Before Trump’s revolution, there was Sanders’

Middle East
on 97 Comments

Before it was such an upsetting political year, 2016 was glorious. Back in the spring, Bernie Sanders said he was leading a political revolution for greater equality and against war, and I was among many idealists who believed that he might actually win the Democratic nomination.

Before Trump’s Michigan, there was Bernie’s Michigan. He surprised the pundits and the pollsters last March by coming from way down in the polls to beat Hillary Clinton there. Eight months later Trump would shock the pollsters and pundits by doing the very same thing in Michigan. Obviously, team Clinton failed to learn the political lesson. It was too entitled and insular. (Who else needed a committee of eight to sign off on a tweet about Pope Francis’s statement on climate change?).

The Trump revolution is fearful to many people today because he was so openly racist and sexist, but his revolution was built from some of the same political materials and instincts that Bernie tried to build his out of. In fact, the great thing about Bernie’s revolution is that even though he was incapable of the anger that may have been required to topple Clinton, and Wikileaks hadn’t come along yet with its bald evidence that the system really was rigged, he cobbled together the coalition that is the future of the left in America, and it was non-racial. His movement embraced working- and middle-class white people who have now become the bugaboo of the elites, and some on the left too, in the wake of Trump’s victory. He embraced Muslims and African-Americans and of course millennials too. He was 75, but his movement was generational.

Sanders has maintained that populist ethos through Tuesday’s carnage. He’s declared, “I do not believe that most of the people who are thinking about voting for Mr. Trump are racist or sexist.” And he has pushed for Keith Ellison, the great Minnesota congressman who happens to be a Muslim, and who visited Gaza, and boycotted Netanyahu, to be the chair of the Democratic National Committee. It may even happen.

Sanders’s rhetorical brilliance of the spring now comes back to haunt us. Hillary Clinton refused to release her speeches to Goldman, Sachs, and at rally after rally, Bernie said, I’ll release all my speeches to the Wall Street bankers, and he threw his hands in the air — There they are. Well months later Wikileaks released Clinton’s speeches, and they surely helped Trump. So did a comment that is entirely alien to Bernie Sanders’s worldview: Clinton’s sneering claim that Trump was supported by a basket of “deplorables.” No doubt Clinton stood for a lot of good inclusive things in her often inspiring October campaign against Trump. But she also stood for shallow elitist careerism. It was no coincidence that she was supported by billionaires 20-to-1 over Trump. And though Colin Powell branded Trump as a “national disgrace” in a leaked email, he also branded Clinton: “unbridled ambition… not transformational.”

That is the great frustration of this political season: that transformational populist political materials so important to the left were abandoned by the establishment Democratic candidate, and Trump picked them up instead, and won with them. On election night, it was a Republican commentator who said on one network or another that 13 million people lost their homes in the Wall Street credit meltdown and no banker went to jail. An echo of Bernie. And though Chris Matthews talked every night about America’s costly and brutalizing wars in the Middle East, Clinton couldn’t seize that issue either. Nor could the pundit class that supported her so fervently. Because they too supported those wars; and Clinton surrogate Hilary Rosen was pushing regime change in Syria on CNN; and the neoconservatives were looking forward to regrouping in the shadows of the Clinton administration.

One good thing about the Trump victory is that the shakeup of the Democratic Party that we all hoped was going to happen in the next couple few years is happening right now. The party is smashed to bits. And when it is reformed in the months and years to come, this will be a generational revolution. The millennials who came out to those Bernie rallies by the tens of thousands will be taking over the ideological and political reins of the party. It will be an antiwar party and a small-d democratic party, concerned with social justice and equality. Palestinians will be honored at last; BDS will not be spat upon, as it was day after day in the Clinton braintrust. Haim Saban and the rest of the hard-core Israel lobby megadonors will have to go Republican, and good riddance.

There is obviously a Jewish piece to this reformation. Modern Jewish identity is at stake; and here too Bernie Sanders shows the way forward.

In the last days of the campaign the establishment punditocracy was caught up in the question of whether a Trump ad that showed three Jewish faces, among many others, in an attack on the Clinton establishment was anti-Semitic. But all three Jewish faces are powerful people, Janet Yellen, George Soros, and Lloyd Blankfein. And the price of power in our society is scrutiny. The Jewish establishment was an important part of the Clinton campaign– as everyone from Jeffrey Goldberg to J.J. Goldberg to Stephanie Schriock to Steven Cohen stated.

Bernie Sanders offered a different way. His campaign was based on small contributions, and when he dared to criticize Israel’s bombing of Gaza and say that Netanyahu is “not right all the time” in the April debate in New York, it was a liberating moment for the Democratic Party, and for non-Zionist Jews. Jonathan Tasini and Norman Finkelstein were both over the moon. Critics of Israel could open their mouths inside the mainstream discourse and live another day. The Democratic Party will never be the same.

Just as important were Sanders’s expressions of humility and egalitarianism, which he said he had gotten in part from Jewish tradition. In an era of Jewish wealth and nationalism and particularism, this too is a different way. Sanders is a proud universalist. He drew directly on the life of the Jewish Bundists in eastern Europe: they believed that Jews should participate fully, politically and socially, in the societies they belong to, and they should be part of a broad-based movement for democratic socialism (as James North states it).

Sanders’s personal mythology was Jewish but pointedly not sectarian. He honored his paint salesman immigrant father, and Roosevelt and Churchill, too, but when asked if he believed in God he was a modern, and gave one of the best statements of his campaign:

The answer is yes and I think when we talk about God, whether it it is Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or Buddhism, what we are talking about is what all religions hold dear, and, that is, to do unto others as you would like them to do unto you.

I am here tonight, and I’m running for president– I’m a United States Senator from my great state of Vermont– because I believe that. Because I believe morally and ethically we do not have the right to turn our backs on children in Flint, Michigan, who are being poisoned or veterans who are sleeping out on the street. What I believe as the father of seven beautiful grandchildren: I want you to worry about my grandchildren and I promise you I will worry about your family. We are in this together.

One of the most obscene DNC emails leaked after the campaign showed that the Democratic leadership wanted to smear him as an atheist.

Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage.

While former party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz said,

The Israel stuff is disturbing.

Sadly, it required Donald Trump to smash that old sclerotic establishment. But now they’re gone, and Sanders’s populist revolution will not end. It is in the best hands, the next generation’s.

H/t Scott Roth, James North, Adam Horowitz. 

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

97 Responses

  1. joemowrey
    November 11, 2016, 3:07 pm

    Sorry, but what was obvious to many of us from the outset became glaringly apparent to even the most naive once Sanders folded before even going to the convention. Bernie was nothing more than a sheep dog hired to bring progressives back in to the fold to vote for Clinton.

    Too bad it didn’t work. Now Bernie won’t be getting whatever cabinet post or other peachy appointment he was promised for selling out his followers. He’ll just have to go back to doing what he has done best for decades, making a lot of progressive noise yet accomplishing very little. But he has managed to feed at the public trough regardless.

    The only upside to the Trump victory is that now maybe there will be an actual social revolution mobilized from the Left since they don’t have Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to adulate in order to justify ignoring the horrific war crimes each of them has committed.

    A great piece at DV today pointing out the true colors of the so-called Progressives who have supported unbridled war around the globe while ignoring the gutting of our national treasury and the crushing of the middle class by the Democratic Party elite.

    You reap what you sow. Welcome to the Trump era. It will be terrible, yet strangely refreshing to see a bunch of sociopaths and crooks at least being honest about what they are doing instead of pretending to be “liberals.”

    http://dissidentvoice.org/2016/11/poor-liberals-you-have-nobody-to-blame-but-yourselves/

    • Mooser
      November 11, 2016, 5:14 pm

      “the so-called Progressives who have supported unbridled war around the globe while ignoring the gutting of our national treasury and the crushing of the middle class by the Democratic Party elite.”

      And after George Bush’s profitable and effective War on Iraq too! As I remember, Bush nearly balanced the budget with that war, and its aftermath. “crushing the middle class” Oh yeah, it was the Democrats what done it.

      • Philemon
        November 11, 2016, 8:22 pm

        Well, I don’t remember the Democrats being all that agin it.

      • Mooser
        November 13, 2016, 11:41 pm

        “Well, I don’t remember the Democrats being all that agin it.”

        Yup, Hilary voted for it, and wouldn’t disavow that vote for some years to come.

      • Mooser
        November 14, 2016, 11:26 am

        And that ended Hilary for me.

  2. yonah fredman
    November 11, 2016, 4:49 pm

    The American pattern since 1952 is to change parties (president wise) every 8 years (or less). Thus the cards were stacked against hillary, particularly 3rd term of Obama hillary. The one exception to this “tradition” was reagan and bush pere. The arc of Reagan’s votes compared to Obama’s votes demonstrates why that irregularity was not repeated this year. Reagan doubled his margin over his democrat opponent from Carter to mondale. On sheer momentum bush had the wind to his back. Obama’s victory over Romney was weaker than his victory over mccain, it was on a trajectory of descent when hillary stepped into the role. )

  3. Keith
    November 11, 2016, 5:02 pm

    PHIL- “Back in the spring, Bernie Sanders said he was leading a political revolution….”

    He lied. He was a sheep dog rounding up the disenchanted Democrats for Hillary.

    PHIL- “The Trump revolution….”

    There was no revolution. Trump is a con man who flim flammed the victims of “liberal” globalization that he was their populist savior who would change the prevailing system. He isn’t and he won’t. And what most “liberals” and “progressives” fail to realize is that Clinton and Obama have been labeled as “liberals” and “progressives” even though neither has a progressive bone in their body. As a consequence, the horrors of neoliberal globalization are identified as the outcome of the policies of “liberals” and “progressives.” And the defense of Obama and Clinton by so called “liberals” and “progressives” indicates that the Democrats and their followers have no principles to speak of, rather, they are more like a tribe showing solidarity with those wearing the same brand.

    There will be little difference of substance between Trump and Hillary in regards to the prevailing power relations. Bernie would not have been very different either. To refer to our electoral marketing extravaganzas as potentially “revolutionary” is a debasement of the language. When both candidates are representatives of some grouping of elites, the elites always win and the system prevails with only a minor accommodation to the slight realignment of power. The purpose of the political system is to administer the empire consistent with elite objectives. Little has changed or can change until concentrated money power is broken up. You overestimate the power of the political system and continue to engage in unjustified flights of fancy.

  4. yonah fredman
    November 11, 2016, 5:09 pm

    Sorry for bite sized comments rather than a tome at once :
    Hillary was a very unusual candidate. The party felt that it owed her the nomination. She had won more votes than Obama in the primaries of 2008, the nomination had been inches away, when the phenom known as barak Obama jumped the line and said, “No, me.” And the party said, ” him first and then you “. First the precedent of race and then the precedent of gender. Hillary served loyally and waited to be anointed.
    Sanders was an unusual candidate. He was not a democrat, but an independent, he was not mainstream, but to the party’s furthest left fringes. To expect the party apparatus to reject a loyal super loyal democrat and to prefer an outsider in label and content, is to expect the party apparatus to operate on principles written in the clouds and not in reality.
    But still Bernie would have won, except for the black vote. Blacks honor loyalty and they like familiarity and Sanders was never loyal (to the party) and no one ever heard of him before. An old guy, but new to them. To paraphrase Ann coulter, if only whites had voted in the primaries sanders would have won.
    This was the first time that someone other than a sitting president was deemed the deserving nominee to the extent that status was granted to hillary. Between the glass ceiling needing to be shattered and winning the most votes in 2008 and being embraced by Obama as Secretary of state, she was practically a shoo-in. (My “What if?” focuses on the death of Biden’s son. Would he have run against hillary if not for that personal trauma interfering with normal life?)

    • Mooser
      November 11, 2016, 6:09 pm

      “Sorry for bite sized comments rather than a tome at once :”

      Don’t give it a thought, “Yonah”. Rest assured every comment, whether terse or loquacious, is awaited with bated breath. Especially your analysis of the “black vote”. You are the go-to mayven in that biallywick.

      • yonah fredman
        November 11, 2016, 7:35 pm

        Mooser- the one who assured us that we have nothing to fear that Trump would never win, whose analysis is that the media are to blame, you have zero credibility. Except as court jester.

      • Mooser
        November 11, 2016, 8:08 pm

        , “…you have zero credibility.”

        You are probably right “Yonah”, I’ll never be a bal toyreh like you.

        And BTW, you are wrong. I said that Trump didn’t want to win. He won, anyway, but he didn’t want to. And he don’t want to be President, either.

      • Mooser
        November 11, 2016, 8:21 pm

        Oh “Yonah”, speaking of “credibility” I’ve been meaning to ask you about this:

        Phil was raised different than the way I was raised. He was raised by atheist secular jews with a heavy dose of “I had 6 children, for the six million”. He hated the Jewish religion and resented the ethnic solidarity of the jews when he encountered opposition to his marriage to a nonjew” – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/profile/wondering-jew/?keyword=semi#sthash.FMrvYmg2.dpuf

        You spent a whole lotta time around Phil’s family, huh? Now that’s “credibility”

      • yonah fredman
        November 12, 2016, 12:44 am

        29% of all americans and 43% of Republicans told pollsters a year ago that they think Obama is muslim. 20% of all americans told pollsters that they think Obama was born outside the US. Do you consider these opinions benign?

      • Annie Robbins
        November 12, 2016, 3:26 am

        jeez yonah, the entire democratic part is imploding and you want to hammer us on american racism. yes, we know, there are a lot of ignorant racists in america. lots of them. but that’s not why the dems lost this election. get your noggin out of your behind. i’ve been reading hillary supporters going balistic over sanders loyalists at DKos, someone wrote “go f*ck yourselves with a chainsaw.” really it’s that bad. but people thinking obama was born outside the country has no traction for me right now. they are there, they have always been there. they are awful. you win. better now?

      • Keith
        November 12, 2016, 11:26 am

        YONAH FREDMAN- “29% of all americans and 43% of Republicans told pollsters a year ago that they think Obama is muslim. 20% of all americans told pollsters that they think Obama was born outside the US. Do you consider these opinions benign?”

        Your thought process is a wonder to behold! Since none of these people think Hillary is either a Muslim or foreign born, and since she lost whereas Obama won easily, what is the inference? That large numbers of people voted for Obama because they thought he was a foreign born Muslim? You have firm opinions which you attempt to justify even if your own data contradicts you.

      • Mooser
        November 12, 2016, 12:29 pm

        ,” there are a lot of ignorant racists in america. lots of them. but that’s not why the dems lost this election.”

        “Annie”!! How cruel! Why are you trying to destroy “Yonah’s” fondest hopes? Remember, we Jews are on the right side of racism now, and it’s time we reaped the benefits. Trump will bring us a thousand Brownsville victories!

      • Annie Robbins
        November 12, 2016, 1:01 pm

        i’m truly fearful of what’s ahead mooser. i think trump is a really ugly person. but i really can’t think of a worse way she could have run her campaign, and the browbeating by her supporters of people who had legitimate complaints about her. for me personally it really came down to making a choice, between this country getting even more massively screwed up, or killing another million plus in the middle east and maybe war w/russia. or both. of course there’s no guarantee trump won’t do that too — start a war w/iran or something who knows. it was a double edge sword. and there are a lot of really not smart people here. i have a lot of anger right now. mostly, it is directed at the dems for hoisting a really disliked candidate. even for people who adore her, they knew how divisive she was. the whole thing was a horrible experience, this election cycle. either way i knew we wouldn’t bode well as a nation. i’m just rambling. it’s so ugly.

      • Mooser
        November 12, 2016, 1:19 pm

        “i think trump is a really ugly person. but i really can’t think of a worse way she could have run her campaign”

        Yup. I am taking comfort in my geography (I’m in Wa. State, other end of the country) our Democratic governor, Jay Inslee, and a fairly robust mixed economy and legalized pot. Did I mention legalized pot?

        But that’s enough from the “court jester”. I’ll turn things over to the court pester, “Yonah”

      • Mooser
        November 12, 2016, 1:33 pm

        “You have firm opinions which you attempt to justify even if your own data contradicts you.”

        That’s pilpul baby! The highest form of argument.

      • Mooser
        November 12, 2016, 2:20 pm

        Illegal pot-smoking has been almost entirely eliminated here in Washington! Can your state say that?

    • yonah fredman
      November 11, 2016, 7:39 pm

      Zero analysis of racial politics found on mondoweiss. Whites vote 57 to 38 for trump, yet nothing offered to elucidate, only the next stage in Israel palestine. How can one trust Phil Weiss regarding a region that he doesn’t know, when his analysis of America is so shallow. But backed up by mooser.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 11, 2016, 8:51 pm

        our first article after the election was about racists attacks: http://mondoweiss.net/2016/11/day-trumps-america/

        How can one trust Phil Weiss

        you keep saying stuff like this about phil but you’re always here. why?

        Whites vote 57 to 38 for trump, yet nothing offered to elucidate, only the next stage in Israel palestine

        well, that is the focus of the website. you might find this article elucidating: How Trump won the vote of Mich.’s white working class

        http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/macomb-county/2016/11/10/trump-won-vote-michs-white-working-class/93618428/

        Michael Liburdi, Matt Szlaga and Gregory Maley are among the white working-class voters in Michigan who voted in large majorities for Donald Trump.

        Szlaga and Liburdi each voted for Obama in the two previous elections, but chose Trump this time. This was Maley’s first chance to vote in a presidential election and the 18-year-old from the small town of Ruby in St. Clair County has much faith in Trump.

        “I see hope in him,” Maley said. “I’m part of the forgotten middle class. Ruby is near Port Huron. Drive through the Thumb area of Michigan and you see a lot of small towns that are just destroyed — the businesses are closed. He wants us to work again.”

        Trump tapped into the economic pain that many working-class Michigan residents feel, the three contend. In this normally blue state, 61 percent of white voters who hadn’t graduated from college chose Trump, according to exit polling conducted for The Detroit News and national television networks.

        …..This time around, a majority in Macomb County voted for Trump. He won 53.6 percent of the Macomb County vote this time. In 2012, Obama won the county with a 51.4 percent majority.

        so how do you explain working class dem voters who voted for obama switching to trump? do you think it was primarily their racism?

      • lysias
        November 11, 2016, 9:18 pm

        I didn’t vote for Trump, I voted for Jill Stein. But I can certainly understand working-class voters voting for Trump.

        I may be a lawyer myself, but I am a son of the working class. My father was a New York City bus driver.

      • yonah fredman
        November 11, 2016, 9:44 pm

        Reporting on racist attacks by trump supporters does not substitute for analysis of exit polls indicating such a gap between the votes of whites compared to the votes of blacks and hispanics.
        I do not call all trump supporters racist, (in fact a majority of trump supporters reported that their choice was more a vote against hillary rather than a vote for trump). The lopsided differences between the votes by the races merely reflected the gap in those numbers republicans versus democrats since 1964. Trumps numbers were not that far off from romney’s numbers. But these lopsided figures don’t even get mentioned? An analysis of the results that doesn’t include the numbers 57-38, 8-88 and 29-65 (which are the numbers of trump versus clinton supporters of white, blacks and hispanics) is hiding from the facts. Yes class and the hollowing out of the rust belt economies should be a part of any analysis, but ignoring the landslide among white voters compared to the votes by non-whites show a refusal to admit that the country’s problems are deeply rooted in a racial divide.
        ( During the primaries when Clinton’s victory was due entirely to the loyalty of black voters, did that aspect of her victory get any coverage by you and phil? Nope. Every time I mentioned it, you waved it away and Phil kept saying that Bernie should hit israel harder and that was the key to success which according to the numbers was sheer nonsense.)

      • Keith
        November 12, 2016, 12:50 am

        LYSIAS- “I didn’t vote for Trump, I voted for Jill Stein. But I can certainly understand working-class voters voting for Trump.”

        Only the relatively successful, elitist, paternalistic “liberals” fail to understand the working class voting for Trump. The so-called “liberals” under Clinton and Obama were the far more successful betrayers of their constituency and implementers of worker destroying neoliberal globalization. And the biggest war mongers. This is less an embrace of Trump than a rejection of what imperial liberalism has become.

      • Keith
        November 12, 2016, 12:58 am

        YONAH FREDMAN- “Yes class and the hollowing out of the rust belt economies should be a part of any analysis, but ignoring the landslide among white voters compared to the votes by non-whites show a refusal to admit that the country’s problems are deeply rooted in a racial divide.”

        Your ignorance is appalling. The country’s problems are deeply rooted in the agenda of the 1%. A quote and link follows.

        “Even so, Hillary should have won the election. Why? Because Trump got 1.5 million fewer votes than Romney. There was no great white surge.

        The fatal problem is that Hillary got 5.4 million fewer votes than Obama, many of those black and Hispanic voters, and lost 6 states that Obama won twice: Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio. That’s pretty conclusive evidence that Hillary didn’t lose because of racism.

        I think Hillary lost because she was on the wrong side of the class war. From the beginning of their political careers, the Clintons have been on the side of the one-percent against the rest of us, regardless of gender or skin color. Her allegiance to Wall Street finally blew up in her face.” (Jeffrey St Clair) http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/11/roaming-charges-whitelash-white-heat/

      • Mooser
        November 12, 2016, 12:16 pm

        “How can one trust Phil Weiss regarding a region that he doesn’t know, when his analysis of America is so shallow. “

        You are right, “Yonah”! I don’t trust Phil on this subject. I TRUST YOU, “Yonah”!! You went to Israel, and even you couldn’t stand the place, and fled into the wind and back to the good ol’ USA Didn’t you, |”Yonah”?

        I trust your judgement, “Yonah”, if you can’t stand Israel, I ain’t going near the place. Phil is usually much, much too easy on them.

      • Mooser
        November 12, 2016, 12:23 pm

        “Only the relatively successful, elitist, paternalistic “liberals” fail to understand the working class voting for Trump.”

        That’s because the liberals just don’t ask them! Go ahead and ask a “working class” person who voted for Trump, and he (or even better, she!) will give you a lucid, objective and very sensible answer. Based on Trump’s record, his actions, it seems most probable the “working class” will develop a stiffed upper lip while getting trumped.

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2016, 6:43 pm

        Yonah represents the liberal conservative-Zionist uncritical pro-Hillary wing of US neoliberal party politics.

    • Antidote
      November 12, 2016, 9:03 am

      “The country’s problems are deeply rooted in the agenda of the 1%. ”

      Well, Keith, some of the 1% have already been dealt a devastating blow since Trump’s election. They are suffering terribly, starting at TT in NYC, and they can’t take it any longer, apparently:

      http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/wealthy-trump-tower-residents-are-fed-up-with-protesters/

      And just imagine how this mess might negatively affect Christmas shopping on 5th Ave? The horror!

    • Annie Robbins
      November 12, 2016, 1:58 pm

      The party felt that it owed her the nomination. She had won more votes than Obama in the primaries of 2008, the nomination had been inches away, when the phenom known as barak Obama jumped the line and said, “No, me.” And the party said, ” him first and then you “….. Hillary served loyally and waited to be anointed.

      there’s so much wrong with this sentiment i don’t know where to begin. the job of the party, is to WIN, not to pay off old debts. the phenom known as barak Obama didn’t jump the line and say, “No, me.” what happened was that the phenom known as barak Obama had a massive grassroots following, one the party leaders recognized could bring in the vote — which is what you need to have to WIN. and since, unlike this election season, the superdelegates weren’t already committed regardless of what the people wanted, they did their jobs the way they were supposed to and cast their votes based on what the people wanted. again, because they wanted to WIN.

      the people are supposed to choose the nominee, not the party. it was a weird/wired beginning of a primary season with one candidate already leaps and bounds ahead before even one caucus was won or one vote cast. the party was way out of line.

      She had won more votes than Obama in the primaries of 2008

      yes, she got about 270k more votes, but he won 10 more caucuses than she did. plus, unlike her (in 2008 and 2016) he was popular with independents and she wasn’t.

      you need a massive grassroots following to get out the vote, that’s just the way it goes. you need volunteers to pound the pavement, like obama had and like bernie had. if you can’t bring out the vote you can’t win. again, the job of the party is to WIN, not to bring home political favors and to assume loyal party members will fall in line for the party anointed candidate.

      First the precedent of race and then the precedent of gender

      no, that’s not how it works. obama won because he had CHARISMA and ran as a populist. he was no ben carson, he didn’t just get a leg up because he was black. as long as your stuck in this mindframe that most people votes primarily based on race and gender — you’re gonna miss the mark. this last election should have taught you something. had the dems ran Nina Turner they would have cleaned up like no tomorrow. but clinton had, for the most part, locked in the black community, which is all well and good but there was always that little catch about her candidacy, lots of (white) people don’t like her. lots and lots and lots of them. and we vote too. the dem party should have considered that and her campaign shouldn’t have included things americans across the spectrum of the electorate care about — like the economy*. she insulted the very people she needed for her momentum. she was a deeply flawed candidate with high unfavorables. so please, spare me this ‘it was her turn’. no, it was not.

      *and for the left, the anti war coalition

      • echinococcus
        November 12, 2016, 3:55 pm

        as long as your stuck in this mindframe that most people votes primarily based on race…

        You’re talking to a Zionist, aren’t you?

      • yonah fredman
        November 12, 2016, 4:29 pm

        annie robbins- in my analysis of the party’s bias in clinton’s favor i am not stating my preference, merely stating how i analyze the party’s behavior. you are right, winning is everything, or almost everything, certainly a greater reason to support a candidate than “we owe it to her” or “it’s now time for a woman”.
        the hillary clinton phenomenon of the party granting precedence to a candidate to the effect that no serious candidate rose up against her was unique. never before, since stevenson in 56, has the party granted the nomination to anyone like this, and stevenson, in terms of the lack of primaries and the lack of expression of the will of the people was certainly prehistory.
        bernie sanders was a very unorthodox candidate, not a party member until the contest for president, far left of the mainstream of the party. the choice for mainstream party members seemed clear, “one of ours and not an outsider”. (quotation marks are not purely accurate.) that is not why i voted for hillary. i think hillary would have made a much better president than sanders. he’s an ideologue and she’s a wonk. (there was also an impure reason for my preference for clinton: given the intemperate nature of the trump crowds, the alternate history of trump running against a “commie jew” includes ugly scenes of a different sort that i wished to avoid.)

      • Mooser
        November 12, 2016, 5:41 pm

        “, the alternate history of trump running against a “commie jew” includes ugly scenes of a different sort that i wished to avoid.)”

        Thank God a Jewish presidential candidate could never be indicted for Zionism in the same way!

      • Annie Robbins
        November 12, 2016, 6:41 pm

        you’re cracking me up today mooser.

      • Mooser
        November 12, 2016, 11:25 pm

        “you’re cracking me up today mooser.”

        Did I mention the legalized pot? I must remember to mention that. Please remind me if I forget. There was something about it I wanted to mention.

  5. Kay24
    November 11, 2016, 5:30 pm

    To Phil’s point, a poll says he would have beaten Drumpf easily. I guess we will never know.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/2016-election-poll-bernie-sanders-trump_us_58260f7ee4b0c4b63b0c6928

    • yonah fredman
      November 11, 2016, 6:49 pm

      Trump would have had to fight a campaign of issues against bernie, a totally different strategy would have been necessary.

      • Mooser
        November 12, 2016, 3:53 pm

        “Trump would have had to fight a campaign of issues against bernie,”

        You bet! The media would have insisted on it. Must be Hilary’s fault Trump couldn’t possibly stick to issues.

    • Annie Robbins
      November 11, 2016, 8:08 pm

      kay, all the national polls during the primary had him doing way better against trump than clinton did. from your article:

      Crucially, independent voters, who made up nearly one-third of the general election voters this year, favored Sanders over Trump, 55 percent to 45 percent, the poll found. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, lost independents 48 percent to 42 percent, according to exit polls.

      this was my primary argument why i thought sanders would be the better candidate. i almost wrote an article about it here but didn’t. i did however email phil about it a few times! in arguing with friends who were voting supporting hillary over sanders, i repeated it endlessly. and, i mentioned it here too, but only in comments:

      the majority of the electorate in this country identifies neither as dems or republicans but independents. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/11/independents-outnumber-democrats-and-republicans-but-theyre-not-very-independent/ the reason people are dumping their party affiliations is because the party no longer speaks for them. however people still generally vote along party lines and the majority of independents are ex dems and dem voters. no one can win the nomination without the support of independents which is why it is a gamble and irresponsible (of either party) to run a candidate independent voters don’t like.

      http://mondoweiss.net/2016/07/institutions-bernie-sanders/#comment-847229

    • Keith
      November 12, 2016, 1:08 am

      KAY24- “To Phil’s point, a poll says he would have beaten Drumpf easily. I guess we will never know.”

      Forget the poll. If Sanders had won the nomination, what support would he have gotten from the big Democratic donors and what effect would that have had? What effect do you think that a well funded Trump media blitz would have on those poll numbers? Some candidates only shine in opposition when there is little to lose. Bernie is a loyal part of the system.

      • Kay24
        November 13, 2016, 7:07 am

        Maybe they will not be as enthusiastic as they were for Hillary, but ultimately they would have fallen in line and supported Bernie Sanders. The Democratic establishment is corrupt and the recent acts of deceit by Donna Brazile shows just how rigged that system it. I guess at this point it is only depressing to realize things could have gone another way. We are stuck with a totally flawed man who will leave this country in a far worse condition that George W. Bush did.

      • echinococcus
        November 13, 2016, 11:24 am

        Kay,

        We are stuck with a totally flawed man who will leave this country in a far worse condition that George W. Bush did

        That’s already happened. The next one may very well leave it in worse shape than even Obama now does.

    • lysias
      November 12, 2016, 3:55 pm

      It’s as childish to call Trump “Drumpf” as it is for Republicans to insist on calling the Democratic Party the “Democrat Party”.

      • Mooser
        November 12, 2016, 11:34 pm

        “It’s as childish to call Trump “Drumpf” as it is for Republicans to insist on calling the Democratic Party the “Democrat Party”.”

        Looks like you adjust easily to prevailing conditions. Don’t want to sail to close to the wind.
        Shall we start calling him “Commander in Chief, Donald Trump, sir”? Ah, what a lovely sound, “Commander in Chief of US Armed Forces Donald Trump.”

      • echinococcus
        November 13, 2016, 11:29 am

        Mooser,

        Changing the name loses all its effect right after that “Commander” title. That title by itself is horrifying and puke inducing. More especially after “Commander in Chief of US Armed Forces Shrub” and “Commander in Chief of US Armed Forces Abominaba”.

      • Kay24
        November 13, 2016, 11:44 am

        Is it childish to call some by a name that was once the original family name? I don’t know, but to me being childish is a candidate for President who tweets during the early hours of the morning, to call some poor beauty queen a few insulting names, or wage twitter wars with others who criticize him. Looks like he will be a distracted president, he has to keep an eye on his business, take care of this country, AND keep insulting those who stand up to him. This is going to be one childish President.

        “Trump’s German wine-growing ancestors were named Drumpf, according to journalist Gwenda Blair’s book “The Trumps: Three Generations That Built An Empire.” The family changed the name at some point during the Thirty Years’ War. America was first introduced to the Trump brand, however, by Donald’s father, Fred C. Trump, who named his real estate company and supermarket chains “Trump” and drove a navy blue Cadillac with “FCT” license plates.”

        http://www.snopes.com/donald-drumpf/

      • Mooser
        November 13, 2016, 11:20 pm

        “That title by itself is horrifying and puke inducing.”

        Yes, but it probably helps the President to think he is in control of the military and foreign policy.

      • echinococcus
        November 14, 2016, 3:30 pm

        Mooser,

        Always the hawk-eyed observer. Yeah, probably the title is hypnosis-inducing to that point.

  6. pabelmont
    November 11, 2016, 5:41 pm

    Do I hear a note of pessimism ni the comments of Keith and Joemowry? I sympathize with their frustration but beg to disagree.

    Third parties do badly in USA. Bernie had to start his/our revolution inside DEM, not outside it, even knowing he couldn’t win. When Trump (or, really any other) won the Republican nomination, he had to choose between electable evils. (Jill Stein got my vote, but note that early polls in NY showed Green with 3% and ultimately it got 1%.)

    Now we must remind the DEMs that Bernie would likely have won had he been nominated

    And after rubbing their dirty neo-liberal, imperialist, elitist noses in this fact, state our own aims, namely, to start a PROGRESSIVE PARTY in the USA (which may if circumstances justify it, be called the Democratic Party) with some or all of these principles (at odds with present DNC decisions):

    [1] anti-imperialist and reduced “Defense” budget
    [2] use reductions in “defense” budget to budget for fighting global warming climate change
    [3] wipe out socialism for the rich (Israel, defense production industries, big Pharma, big banks, other “bigs”
    [4] bring on “Nordic (Finnish, Swedish)-type pro-people policies (child care, elder care, education, healthcare, as social guarantees rather than as things to be purchased)
    [5] equitable taxes to pay for all this (maybe reducing “Defense” a lot would suffice ??)
    [6] end of empowering large corporations over all others (NAFTA, TPP, and other so-called free-trade treaties)

  7. Bandolero
    November 11, 2016, 5:51 pm

    Phil

    It might be strategically not be bad luck that Trump won this time, despite Bernie generally being a far preferable candidate.

    Imagine Bernie would be President now. Bernie would be boxed in by the Israel lobby warparty extremists ruling over most of both parties and dominating the Congress. It would be tough for President Bernie to get anything through that dominance of zionist hawks ruling both parties and the Congress, just as it was for Obama – think of the Iran deal for example. The neocons dominating the Republicans and the “liberal” zionist hawks dominating the Democrats would be working all hard to make sure President Bernie would not succeed with anything. After 4 years someone mainstream from the Israel lobby would take over with the winning story, that President Bernie is a living example that the far left can get nothing done.

    Instead, what will likely happen now: the neocons inside the Republican party will be largely destroyed, because they didn’t back, or even opposed, a successful Republican nominee, thereby committing treason to the Republican cause. And the “liberal” zionist hawks dominating the Democrats will be diminished there, because they blew that election by conspiring against a far more popular Democratic candidate: Bernie.

    So, after some years of President Trump, there will be elections again. And that time it is likely that someone from the Bernie camp will become the Democrat nominee for President. And, if the Republicans do not hugely improve themselves in the meantime in regard to racism/sexism/corporatism/you name it, he – or she – will likely win. And than, this is important, that President from the Bernie camp will be actually able to rule in a sensible way, because the Zionist warmongers have already been purged from both parties.

  8. yonah fredman
    November 11, 2016, 8:20 pm

    Chuck schumer has announced his support for Keith Ellison to head the dnc. Smart political move. Unexpected.

    • yonah fredman
      November 12, 2016, 12:07 am

      The TV ad featuring yellen and soros was a “secret” message to 2 audiences: David duke and Jonathan greenblatt. 15% of the population recognizes yellen and 10% recognize soros, but this was not a message to them. It was a smoke signal, a secret handshake, a salute, a shout out to David duke and his 3%, or his 13%. “We are on your side,” steve bannon announced to that fraction of trump voters. The average trump voters ignores this, but the alt right loves it. The alt right also loves Phil Weiss’s tone deafness. Phil could not choose between trump and hillary. Okay. I understand. But now he can’t choose between Steve bannon and Jonathan greenblatt. Phil Weiss says, ” you get power, you get attention from jew counters of all types. It’s the price you pay. Don’t complain.”

      • yonah fredman
        November 12, 2016, 12:17 am

        The first offensive battle regarding minorities will take place vis a vis Muslims and Mexican immigrants, not issues regarding jews. Will trump attack the federal reserve or George soros or the jews? I don’t see it. He may go toe to toe against the media , against chuck schumer, against hollywood, but he is a friend to David duke, but I can’t foresee any policy clashes. His rhetoric when he’s up against the media, we’ll see what happens then. When the senate democrats filibuster he might crack a joke at chuck schumer’s ethnicity, but that is just style. I don’t see what policy difference the presence of the friend of David duke as chief of staff will effect the jews.

      • Annie Robbins
        November 12, 2016, 3:29 am

        15% of the population recognizes yellen and 10% recognize soros,

        source? i’d say more like 2% photo recognition. name recognition more, especially for soros. but only about 1-3% of the country know who yellen is — tops. either way, it’s the federal reserve, so she’s fair game.

      • Mooser
        November 12, 2016, 3:48 pm

        ?”The first offensive battle regarding minorities will take place vis a vis Muslims and Mexican immigrants, not issues regarding jews.”

        Yah, sure, you betcha, “Yonah” There’s no resentment towards us.

        But at least you know which side of the offense you need to be on, right “Yonah”?

  9. echinococcus
    November 11, 2016, 10:16 pm

    And what on earth is a “political revolution”, anyway? I know BS invented this BS phrase, but it’s hard to imagine a precise meaning for it.
    Otherwise said, has anyone seen an apolitical revolution, except for “revolutions” in marketing, like “Liebig started a revolution in the making of chicken stock”.

    If you want to abandon the consensus in naming things, go ahead and call both the mountebank and the reactionary buffoon “revolutionaries”, no skin off my nose, but perhaps a couple explanatory sentences to prepare the nonplussed reader may make the digestion easier.

    Also, why not mention the definitively warmongering, imperialist record of Sanders? It is fully relevant to the discussion.

  10. Kay24
    November 12, 2016, 6:17 am

    I can understand the anger and the rage, but what these 59 million Americans have done is, they have decided to cut their nose to spite their face. They wanted change, but they were very ignorant as to what kind of “change” they were asking for. To think they saw a man insult, lie, show racism, demonize ethnic groups, call women terrible names, admit on tape he takes advantage of his celebrity status to grope women, behave like a crude oaf, and yet wanted to vote for this angry man to represent them. He got away with not showing his medical records, and most importantly his tax returns. As for the far right hypocrites, if the Democrats had nominated a candidate whose wife can barely speak English, plagiarized a speech, and has posed for some pictures that lacks certain class, they would have demonized her and insulted her to no limit. They would have been outraged that she was going to represent this nation from the WH. Michelle Obama, a Princeton/Harvard law school grad, has been attacked and insulted, despite conducting herself with grace and dignity her entire life. Imagine how much they would have attacked Melania T.
    Those who voted for Trump should be careful what they wished for. With his children playing a very involved (and highly unusual) part in WH policies and issues, AND running their empire at the same time, there will be many, many laws broken, controversies, and that empire will be very much wealthier at the end of the Trump presidency. The signs are that with full control of congress and the WH, the right wingers will change this country beyond recognition. All we have to do is look at those around Trump, and who will be in charge of this country, to realize we should all be afraid of the future. This will be worse than the GWB administration.

    It is unfortunate that we have elected a president who makes people, even little children, fear for their safety, security, and has run a campaign of insults and bigotry.

    • echinococcus
      November 12, 2016, 11:18 am

      Kay,

      No need to insist: if you guys didn’t get the No Sale message now, there’s no cure for it!

      Of course the voters rejecting the Demolican dictatorship aren’t getting anything better with their vote. Of course not, but that is irrelevant, not a good enough excuse for you guys to continue insulting and despising the working stiff (or rather the one you guys put out of a job.) Right after having got the trouncing of the century as a direct result of that same attitude.

      The cluelessness of the following makes me want to howl:

      the right wingers will change this country beyond recognition

      Well, they already did! The right-wingers par excellence, i.e. the administrators of monopoly capitalist imperialism, i.e. the Democrats (ably assisted by the Republicans) did change this country beyond recognition and made it positively unlivable. Yes, that is what “left”and “right” means, not your preferences in the matter of the rights of women to become uniformed murderers like the others (as much as I respect that right, too.)

      What doesn’t percolate because of the high specific gravity of many here is that solidarity with Palestine is not reserved to Democrats. Anyone can and should participate. How the heck do you get the general public to participate if this forum is made one more battleground for your culture wars? What makes you assume that the public (or me the non-main-party guy) sees your political tribe as family or necessarily shares your values?

      That is the objection to JVP, too, and that is also the objection to your stinky inner bitching within the so-called two parties. As if there weren’t enough discussion venues for that. I mean not so much the discussers like you as the stream of strictly-domestic US policy articles.

    • W.Jones
      November 12, 2016, 10:06 pm

      ” admit on tape he takes advantage of his celebrity status to grope women”

      Question:
      How much do you really know of the forays of some leading US politicians in the last 30 years, Kay?

      • Mooser
        November 13, 2016, 1:32 pm

        “How much do you really know of the forays of some leading US politicians in the last 30 years, Kay?”

        Exactly, “W Jones”! Other politicians try to fob us off with financial disclosure, tax returns, medical records, and policy statements instead of bragging about their groping”.
        As you say, they are simply avoiding the issue.
        And what about the children?
        Up til now, when an all-American, apple-cheeked young American boys were asked: “How does one get to be President” they tended to stand abashed, and write “Becky” in the sand with their big toe.
        But now they can reply: “You grab ’em by the pussy!”

      • Kay24
        November 13, 2016, 4:56 pm

        Enough for me to have no hope, and disillusioned with the entire political system. There is too much of corruption, and special interests along with alien nations interfering with our policies though their paid agents here. Trump will be the final nail….

      • W.Jones
        November 13, 2016, 7:16 pm

        Dear Mooser,

        I love your humor, but let me put it this way. Clinton’s and Dershowitz’s time spent on Epstein’s fantasy island are probably only the moist tip of that fleshy politician iceberg. In fact, if you try to survey it enough, you could end up running aground on it yourself, who knows?

        And then you have the fact that the DNC was actively working against Sanders getting its nomination. And then there is the “mishap” that the Process Server on the DNC from the Sanders campaign had. How far down the rabbit hole do we really want to go?

      • Philemon
        November 13, 2016, 8:00 pm

        Kay, if a “Bedtime for Bonzo” B-actor was not the last nail, I doubt Trump will be. If you weren’t disillusioned with the entire political system before, it’s simply because you didn’t notice that LBJ got elected, Nixon got elected, in a landslide no less, and, hey, Teddy Roosevelt, completely barking mad, got elected.

      • Mooser
        November 13, 2016, 11:24 pm

        “And then there is the “mishap” that the Process Server on the DNC from the Sanders campaign had”

        I hadn’t heard about that. What happened to the poor fellow? That can be a dangerous job sometimes.

      • Keith
        November 14, 2016, 12:33 am

        W. JONES- “How much do you really know of the forays of some leading US politicians in the last 30 years, Kay?”

        Your point is well taken and illustrates the hypocrisy of the Left which makes excuses for Kennedy, Johnson and Clinton, all of which were as bad or worse than Trump.

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2016, 6:24 pm

        Keith,

        I understand what you mean. I have a hard time saying JFK was “worse” than Trump.
        And the problem in comparing Trump to Clinton is that we don’t know what Trump will do as president. If we just go by his campaign hints, then Trump is on balance good – he will fix the economy and keep us out of foreign wars.

        If you want to find this kind of good hope or good side in Trump while seeing a dark side to Johnson, check out what Trump’s campaign person Roger Stone said about Johnson and the JFK assassination, considering that Nixon was not involved in that mess.

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2016, 6:49 pm

        Mooser,

        Bernie’s supporters used a Process Server to start a lawsuit against the DNC for ruining Bernie’s grassroots campaign. The DNC in court as its Defence disputes that the Service of Process even happened. Two witnesses are important for this question: 1. The persons who received the Service, whom have not made available to the court, and 2. the Process Server, a young middle age man who was found in his bathtub dead of unknown causes one month after the Service.
        http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/08/shawn-lucas-cause-of-death-still-unknown-as-clintons-campaign-lawyer-tries-to-move-dnc-lawsuit-into-the-weeds/

      • Mooser
        November 15, 2016, 7:11 pm

        “2. the Process Server, a young middle age man who was found in his bathtub dead of unknown causes one month after the Service”

        With a private e-mail server next to him.

      • Keith
        November 15, 2016, 8:38 pm

        W.JONES- “I understand what you mean. I have a hard time saying JFK was “worse” than Trump.”

        I was responding to your response to Kay24 in regards to Trump’s “groping” versus JFK, LBJ and WJC womanizing, nothing more.

    • echinococcus
      November 14, 2016, 2:32 am

      It is unfortunate that we have elected a president who makes people, even little children, fear for their safety, security, and has run a campaign of insults and bigotry.

      It’s way more unfortunate that you attribute the crowd madness resulting of wall-to-wall, relentless propaganda to the propaganda target itself. Confusing “people” with goddam Democrats. Are the “children” you mention just rational thinkers or the kids of propaganda-primed headless chicken?

      No, I can’t stand Trump or the remaining Republicans either. That’s not the point, though. What is less tolerable than his persona is that you guys can’t even see the extent of your own bigotry, your referring to insults as something more important than policy, besotted as you are with your own propaganda.

      Least tolerable of all is your taking up all this square footage for divisive nonsense at a time when we need the general American public, and all right-leaning ones among them, too, working together to defeat Zionism. Pretty please, let’s take all this endless Demolicanorepublican wailing somewhere else, as there is no lack of such venues. Except as it directly impacts Palestine.

    • Sibiriak
      November 14, 2016, 8:59 am

      Kay: admit on tape he takes advantage of his celebrity status to grope women, behave like a crude oaf…
      ———————————

      Counterpoint:

      […]Liberal feminists, young and old, need to question the role they played in Hillary’s demise. The two weeks of media hyperventilation over grab-her-by-the-pussygate, when the airwaves were saturated with aghast liberal women equating Trump’s gross comments with sexual assault, had the opposite effect on multiple women voters in the Heartland.

      These are resilient women, often working two or three jobs, for whom boorish men are an occasional occupational hazard, not an existential threat. They rolled their eyes over Trump’s unmitigated coarseness, but still bought into his spiel that he’d be the greatest job producer who ever lived. Oh, and they wondered why his behaviour was any worse than Bill’s.

      https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/12/hillary-clinton-liberal-feminists

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2016, 8:58 pm

        +1 Sibiriak

  11. Ossinev
    November 12, 2016, 7:26 am

    Not an expert on American politics or American voters thinking but vis a vis the UK there is a IMO a lot of truth in this and it may reflect a central element in the Trump win ? (excuse the swearing):

    • Annie Robbins
      November 12, 2016, 10:37 am

      i saw that earlier. there’s a denial factor he articulates thru his rage

      • RoHa
        November 12, 2016, 11:40 pm

        OT. This may be old news, but, if you haven’t seen it, you’ll be delighted to know that MW made the cut.

        http://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/caught-in-a-web-of-hate/

      • echinococcus
        November 13, 2016, 3:07 am

        Thank you, RoHa, and thank you, Jewish News. There are some sites there that I had no idea of.

        Would be even more interesting to know which sites are not listed, and why.

  12. Vera Gottlieb
    November 12, 2016, 9:47 am

    Too bad that Sanders was stabbed in the back by the very party he ended up endorsing. Hopefully, all the “Millennials” he moved will form a new party and come back in 2020.

    • echinococcus
      November 12, 2016, 11:22 am

      So he’ll come back in 2020 but only as the same old Dem, whatever the camouflage, again with the aim of gathering back the stray vote, and he’ll again defend “the right of Israel to defend itself” and the right of the US to make war on all. Oh yeah.

    • Mooser
      November 12, 2016, 1:39 pm

      “So he’ll come back in 2020….”

      At the age of…?

      • echinococcus
        November 12, 2016, 1:45 pm

        Never underestimate a stock that’s produced the long series of patriarchs, see Mathuselah.

      • Mooser
        November 12, 2016, 5:44 pm

        “Never underestimate a stock that’s produced the long series of patriarchs, see Mathuselah”

        Very true. And Methsesalah lived 900 years (“But who calls that livin’ when no gal will give in, to no man what’s 900 years!”)A regular chip off the old branch, that Bernie. And thanks for reminding me my wife wants me to check on the beef stock simmering while she’s out. I’d better go do that.

  13. W.Jones
    November 12, 2016, 9:19 pm

    Good essay.

    See also Jonathan Cook’s essay:

    Do I sound a little like Trump as I rant against liberals? Yes, I do. And while you are busy dismissing me as a closet Trump supporter, you can continue your furious refusal to examine the reasons why a truly progressive position appears so similar to a far-right one like Trump’s.

    Because real progressives are as frustrated and angry about the status quo as are the poor, vulnerable and disillusioned who turned to Trump. And they had no choice but to vote for Trump because there was no one aside from him in the presidential race articulating anything that approximated the truth.

    Sanders was ousted by Clinton and her corrupt coterie. Jill Stein of the Greens was made invisible by a corrupt electoral system. It was either vote for Clinton and the putrid status quo, or vote for Trump and a possibility for change.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/11/10/americal-liberals-unleashed-the-trump-monster/

  14. Kathleen
    November 13, 2016, 12:06 pm

    Phil “And though Chris Matthews talked every night about America’s costly and brutalizing wars in the Middle East,”

    That is a willful exaggeration, I watch Matthews almost every evening and along with others have pushed him for years to be more honest about U.S. wars an interventions in the middle east, He has not covered this issue even weekly, although far more than his Clinton loyalist economic comrades Maddow, O’Donnell, Hayes, Reid who have all outright provided Clinton with cover for her war record, Matthews has not talked every night about these critical issues, Far from it, Just not as far as those who provided complete cover for Clinton’s war record,

  15. Kathleen
    November 13, 2016, 12:14 pm

    Sanders ” “I do not believe that most of the people who are thinking about voting for Mr. Trump are racist or sexist.”

    Went to a Trump rally north of Dayton Ohio this oast summer just to talk with those who were attending. I stood outside although I did have a ticket that I had gotten on line to go in but could not bring myself to do it. So I stood outside engaging those in line in many conversations, I first let them know I was a Sanders supporter and a Dem since I could first vote 45 years ago, No problem for people, I then asked why they were in support of Trump. Many were unsure but wanted to hear him speak and get a feel in person, Many had lost jobs at GM, Delphi some were working at Wal Mart after job losses, Probably talked with 40 or so people…jobs, jobs, jobs was the theme. Two guys that I walked with to their cars were also very interested in what Sanders was saying and his voting record, One guy in Osh Gosh overalls had lost his roofing business due to what he felt was illegal immigrants, Although he did not have anger towards the workers, We went over how it was done by contractors, The other guy had a handicapped daughter at home and he and his wife could not get make I think more than 14,ooo a year or they would lose their daughters insurance coverage for her disabilities.

    Having worked for and run several Get Out the Vote campaigns in southeastern Ohio for the Dems heard the “loss of jobs” story over and over again. Real distinction between people over 40 and under. Those who had experienced the constructive results of being in unions etc, So many of them had kids who were serving and some dying in Iraq. Salt of the earth folks who want to believe but have lost jobs and hope

    While Trump’s racist, sexist, bigoted remarks have brought like minded scumbags out of the woodwork, I really do think most Trump voters voted for him based on trade, jobs, pay scale,

    Trump has all ready built a wall of tens of thousands (cumulatively entering a hundred thousand) protesters against racism, sexism, bigotry across the country, A wall of people with Sanders and Warren (too bad she did not have the will to support Sanders), A wall against racism, sexism, bigotry, He really is a builder

    To think that the only major MSM news outlet host that daily, yes daily focused on working class issues was former MSNBC host Ed Schultz, MSNBC canned him.

    • Mooser
      November 13, 2016, 6:39 pm

      “, I really do think most Trump voters voted for him based on trade, jobs, pay scale,”

      A man who managed to go bankrupt running casinos must be a business genius. But even if he is not a genius, Trump’s record in fighting trade, jobs, and pay scale is unimpeachable.

      Yeah, Trumps gonna take stuff away from the immigrants, minorities, and womens which has been getting all the stuff the Democrats took from the real Americans, and redistribute it. You bet. And just wait til Trump faces down the military, contractors and intelligence communities and tells ’em to act right!

      • Sibiriak
        November 14, 2016, 6:32 am

        Donald FDR Trump:

        It is a movement combined of all races, religions, backgrounds and beliefs who want and expect to serve the American people and serve the people it will.

        Working together, we will begin the urgent task of rebuilding our nation while fulfilling the American dream. I’ve spent my entire life in business looking at the untapped potential of the American people all over the world. That is now what I want to do for our country. Tremendous potential.

        It’s going to be a beautiful thing. Every single American will have the ability to realize their fullest potential.

        The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.

        We are going to fix our inner cities and rebuild our highways, schools, hospitals. We will rebuild our infrastructure. Which will become second to none and we will put millions of our people to work as we rebuild it.

      • Sibiriak
        November 14, 2016, 9:13 am

        Trump continues trumpeting his populist message post-election:

        The president-elect believes that his victory has been partly determined by how disappointed and angry people are about the US foreign policy – instead of focusing on things back at home.

        It’s a moment in time where politicians for a long period of time have let people down. They’ve let them down on the job front. They’ve even let them down in terms of the war front. You know, we’ve been fighting this war for 15 years,” Trump said.

        We’ve spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion, we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels and our airports…[They] are, like, obsolete,” he added

        https://www.rt.com/usa/366857-donald-trump-interview-cbs/

      • Kathleen
        November 14, 2016, 11:26 am

        Did not in any way shape or form Trump would deliver. However most of the people I have talked with who were or did vote for Trump that is where his rhetoric hooked them,

        I encourage folks to get out and talk with Trump voters find out first hand why they did so, Or go on ignoring them like the MSM did before this election, Well with the exception of former MSNBC host Ed Schultz, Ralph Nader, However many love ignoring Nader and continuing to blame him for the 2000 Supreme Court Selection of the Bush/Cheney regime

      • RoHa
        November 14, 2016, 7:50 pm

        “We’ve spent $6 trillion in the Middle East, $6 trillion, we could have rebuilt our country twice. And you look at our roads and our bridges and our tunnels and our airports…[They] are, like, obsolete,”

        Spend money on building America instead of making war! Is he a Communist, or just insane?

    • W.Jones
      November 13, 2016, 7:19 pm

      “was former MSNBC host Ed Schultz, MSNBC canned him. – ”

      Wow.

      Based on the DNC leaks, we know that the MSM and Hillary campaign were working together. Think about that.

      • Mooser
        November 13, 2016, 10:37 pm

        “, I really do think most Trump voters voted for him based on trade, jobs, pay scale,”

        Don’t worry W.Jones! Paul Ryan is announcing the canceling of Medicare ion 2017. Can you think of anything better for jobs, wages or pay scale?

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2016, 6:40 pm

        Mooser-
        Trump could turn out to be worse for the economy or for foreign wars than Clinton. It’s the weakness or risk in Trump. But the room for hope is that we don’t know what exactly he will do, like Ali A. said about Trump on Palestine. So Ryan could choose to dump medicare, or he could fail due to Congress. For millions of Middle Easterners, it’s like paying to spin a casino wheel 500 times in Atlantic city instead of sitting at the potential ground zero of a “Freedomfire” Hillary drone.

      • Mooser
        November 15, 2016, 7:02 pm

        “But the room for hope is that we don’t know what exactly he will do”

        Please. Donald Trump has been around for quite a while, his methods and tactics are well known, and the record is pretty plain.

      • W.Jones
        November 15, 2016, 8:55 pm

        “But the room for hope is that we don’t know what exactly he will do”

        Please. Donald Trump has been around for quite a while, his methods and tactics are well known, and the record is pretty plain.

        Sorry, Mooser, I have a hard time judging what he will actually do based on his past statements on some issues, due to the fact that he has not actually been a senator or politician.

        Do you remember when Hope and Change Obama came along? I actually believed the kinds of statements he was making and definitely did not expect that he was going to be behind Interventions in Libya and Syria, nor did I expect that under his watch Mccain was going to be making major stops in Syria or Ukraine at the advent of their respective civil wars.

        I am much more skeptical about making predictions about politicians than before, Mooser.

Leave a Reply