Democrats Rely on Blame-Shifting

By riding hatred of President Trump and spurring on the Russia-gate hysteria, Democrats hope to win in 2018 without a serious examination of why they lost support of key working- and middle-class voting blocs, says Andrew Spannaus.

By Andrew Spannaus

Victories in state-level elections in New Jersey and Virginia on Nov. 7 have buoyed Democratic hopes for an anti-Trump wave among the population that will lead to a big victory in next year’s mid-term elections, and permanently damage President Trump heading towards 2020. Yet there is significant risk in hoping that anti-Trump sentiment will be enough for the Democrats to return to power.

Hillary Clinton at the Code 2017 conference on May 31, 2017.

The danger is that the considerable differences between the centrist faction, which for the most part controls the party structure, and the progressive wing of the party, will be swept under the rug in the name of unity, perpetuating the substantive problems that have alienated important sections of the population from the party.

The power of opposition to Trump has been on display from the very beginning: It was more than a bit ironic to see feminist protestors – properly exercising their right to protest against a President who has made many derogatory comments towards women – hold up signs defending the CIA during the Women’s March on Inauguration Day.

Yes, in their zeal to oppose Trump, both the center and the far left have been willing to embrace the battle led by a limited but powerful grouping in the intelligence community to stop the President from his stated intention of improving relations with Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

This has become such a cause célèbre that people who would normally look suspiciously at the motives of the CIA or other similar agencies seem unable to recognize that the basic “crime” Trump is accused of is favoring diplomacy with a country most of the institutions consider an enemy. With the media’s help, it has apparently been decided that this President does not have the right to influence policy, if the majority of the establishment disagrees with his positions.

The major issue in the Democratic Party is obviously the economy. Sen. Bernie Sanders, officially an Independent from Vermont, won 43 percent of the vote in the 2016 Democratic primaries because he pushed a “populist,” anti-system message that was heavily critical of globalization, Wall Street and trade deals that have weakened the American middle class.

There were numerous similarities with the positions of Trump himself, although without the offensive language and scapegoating of various ethnic groups. Yet the Democratic élite did its best to ensure a Hillary Clinton victory, both legitimately based on the notion that Hillary would be the strongest candidate, and through actions that have led to accusations of a rigged nomination process.

A Deeper Problem

The recent spat raised by the publication of Donna Brazile’s new book Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House (Hachette, November 2017) shows that the issue is still being fought out.

Donna Brazile, former Democratic Party chairperson.

Indeed in October, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez unveiled his picks for the party’s Executive Committee, and many Sanders supporters immediately complained that their faction was being sidelined. One of the key removals was that of James Zogby, whose pro-Palestinian positions are clearly unappreciated by many higher-ups, who prefer to avoid criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

In terms of economic policy, the question is whether the party will embrace the progressive message espoused by Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts or maintain a centrist tone by avoiding positions considered “unrealistic” according to Washington veterans; many of these political operators fear losing their influence if the terms of the debate change.

Two of the major issues Sanders and Warren have been fighting for are incisive reforms regarding healthcare and the banking sector. In September, Sanders presented a bill for a single-payer health care system under the name of Medicare-for-All, and has been holding numerous public events on the issue, joined by Warren and various other Senators.

Policymakers and industry representatives tend to shudder at such “radical” proposals, but the political calculus is clearly that you need to set your sights high if you want to achieve anything at all. This proposition was proven – although negatively – by the numerous compromises made by Barack Obama in the first year of his presidency.

On financial reform, the key issue is the restoration of Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law that separates commercial banks and investment banks, in order to protect the real economy from financial speculation. The law was officially repealed in 1999, at the end of Bill Clinton’s administration, in the context of a gradual loosening of financial regulations that began in the 1980s.

The results are before our eyes: the crash of 2007-2008 – despite the weak attempts by Wall Street defenders to divert attention from deregulation as a cause for the crisis – and its political aftermath; this includes the election of Donald Trump, which certainly would not have happened if there had been a more effective response to the crisis, rather than bailing out the banks while imposing austerity and lower wages on the population.

Excuses, Excuses 

The Democratic Party platform adopted the call for Glass-Steagall in 2016 (as did the Republicans), although Clinton had repeatedly stated her opposition to the measure, claiming she would be really tough on Wall Street in other ways. Many people clearly didn’t believe her; and taking hundreds of thousands of dollars from large banks for speeches exemplified the candidate’s lack of credibility.

Sen. Bernie Sanders speaking to one of his large crowds of supporters. (Photo credit: Sanders campaign)

Why should workers in states such as Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania trust someone who was soft on Wall Street, and had trumpeted international trade deals for years?

This is the issue that the Democratic Party must tackle. To say that Hillary won the popular vote, and thus essentially the election, but was robbed by Russian interference or fake news on the Internet, means to ignore the fundamental problem. A realignment is underway of electoral politics throughout the Western world.

Profiling voters based on their ethnicity, gender or social group showed its limits in 2016, as people followed an anti-establishment instinct fomented by the economic difficulties associated with globalization.

There were other factors, but this protest vote was enough to swing the election despite Trump’s obvious weaknesses as a candidate, so any notion of going back to old models should be recognized for what it would produce: a Pyrrhic victory in which the underlying problems before the country are not faced.

If the Democrats hope to ride an anti-Trump wave, they would do best to look below the surface and recognize the tectonic shifts taking place, that much of the political establishment seems to prefer to ignore.

Andrew Spannaus is a freelance journalist and strategic analyst based in Milan, Italy. He is the founder of, that provides news, analysis and consulting to Italian institutions and businesses. His book on the U.S. elections Perchè vince Trump (Why Trump is Winning) was published in June 2016. [This article originally appeared as Aspenia online at ]

59 comments for “Democrats Rely on Blame-Shifting

  1. Joao
    December 4, 2017 at 18:25

    No thanks Democrats, I’ll keep voting Green.

  2. December 3, 2017 at 09:20

    Why would they care? The only real “identity politics” is identification with Wall Street donorism.

  3. Mark Thomason
    November 30, 2017 at 14:35

    “have buoyed Democratic hopes for an anti-Trump wave among the population that will lead to a big victory in next year’s mid-term elections”

    That is exactly what they talked about when they expected Hillary to win. They talked about taking the Senate and even the House along with her.

    Fantasy does not start with this, just continues. They refused to see the things that defeated them, and they still refuse to see them. It was not anything Trump did, it was them, they deserved to lose and they lost.

  4. November 29, 2017 at 17:01

    The actions of the Democrat establishment were not legitimately based on the assumption that Clinton would be the strongest candidate. Poll after poll showed Sanders beating any of the Republican candidates by double digits, whereas in all match-ups with Clinton against any of the GOPhers, she was either tied or lagging behind. The D.N.C. did, in fact, rig the nomination process to favor Clinton. This was revealed last year through the insider leaks published by Wikileaks. Democrats are not “centrist”. They are far right. There is no fixed political “middle” and there never was.

    It is clear that the Democrats prefer to be a far right political party that caters exclusively to the wants of the super-wealthy while tossing out empty lip service to progressives, that loses to Republicans continually, rather than allow the left to take power within the organization. They’d rather burn the proverbial house down and rule over its ashes, than let actual liberals win higher office. If liberals have any place within the party at all, it is to sheepdog voters into voting for far right Wall Street suck-ups who are obsessed with expanding the American Empire through military conquest and controlling the makeup of certain governments. But clearly the liberals are getting fed up with being used and abused. I think there’s a real chance that by 2020 the Democrat Party will no longer exist as any kind of effective electoral organization, and we will see the rise of a new political party representing the left (and by extension, everybody else whose income can be measured in four or five figures annually).

    • Skip Scott
      November 30, 2017 at 08:01

      God, I sure hope you’re right. It is hard to get a fix on what the average Joe is thinking these days. The whole RussiaGate BS non-stop on the MSM has the feeling of desperation at this point, but I wonder how many are really buying it. “Our Revolution” is trying to have a real impact on the Democratic Party, but I think their chance of success is virtually zero. Bernie blew it big time when he caved to the Clinton machine, and the DNC will pull the same crap in 2020 given the chance. The progressives need a new standard bearer, and if not the Green Party, then a new party as well. And their new standard bearer has to be able to stand up to the war machine and Wall Street, and that’s a tall order.

  5. NavyVet
    November 29, 2017 at 10:37

    Beyond disillusionment with neoliberal economics, there appears to me to be another tectonic shift in US politics: growing antiwar and anti-imperial sentiment, at least on the right. Go read the right-wing blogs. People are sick of what we are doing in the Middle East. They are starting to realize that this country is sponsoring terrorism. It’s quite the encouraging development.

    That said, antiwar sentiment among centrist Democrats evaporated as soon as Bush left office and they made no peep about expanding the drone war and sponsoring illegal invasions of Libya and Syria. But, among the actual left and the actual right, there appears to be a consensus emerging that our wars of empire are not only ill-advised, but even morally wrong. Very encouraging!

    • Andrew
      November 29, 2017 at 15:27

      Let rationality triumph at the end!

    • RnM
      November 29, 2017 at 18:46

      I am firmly committed to never vote for any candidate who won’t firmly comit to halting growth in “defense” spending, and make an unreversible shift to putting those former “defense” appropriations into bringing the living standards, especially health care – and I don’t mean another health insurance scam, of all Americans up to those of the rest of the so-called developed world. Absent such a candidate, I won’t vote. No more “lesser of two evils.” F–k them and their supporters.

    • S Brennan
      November 29, 2017 at 23:28

      right on…but those who live in blue ghettos are oblivious to this.

  6. Peter Loeb
    November 29, 2017 at 08:17

    “…if the Democrats hope to ride an anti-Trump wave, they would
    do best to look below the surface and recognize the tectonic shifts taking place,
    that much of the political establishment seems to prefer to ignore…”—Anrew Spannaus, above

    “…”It is this illusion of the ‘accidental’ quality of the role of the United States…that
    has lead over the past years to a kind of specious liberalism which believes
    one simply replaces individuals in office with other men…” Gabriel Kolko
    (Note rest of “Epilogue”, 1969—before the end of the Vietnam War

    One could continue but I believe that this simplistic “I resist” approach by
    the Democratic Party will backfire and once again fail to address the
    basic concerns of those increasingly left out. It leaves sef-proclaimed
    “liberals-progressives” battling for the crumbs of poor legislation
    from previous “Democratic” administrations such as that of Barack
    Obama’s which basically served the wealthy..

    How beautiful it would be (as Kolko points out) if we could
    all join hands and march and the power distribution in the USA
    and in the world would change!

    Yes, many of us did believe this. While now we have returned
    to more years of persons of color belng shot on US streets not
    to mention others murdered abroad by the thousands.

    When the truth hurts, we bury ourselves in myth. Of course
    it’s all Donald Trump’s fault (not ours). And if you don’t agree
    —you are supporting Donald Trump.

    —-Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

  7. Charles Jannuzi
    November 29, 2017 at 08:04

    The national security state/ deep DC has chosen the DP as it political party–that is because they see the Republican Party has too volatile, too unstable, and too indifferent to the majority of Americans (working class, lower middle class), while being blind and deaf on the race and ethnicity issues. Their hope is that at least in rhetoric the touchy feely Democraps can mitigate the reality of the national security state and its evil empire.

  8. john wilson
    November 29, 2017 at 05:42

    As yet there doesn’t seem to be a candidate emerging who is going to take on Trump in three years time. I would have thought any such candidate should be projecting themselves now, otherwise that person be a relatively unknown. Of course, Hillary may well be anointed the contender for the throne and I wouldn’t put it past her to stand again. As for the Russia and Putin drivel, the average Jo American can see that his life isn’t affected at by what the Russians may or may not have done to the election last time round. Its really going to be up to Trump to turn the economy round if he can.

  9. michael crockett
    November 29, 2017 at 03:44

    Good article. Bernie should not take contributions from billionaires. The organization, Our Revolution, should not fall under the sway of the one percent. That being said Bernie, stay true to your domestic agenda. However, some constructive criticism is needed. Bernie should agree to meet with Veterans For Peace, a group he has shunned in the past. I would like to see him come out strong against the wars we are currently involved in. Wars that are illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral. With respect to our conduct, an ICC investigation would be the right course to take. Taking Syria as example, we have no legal right to be there. We have not been invited by the Syrian Government to assist them jn the fight against Isis and other terrorist groups. Now we have found out that two thousand U S troops are in Syria at this time. No U N Security Council mandate has been passed to authorize this intervention. We are not a nation of laws, we are a rogue state. Trump is unwilling to stand up to the military intelligence industrial complex. He may have just lied when during the campaign he said ” No more wars of intervention.” Maybe he is afraid to challenge the deep state. Either way he has become a failing pile of garbage. If he had the courage of his professed convictions, he would have supported President Assad and his allies Russia, Iran, and others in the war on terrorism. It now appears that the U S, which has armed and equipped the Kurds and the Free Syrian Army (free of any popular support), desires to annex Northern Syria. Thus attempting to use this as a bargaining chip to demand the removal of President Assad. Had Trump worked with Russia in resolving this conflict, and subsequently removed all U S Military Troops from the Middle East, Asia, Africa and elsewhere he would have received majority support from the American people. He could then give the middle finger to both the main stream media and the war hawks in Congress. No guts, no glory, and no rational diplomatic relations with Russia.

    • Skip Scott
      November 29, 2017 at 08:37

      The raping of Russia under the drunken Yeltsin gave the Western financial sharks like Browder the taste of blood in the water. When Putin put a stop to all that there was no chance that Obama could choose detente with Russia. He had to follow the wishes of his masters. Sander’s and Warren’s foreign policy stances are probably taken in light of those same masters. They position themselves as far to the left as they can without sounding any major alarm bells, and then they are always co-opted when push comes to shove. They know just how long of a leash they have been put on.
      “Our Revolution” is another Hopey/changey ploy to try to keep the progressives under the democratic fold without having any chance for real success. They need to bail out and go over to the Green Party, or start their own. And they need a new standard bearer. Sanders and Warren have lost all credibility to anybody paying attention.

    • Anon
      November 29, 2017 at 08:50

      Yes, Sanders appears to be a zionist agent. He will not stop the Mideast wars for Israel.
      That was the promise that elected Trump.

  10. Joe Tedesky
    November 29, 2017 at 00:22

    I live in the Rust Belt, and if you listen as you walk around this place it isn’t hard to find the average people who still cannot forgive the Clinton’s for NAFTA. I ask you, how could the whole Democratic Party have not known this? Well, when you have your politicial butt living in a ‘make your own reality’ bubble, well then you lose the voter.

    The voter is angry, and both politicial parties are dealing with this independent mindset, which the voter has acquired. Add to that this country’s citizens are moving further apart from each other, and the divide is at one of it’s widest points ever. This would not all be so bad if a quality leadership were to arise, but even on close study Bernie Sanders, Warren, and Gabbard, all come with concerns worth worrying yourself about.

    The bottom line for any or all politicial parties, is the citizens want good paying career jobs. The citizens want less spend on war, and more spend on infrastructure. The average citizens doesn’t want to leave a burden of debt so high for their grandchildren that their heirs have only less to live on than it’s prior generation ever did. Opportunity for most, is too just be able to have a comfortable modest style of living, and want not for a meal. Why, is this so hard to provide? Because greed buys the politician.

    • Peter Loeb
      November 29, 2017 at 08:41

      THE ANGER…

      Thanks to Joe Tedesky and all of the above who try to
      bring this to our attention.

      I don’t live in the rustbelt. I live in Boston and GE is moving in here.
      Everything will be GREAT!!!!

      There is no room for a list of the betrayals by GE of millions
      of Americans. They were not alone.

      —–Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

      • Joe Tedesky
        November 29, 2017 at 17:32

        Good luck with GE, I truly hope GE provides Bostonians with good paying jobs. Although be prepared for rising house prices, but hey that may be good especially if you are putting your home on the market. Our area here Pittsburgh, is putting their hopes on the assumption that Amazon may build a facility here, but we are among many other cities with the same big hopes. None the less, good paying jobs is what Americans most need. Take care Peter, it’s always good to hear from you. Joe

    • rosemerry
      November 29, 2017 at 17:10

      Exactly. Studies show that 70% of the voters do not get legislation passed that helps them-that only happens to the already rich. No wonder half the potential voters do not bother to vote, since nobody represents them. Money talks (“freedom of speech”!)

      • Joe Tedesky
        November 29, 2017 at 17:38

        The average American is ignored by the DC politicians. I might add politicians on a local and state level are no better. No, I’m sorry to say the average voter is nothing more than just a pawn in the game of running a government. How we change this is hard to define. I would suggest we Americans somehow close the wedge issue gaps, and that we unite under a infrastructure, healthcare, type platform for change. Although, this will never happen with the two party system we now have. Let’s just leave it that we average Americans have a lot of work to do, and without a leader this is impossible to do. Joe

  11. incontinent reader
    November 29, 2017 at 00:22

    Both Warren and Sanders are terribly weak on foreign policy. Warren carries the added baggage of having been an attack dog for Hillary ‘Rod up her Ass’ Clinton, while Bernie caved in prematurely to the Rod. My choice is Tulsi Gabbard, and not because I’m an old geezer who likes to ogle beautiful women. She has gravitas and is the real deal. That’s someone I could vote for President, once she gains a bit more experience. Even without it, she was and is far superior to either Bernie or Pocahontas.

    • November 29, 2017 at 05:13

      First of all, calling Warren by that name is something I have to call you out on. It is demeaning to the real historical woman and to all native Americans.

      Tulsi has her problems too. She is not as anti-imperialistic as she appears. She has a history of Islamophobia and she voted for increasing sanctions on Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

      • S Brennan
        November 29, 2017 at 23:24

        I agree Miranda,

        But not as you imply, calling Warren “Pocahontas” is unfair to all Native Americans. How unfair? Well…at least as unfair as a wealthy white woman falsely claiming a ethnically disadvantaged slot to further her ambitions.

        And Miranda after watching a Wahhabist Muslim take a steel rod to bloody his wife in public…I too fell prey to what you describe as “Islamophobia”. Had you been similarly savaged I feel certain you would succumb as well, but from your safe perch it’s easy to decry those who call for a reformation of an 8th century warrior cult masking itself as a religion.

        Name me another “religion” that forces adherents to bow multiple times daily to an 8th century geopolitical power center to prove their loyalty to it’s governance.

      • incontinent reader
        November 30, 2017 at 06:58

        Right, and if you referred to Adam Schiff as Joe McCarthy would you be insulting Irish Americans? At least you weren’t bothered and didn’t take offense at my comment about Hillary and call me out for insulting the Equus asinus species.

        Sorry, but political correctness is a sick, prudish sister next to political satire, and sometimes one not only has to hit hard, but also be able to take the shots without whining.

        I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that while many Native Americans may be offended, others do not feel demeaned by the use, per se, of the Pocahontas moniker, but, instead are offended that Elizabeth Warren, with all of her political warts, hypocrisy, and blatant dishonesty as to her ethnic provenance to gain personal advantage- should be given the same status as an historical Native American figure. That’s the insult, and she’s the one who’s done the insulting.

        As for Tulsi Gabbard, I assume you are referring to her vote on H.R. 3364 (which morphed into the Warmbier Act, admittedly a misbegotten piece of legislation, but one which its authors made problematic to oppose, by linking Ukraine and Iran to the death of Otto Warmbier, and to North Korea and its WMDs- even if our policy toward the DPRK is, and has been, disingenuous, counterproductive, and dangerous). Sometimes you have to hold your fire and eat bitter. But look at her whole record – votes, speeches, and interviews- and the intense heat she has taken for her stands before you start frothing. It’s easy to criticize when you’re not in the hot seat. What you really should be doing is speaking with her directly, and/or calling her office to express your displeasure, and find out why, on those votes with which you disagree, she voted as she did. You might be pleasantly surprised.

        And to call her “Islamophobic” is, I’m sorry, utter nonsense, especially after she served in Iraq, and became one of the few later to openly oppose our wars in the Middle East (when under Obama it had become chic to remain silent)- including in Syria, which she had the courage to visit earlier this year to meet with Assad- or, after she has urged caution against needlessly provoking Russia, or was front and center in revealing our government’s aid to the jihadists we were supposed to be fighting, or introduced legislation to deny funding to those very jihadists (the “Stop Funding Terrorist Act” which her colleagues, sadly, did not pass), or has voted for, and still supports, the JCPOA with Iran, or has opposed Trump’s immigration policies targeting Muslims, etc., etc., etc.

        It sounds like you are pretty sharp and your heart is in the right place, but it’s never wise to jump to conclusions or ignore the big picture.

  12. Litchfield
    November 28, 2017 at 22:38

    “This proposition was proven – although negatively – by the numerous compromises made by Barack Obama in the first year of his presidency.”

    Oh dear, oh dear.
    Obama was never serious. So, he didn’t “make compromises.” He stated what he actually wanted, which was a plan developed by the insurance industry.
    He has rightly been labeled the biggest hypocrite and betrayer of the public’s trust and . . .yes, HOPE ever to occupy the Oval Office.

    • Zachary Smith
      November 28, 2017 at 23:55

      He has rightly been labeled the biggest hypocrite and betrayer of the public’s trust and . . .yes, HOPE ever to occupy the Oval Office.

      I can’t say of my own knowledge that you are correct with this on account of my limited knowledge of American History. On the other hand, I don’t know of anyone worse.

      Perhaps some history majors can give examples of “worse than Obama” – should any exist.

    • soldim
      November 29, 2017 at 08:32

      Indeed – people who fell for it betray their lack of political awareness. Every successful presidential candidate (certainly post WW2) campaigned on a platform of change (and we know how that turned out). In politics there is only one first order question: Qui Bono? or to put it more bluntly ‘follow the money’. All one needed to do back in 2008 was to check who was bankrolling Obomber. Guess what? it was Lockheed, Citigroup and their fellow leeches and all of this was in the public domain. The rest is meaningless claptrap designed to pull wool over voters’ eyes. Really getting fed up with people who ‘believed he meant it’. In politics, especially when it comes to making a choice, there is no room for belief, emotion or hope, only cold calculation of hard facts. The latter were hidden in plain sight for anyone who bothered to look.

      • Nancy
        November 29, 2017 at 11:44

        Of course Bernie ended up supporting Hillary as well, which confirmed what I already believed about him. Looking to any of these phonies to change the disastrous course we’re on is nothing but wishful thinking. We need new leadership, completely unconnected to the crooks who have been betraying us for years.

      • irina
        November 29, 2017 at 15:16

        Well, I voted for Obama because the other choice was McCain with my state’s ‘half-governor’ next in line.
        Both those personalities were more appalling to me. (Much more). I didn’t caucus in that primary (because
        of being registered as a Green, not a Democrat) but probably would have sided with Obama over Hillary.

        I did change my registration to caucus for Bernie in 2016. That was a very satisfying event with overwhelming
        support for Bernie in the Fairbanks area. The few Hillary supporters (mostly women my age) were relegated to
        a side room where they sat around looking smug and superior, while the vast majority of us (all ages and walks
        of life) were jam-packed into ‘holding pens’ put together at the last minute to accommodate the unexpected crowd.
        I personally know many of the Hillary supporters (small city syndrome) and they (mostly) still act smug and superior,
        albeit with an overlay of righteous indignation and disapproval towards the rest of us reprobates.

      • rosemerry
        November 29, 2017 at 17:07

        Don’t forget also his meeting with the bankers, shaking in their shoes and ready to be punished (reported by Ron Suskind) where he told them “I am with you to protect you from the pitchforks” as he handed the banksters the loot.
        The emails to Podesta also showed how all Obama’s cabinet were those the Wall St mob recommended.

  13. Josh O'Bryant
    November 28, 2017 at 21:59

    Legitimately based on the notion that Shillary was the strongest candidate? LOL if that were really true Bernie wouldn’t have won by such a wide margin they had to cancel exit polls just to nominate the only candidate who could lose to Trump. A party doesn’t have to rig their primary for the strongest candidate, they did it to sabotage the strongest candidate because he wasn’t funded by party donors. I agree with the rest but to say the only candidate who could’nt win by more than 10 points was the stronger is laughably stupid.

  14. Jessejean
    November 28, 2017 at 21:34

    Apropos of nothing, that ugly broad Killary looks more like Jabba the Hutt everyday. Yikes.

  15. Lois Gagnon
    November 28, 2017 at 20:36

    The voters who have not been represented in Washington for decades thought they finally had a chance to be heard through Bernie’s campaign. We should have known the Establishment would pull out all the stops to prevent that from happening. And as we saw, the military, intelligence, security, banking, media cabal blatantly cheated to eliminate the threat to their absolute control of the system.

    So the choice became the person who represented more denial of representation via Hillary, a wrecking ball or a third party candidate. So smug and over confident were these master manipulators they couldn’t see what was right in front of them. And so the wrecking ball won. Now they think deflecting blame on Putin and WikiLeaks will get them out of the predicament their hubris got them and us into.

    This whole rotten system may have to collapse before we can rebuild from the ashes. The level of self delusion on the part of the Democrats and their enablers at this point is beyond comprehension.

    • November 28, 2017 at 21:34

      “The level of self delusion on the part of the Democrats and their enablers at this point is beyond comprehension.” Yes, and Trump is the bogeyman they use to lure the children back to bed. Here in California I was recently contacted by someone from “Justice Democrats” who are fielding a candidate to run against Dianne Feinstein, but who can trust a Democratic primary anymore after they rigged the votes against Sanders?

  16. Annie
    November 28, 2017 at 18:26

    When people voted Obama into office they believed, as I did, that he would be more even handed in a party that had shifted to the right, especially under Bill Clinton. Obama’s calling card was change you could believe in, yet financial inequality got worse during his administration. The gains after the financial crisis, basically went to the top 10 percent in this country. That democrats thought that Hilary Clinton with her ties to Wall Street was going to be a win for them shows how uninformed they were about what was going on in America, and no wonder, since they gave up listening to what was once their working class base decades before. It’s hard to believe they don’t get it now, and have opted to blame everyone, but themselves for their losses. That says one thing to me, they don’t want change.

    • Peter Loeb
      November 29, 2017 at 08:29


      Thanks to Annie for bringing up the economy. Most commenters just…”forget”?

      Under Obama, the lower economic portions of Americans got about
      2 billion dollars. The upper l per cent received $200 billion.
      (See Jack Rasmus). Not including the increase of political
      power of “shadow banks” (speculative),and legislative
      windfalls to the banking interests and and the growing
      defense interests (Lockheed etc.).

      If you think this is fair, that’s your decision. If not
      you are probably one of those whiny, picky
      “liberals” who support Donald Trump.(quoth
      the true-blue Dems).

      —Peter Loeb, Boston, MA, USA

  17. November 28, 2017 at 18:15

    Andrew Spannaus wrote, “Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts (an early supporter of Sander’s campaign before endorsing Hillary Clinton)…”

    No, Mr. Spannaus, you don’t get to do this; you don’t get to change history to promote Elizabeth Warren.

    It hasn’t been two years and you expect us to forget the past? Elizabeth Warren was NEVER a supporter of the Sanders’ campaign. Never. She refused to support him. This obviously was done to appease Hillary Clinton.

    She chose her own position in the Democratic Party over supporting the progressive values she says she supports. Her disgusting support of Clinton before the convention, despite the already overwhelming evidence that Clinton was a bought and paid for servant of Wall Street and that she had rigged the Primary against Sanders, is something that totally alienated me from her permanently. I will not be tricked into supporting her so she can sail to the a nomination in 2020 and then do to us exactly what Obama did.

    • Andrew Spannaus
      November 28, 2017 at 18:26

      You are right, that is a mistake. Will have it corrected. Thanks.

      • November 29, 2017 at 05:06

        Thank you. I appreciate you responding and owning the mistake. It’s very impressive.

    • Zachary Smith
      November 28, 2017 at 22:07

      I will not be tricked into supporting her so she can sail to the a nomination in 2020 and then do to us exactly what Obama did.

      For what it’s worth, I’m in complete agreement with you regarding Warren.

      • November 29, 2017 at 17:30

        I saw the same and don’t forget either.

    • Litchfield
      November 28, 2017 at 22:53

      Yes. Warren really disappointed me during the campaign.
      I no longer take her seriously. I have written to her to tell her this.
      I was a registered Dem in Mass most of my voting life, but after last year’s performance, I left the Dem Party and registered as Unaligned. Partly because of awful Hillary and partly out of disgust also with Obama and also, most disappointing, E. Warren. Mainly for her support of Hillary and her support of hawks and warmongering and Israel. We do not need “progressives” of this stripe.

    • rosemerry
      November 29, 2017 at 17:01

      Also Warren and Sanders support warmaking and Warren also supports Israel.

      • November 29, 2017 at 17:33

        I have asked her more than once why she supports a religious state as the idea is so blatantly unamerican.

        No reply even though she is my Senator.

    • Kathy Woods
      November 29, 2017 at 17:10

      Completely agree

  18. Stephen
    November 28, 2017 at 17:12

    Here is an analysis of some past fake news on Syria.
    CPR News November 28, 2017

    Maybe most of what we are fed by the M$M is fake news.

  19. Colleen O'Brien
    November 28, 2017 at 16:41

    Yes, the Democratic Party seems unwilling to look at the real causes of their demise.
    Denying the obvious reasons and blaming everyone else including Russia is not only destructive, it’s dangerous.

    Progressives are starting to win in local elections despite getting no support from the State or the National Democratic organizations.

    Can we start a new party for the people & win?

  20. November 28, 2017 at 15:39

    There’s a good article on Antiwar that properly raises the question of whether the whole #resistance movement was cooked up ala Cointelpro etc. by the CIA originally, and continually, and fed thru the mainstream media they basically control due to Trump being a Deep State outsider and thus a threat and, in the campaign at least…, his threatening their ongoing wars, Russia lies, and the money and power machine that results from all these unending wars and “enemies” to the Deep State and its allies in the Military/Industrial/”Intelligence complex that has taken over the country for decades….sounds like a reasonable theory….

    • Litchfield
      November 28, 2017 at 22:46

      I find the #resistance movement deeply suspicious. Looks “cooked up” to me.
      Along with #antifa.

  21. will
    November 28, 2017 at 15:34

    “It was more than a bit ironic to see feminist protestors – properly exercising their right to protest against a President who has made many derogatory comments towards women – hold up signs defending the CIA during the Women’s March on Inauguration Day.” I guess I never saw that at my particular 100,000 strong woman’s march. Did the author interview these sign holders to determine if they were card carrying feminists?

  22. Drew Hunkins
    November 28, 2017 at 15:32

    The corporate Democrats are an insidious infection on the body politic. It’s a cop out for liberals to constantly attack the easy target that is the GOP reactionaries. A real populist LBJ or FDR would be wiping the floor with the Paul Ryans in election after election.

    The DLC/New Dem types have the mainstream organs all under their control: NYTimes, CNN, WaPo, and NPR. It’s a sinister establishment apparatus that’s sold out struggling working people across the country who are one emergency auto repair or medical-dental healthcare crisis away from miserable destitution. It’s an establishment apparatus that’s TOTALLY eschewed class based politics for the boutique activism of non-threatening identity politics. The corporate board room doesn’t much care if it loses a little white male privilege, but advocate for strong democratic unions that cut into dividends and stock options, and Watch Out!

    To question any of these mainstream players is to bring scorn and mockery upon oneself, to be branded a Putin puppet or Kremlin stooge or Trump apologist.

    Clinton-Obama corporatism and Clinton-Obama militarism are the diseases, Trump the symptom.

    The DLC-Shumer-New Dem cabal have not brought one substantive benefit to the hard pressed working classes (which essentially makes up 85% of the United States population) since Medicare in 1966.

    History can’t wash these charlatans down the sewer fast enough.

    • Sam F
      November 28, 2017 at 19:49

      Yes, the Dems are terminally corrupted, have done nothing whatsoever in fifty years, and will never again produce more than another fake populist betrayer of the people. It is time for progressive parties that truly represent their members, and form coalitions to gain a majority.

      To get there we must organize parties, and show the shallow identity partisans that the problems of the nation and the world are far deeper than longer maternity leaves and trans bathrooms. Unfortunately, most of them live such sheltered lives that they simply do not care about anyone but themselves.

      • November 28, 2017 at 21:53

        “Unfortunately, most of them live such sheltered lives that they simply do not care about anyone but themselves.” Aye Sam, although many of them are beginning to understand climate change(as it begins to affect their lives) connecting the dots on a calamitous foreign policy defies the comprehension of most Americans as well as their willingness to learn about how it relates to their personal well-being. An economic collapse might bring more focus on defense spending, but even then, it’s likely that there will be more apathy than outrage.

    • JWalters
      November 28, 2017 at 20:41

      All excellent points. And if we “follow the money” we find that Hillary’s campaign was completely controlled by Israelis, a fact that Hillary took care to hide from her non-Israeli supporters. This specific deception was part of Israel’s longstanding deception of America, along with it’s control of most of the Democratic party and all of the Republican party.

      Israel’s hidden takeover of America’s press, politics, and war machinery is deadly for America’s democracy and the freedom of ordinary Americans, who are mere fodder for Israel’s wars and crimes. The mainstream media remains silent about all this, despite the abundant evidence. For example,
      “War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror”

      To combat Israel’s criminal influence, it’s iron financial control over America’s mainstream media must be broken. The public must be educated about that control, even if slowly. As a key part of that process, the public must also learn that most accusations of anti-Semitism today are false and vicious smears intended to silence critics of Israel.

      • Drew Hunkins
        November 28, 2017 at 21:57

        Yes, the Zionist Power Configuration does indeed wield a ton of influence throughout major sectors of the United States — be it the mainstream news media, investment banking, Hollywood, big law, Washington’s imperialist policies, Capitol Hill, and book publishing — but the ZPC, as powerful as it is, is not omnipotent. There will eventually be a backlash against it and it will be defeated by the American people. One hopes this impending struggle stays democratic, non-violent and has millions of righteous American Jews on our side.

    • Skip Scott
      November 29, 2017 at 08:13

      Hi Drew-

      I think the progressives have to give up on the Democratic party en masse and take a good look at bolstering the Green Party. Corporate control is a fait accompli at the DNC. They use people like Sanders and Warren to try to keep progressives under their wing, but we get sold out time and again. It would be great if we could get a person who is already famous (but not Bernie) to rally the progressives over to the Greens, get the 15% needed for the debates, and then take our arguments directly to the American people. We need somebody with name recognition so the MSM couldn’t ignore them into irrelevance.

Comments are closed.