 at 16:22

    Cornel West is an idiot.

    • Bob Van Noy
      June 10, 2016 at 17:25

      Cornel West is far from an idiot. He is from my neighborhood, from a truly wonderful, religious family, was a child prodigy and is one of the most loving men I have ever known. I used to take great glee in watching him out wit William F. Buckley on Firing Line. He helped launch the Black Lives Matter group in the nonviolent resistance model of Martin Luther King, and in doing so, he will become Martin’s logical successor. He will provide Bernie much good advice, as this new movement moves into the future…

    • Dosamuno
      June 10, 2016 at 17:58

      West is a liberal Marco Rubio–always pushing his goddamned religion in people’s faces.
      And yes, he is an idiot.

    • June 11, 2016 at 08:30

      Cornel West is a brilliant scholar and a revolutionary realist. As for the difference between neolibralism and neofascism, it is splitting hairs — both are corporate dictatorship but neofascism is more openly brutal and racist domestically. The question for me is which most furthers resistance and movement consolidation because that is the only thing that can save us from the monstrosity of capitalism that threatens life on earth.

      I’ll likely write in Sanders of vote for Jill Stein but what really matters is what the rest of us do to make real change in the streets and in our local communities.

    • John
      June 11, 2016 at 18:34

      Cornell West uses the rhetorical style of religion because it has proven itself to be effective. I have seen him in discussions with Atheists, Muslims, Hindus, and others and he is always respectful to their beliefs, seeking out common ground in the basics of the religion. If you see this as “pushing his religion down people’s throats”, this says more about your own biases and comprehension capacity than it says anything about him.

    • Phil Johnson
      June 10, 2016 at 19:17

      Thank you, Bob. It’s easy to see that Cornell West is highly intelligent and compassionate, and he tells it like it is.

      What’s the point of calling someone an idiot with no data to back up your opinion, Fred.

    • Dosamuno
      June 11, 2016 at 09:29

      Have you ever heard his hip hop music?
      His brilliance is the reflected brilliance of someone
      who memorizes a few catch phrases and then repeats them.
      His loving Christian values nauseate me.
      And I’m not his “brother”.

    • Dosamuno
      June 11, 2016 at 10:29

      Here’s what Adolph Reed, a real intellectual and scholar, has to say about professional black spokespeople like Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, and Cornell West

      “The psychobabbling bromides that elevate recognition and celebration of black agency rest on an ideological perspective that in practical terms rejects effective black political action in favor of expressive display. It is the worldview of an element of the contemporary black professional stratum anchored in the academy, blogosphere, and the world of mass media chat whose standing in public life is bound up with establishing a professional authority in speaking for the race. This is the occupational niche of the so-called black public intellectuals.

      The torrent of faddish chattering-class blather and trivial debate sparked by Michael Eric Dyson’s recent attack on Cornel West in the New Republic illustrates the utter fatuity of this domain, as if there were any reason to care about a squabble between two freelance Racial Voices with no constituency or links to radical institutions between them.”

      https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/10/adolph-reed-black-liberation-django-lincoln-selma-glory/?

  23. doray
    June 10, 2016 at 16:07

    I agree with the guy who said Bernie will fix it or Trump will break it. And the one who said they’d eat their hand off rather than vote for Clinton. If the Dems want to rig the election in favor of their war criminal, corporate shill, this is their consequence. Electing Drumpf just may bring the revolution we need. Electing Killary will only prolong the status quo of corruption.

    • Cosmic Janitor
      June 10, 2016 at 17:17

      Yes, my sentiments exactly doray; to hell with the republican DNC! TRUMP 2016

    • June 10, 2016 at 17:58

      I wanted Bernie to win the nomination also, but now that Mrs. Clinton is the nominee I HAVE to vote for her. There are 2 huge existential threats we must consider. 1 is saving the planet and 2. Nuclear weapon use. I already know Trump claims that climate change is a hoax and I could see him using nukes if he is insulted. This job is way too powerful and important for a person like him.

    • exiled off mainstreet
      June 10, 2016 at 21:18

      You should check out Robert Parry’s June 8 article on the Democrats becoming the war party by nominating Hillary.

    • Knomore
      June 10, 2016 at 21:29

      I think you’re wrong about that. The greater fear re a nuclear conflagration comes from Hillary, not from Donald. Hillary has repeatedly pushed regime changes that have destabilized the Middle East and Africa. Iraq, Syria, Libya come immediately to mind. She happily voted for the Iraq invasion. She loves Israel and Israel could easily rank as the premier terrorist nation on the planet. Libya is now a failed state whereas under Gaddafi it had a standard of living that was in some respects better than what many US citizens enjoy.

      When Hillary is not baiting Iran (who has not invaded any country for more than the 200 plus years in which the US has been in existence) she’s continually hammering on Vladimir Putin which makes it hard not to describe her as a warmonger, first, and possibly brain dead, for seconds. Suggesting an astonishing misunderstanding of fundamental world geography, she described the Ukraine as being on “Nato’s doorstep,” suggesting that Vladimir Putin had no right to be there. (Russia borders the Ukraine, Hillary…) Hillary oversaw the neoCon overthrow of the elected President of Ukraine and with Victoria Nuland’s help saw the installation of a Fascist government in Kiev. She seems totally oblivious re the consequences of her proclivities which are to prove she’s a woman warrior above all. A human being who has some kind of feeling for the many victims her warrior instincts have created comes somewhere far down the list, maybe not at all. The recent assassination of a well-known Honduran civil rights leader can with little difficulty be traced to Hillary’s machinations in that country.

      The U.S. State Department’s jump to indict Vladimir Putin for MH17 on the very day the tragedy occurred (never proven and probably a Freudian projection) is Hillary-style “diplomacy.” Amazing that she could have been Secretary of State for four long years and no one seems to have picked up on the fact that she hasn’t a clue what the word “diplomacy” means, let alone how to practice it.

    • Knomore
      June 11, 2016 at 00:08

      Re The MH17 affair, which Robert Parry has covered extensively and well here, there is a new report out from Newsbud about a highly experienced undercover agent, a German man, who was hired to determine whether there had been a cover-up of evidence in the MH17 affair. Lots of money was involved and when it was revealed that this man had, indeed, uncovered evidence of suppression of evidence, the Dutch got involved in an adversarial way trying to discover the name of the so-called “mole” who had let the cat out of the bag. Here’s the link for those who are interested:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAMR_Ggevdg&feature=youtu.be

      I’m not sure that I understood all the ins and outs of this interview but I did understand that it may have been the Russians who paid (large sums of money) for this gathering of information.

      The US role in the MH17 affair elicits a great deal of suspicion. They made the accusations and then refused to provide definitive proof, had the investigation shut down and sequestered the evidence… and then ordered sanctions against Russia for a crime that was never solved and more than likely committed by the US or at the very least by agents/parties who were either known to them or working on their behalf. It’s a very shady affair indeed.

    • Alec
      June 11, 2016 at 01:13

      Susan Raikes Sugar re war monger clinton … well said.

    • Amanda Matthews
      June 10, 2016 at 21:56

      What? Clinton is one of the biggest weapons dealers this country ever had, Have you see this list of nations her State Department okay’d arms deals for?

      We don’t know what Trump will do about weapons and war. We DO KNOW from Clinton’s time as SOS what her crazy self would do. Ask any Libyan, Honduran, or Syrian refugee

      P.S. I won’t vote for either of ’em.

    • Scotty
      June 11, 2016 at 07:42

      That is the weak, pathetic, fearful response the felonious DNC were hoping for. You are more afraid of idiot Donald Trump than you are of the also felonious Hillary Clinton, who received and sent the most sensitive and highly classified information over an unsecured, and apparently repeatedly hacked, private email server? And who still has the bankster-serving and military interventionist mindset that made her one of the worst Secretaries of State? That’s who you want to protect you?

      Good grief – and good luck.

    • John
      June 11, 2016 at 18:08

      As far as “saving the planet”, keep in mind that Killary was a big backer of KXL, used the State Department to promote fracking worldwide, received funding from the Fossil Fuel industry, and the rest of her long and odious record. Yes, she may admit to anthropomorphic climate change, yet she goes ahead and pushes further fossil fuel usage anyway.

      Thus, she is arguably worse than Trump on this issue too…

    • Kevin Schmidt
      June 11, 2016 at 18:10

      She is not the nominee, so you don’t have to vote for her, ever.
      Bernie is not quitting. If you want a change in DC politics, then you have to vote for him.

    • Annie
      June 12, 2016 at 00:43

      Lynne Gyllooly, actually we can see Hillary using the nukes too. She is very very hawkish against Russia, remember her longtime friend Victoria Nuland was the Ukrainian puppet master before the war started there. She is only an inch away to get into trouble with Putin. Actually that is my biggest problem with her. And as far the climate change -she is deep into fracking too.
      With Hillary we will sit on the edge of the apocalypse as well. I will vote for Jill Stein. At least the Greens will get stronger in 4 years if we ever get there.

    • Ann Tattersall
      June 10, 2016 at 21:16

      Maybe I agree. however, it is better to vote for Jill Stein, as a matter of principle, even though she “can not win,” than to vote for the fascist. A vote for Stein is a vote for our revolution. We are not the “spoilers” the oligarchs claim we are. We are spoiling their party, and saving ourselves and our planet. We will win eventually, or the oligarchy will destroy our planet. “Never give a(n) inch.”

    • Joe Tedesky
      June 10, 2016 at 21:48

      Ann, you are so right, but before you come to believing that a vote for a third presidential candidate is not going to count, then read this.

      http://theantimedia.org/majority-want-independent-trump-clinton/

      If it’s Hill, I’m with Jill.

      Jill Stein has every right to be this country’s first woman president, just as much as Hillary. Also, instead of voting for the lesser of the two evils, people could vote for a candidate they believe in. How refreshing would this be, to actually vote for a candidate who you feel is in your corner.

    • alexander
      June 11, 2016 at 06:27

      I agree with both you and Anne,

      The correct move for Bernie, having lost the nomination,would have been to reject the oligarchic power structure that lords over the DNC, and hitch his saddle to the green party and Jill Stein, this would re-energize his base and produce a very powerful new coalition.

      But like all dutiful “democrats”, he understands this would split the DNC in two, and hand over the general election to the Donald.

      So the plan now becomes to demand as many concessions from Hillary, between now and November , as his base is able, or threaten to leave.

      We all know what her oligarchs want ……..More War.

      And we all know what Bernies’ youthful brigade wants too….decriminalization.

      So it looks like the heroic “compromise” will be made….and come 2017…….. every American will be now be free …….”to smoke their BONG” …….while they watch “Queen Hillary”, jettison the JCPA.,…… and “mini- nuke” IRAN !

    • John
      June 11, 2016 at 18:20

      Of course, Jill Stein is not the only 3rd party candidate running. Gary Johnson will also be running on the Libertarian ticket, and this peeling off voters who normally would back the GOP. This makes the lame excuse that Stein would be a “spoiler” even more absurd.

    • Scotty
      June 11, 2016 at 07:48

      Thanks for that link. The last I read was 44% – which was already high enough to knock both Clinton and Trump out of the box. I will update any further communications I have with the offices of various ‘Democratic’ politicians.

      We need to persuade Bernie Sanders that he is not beholden to the Democratic Party after their illegal abuses of him – and of us. His agreement with the Democratic Party was broken numerous times by the Democrats, and we need him to continue to stand up for us – while we continue to stand by him.

      The Green Party is on all of the national ballots, and Jill Stein would consider giving Bernie Sanders top spot. We need to persuade him to consider it.

    • Bart Gruzalski
      June 11, 2016 at 07:12

      Thanks for your well written article that successfully conveyed the feel of being at the rally (I lived in the DC area for 10 years and attended a number of rallies and even anti-war demonstrations on the mall and elsewhere).

      My favorite quotes are from Sean, a 27-year-old Marine Corps veteran who served in Iraq:

      “My game plan in November is exactly the same as before [if Clinton takes the nomination] — I’m voting for Bernie Sanders…. We fought to protect a democracy that isn’t even a democracy. … Maybe I’m being stubborn, but I couldn’t vote for any candidate who thinks it’s perfectly okay to cheat in elections. I know people who died for that.”

      As you reported, he also said he wouldn’t be badgered into voting for the so-called lesser-of-two evils, adding: “The American spirit is not one run by fear. This is a revolution — I’m not afraid.”

      That’s the attitude we all should embrace.

      The primar struggle between Clinton and Sanders to become the Democratic candidate for POTUS is not over by a long shot. First, there are two million uncounted ballots in California where Clinton won by less than ½ million votes. From what I’ve read, it’s plausible to think these uncounted (I presume provisional ballots), and it is reasonable to think that Sanders took ¾ of these votes. If they are counted and my thought is accurate, Sanders took California.

      Second is the unfolding drama of the FBI investigation of her making available to foreign hackers top secret (and above) information.

      Third, , ABC broke a story yesterday morning of Clinton cronyism: Rajiv Fernando, who had donated between $1 M and $5M to a Clinton charity, was given a seat on the prestigious 2011 International Security Advisory Board. The board’s primary purpose was to gather an array of experts on nuclear weapons and arms control to constantly assess and update the nation’s nuclear strategy. Fernando only credential had nothing to do with nuclear weapons—he brought to the board his expertise as a high-frequency market trader. As a board member, Fernando one of the highest levels of top secret access. (Is this yet another example of Clinton playing fast and loose with top secret material?)
      After he left the board, Fernando became one of the first “bundlers” to raise money for Clinton’s 2016 bid. He’s also a superdelegate for the Democratic Convention in August. It’s no surprise that he said he’s committed to voting for Clinton.

      The ABC story is “hot” and it’s not clear how much damage it will do to Clinton. Frankly I don’t expect her to become the Democratic candidate—she’s loaded down with just too much unbelievable baggage (including her being a chronic liar and prone to confusion). Those supporting her from behind the veils hiding the bigwigs may decide that the odds of her losing are high and they won’t want to not only lose the presidency, but they won’t want to lose Congresspersons, Senators, and governors.

      We need to do what we can to make sure her hidden backers realize that they have been backing a loser.
      ——————————————————————-
      PS: to Susan Raikes Sugar. Yes, a Clinton presidency greatly raises the probability of a nuclear WWIII with Russia.,

    • Stephen Muir
      June 11, 2016 at 20:36

      Hi, i really enjoyed the details captured in this article. It’s great to see some ‘ordinary citizens’ who remain informed, articulate and steadfast about the vast differences between Clinton and Sanders as candidates. All too predictable that many are just as blandly content either way. Voting for Clinton because you wanted to vote for Sanders’ platform makes about as much sense as invading Iraq because 9/11.

      Maybe some who are good with facebook and twitter could help the following slogan to get trendy and ‘trending’; (o.t.o.h. maybe it’s not as clever as I think it is): “Tweedle-dee hillary, tweedle-dum(p) Trump!” Might sound good at a rally, too. Then, to partner with #crookedhillary we might as well try #trust-fund-donald .

      The only logical way to take a specific (even if only symbolic, for now) action in November to realize your intention to “orBust” is to vote green and never look back – my first presidential vote was Nader in 2000 and, well, you all know what they say “once you go green, … red’n’blue nae difference ‘tween”. (PS in local issues it may well be worth voting for a blue, or a red candidate – best do your research on them and not just abstain because there is no green candidate for a given local or state position; only if all candidates for a given office are deeply flawed does it make sense to abstain, by my calculus)

    • Roberto
      June 11, 2016 at 01:56

      Well said,doray.

    • June 11, 2016 at 04:42

      True. The fix is in!

      Rabbi Michael Lerner Speech At Muhammad Ali Funeral – FULL VIDEO

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ebOxOExrlM

    • John
      June 11, 2016 at 18:31

      If you watched the whole speech, the “She” he is referring to is Jill Stein. He basically outlined her platform in this speech. He also condemned Killary.

    • Lane
      June 11, 2016 at 15:48

      The trouble with this country is, voters always get to select “evil”, either way, greater or lesser, it’s still evil.

    • LC Lane
      June 12, 2016 at 16:57

      Please go to trustvote.org. This ain’t over yet.

    • ThisOldMan
      June 12, 2016 at 17:25

      If the Repugs dump Trump, it will be the end of the Republican party. But if the Dems get Billary elected, it may well be the end of the Democratic party as well. Can’t wait …

Comments are closed.