If it looks like shit, smells like shit, and tastes like shit, it's
probably the DNC.
Carl Jarvis
On 6/7/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Greenwald writes: "This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic
Party primary: The nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a
day when nobody voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous
establishment insiders and donors whose identities the media organization -
incredibly - conceals."
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters)
Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner
Through Media
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
07 June 16
ast night, Associated Press - on a day when nobody voted - surprised
everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and
Hillary
Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California
primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close
race,
was based on the media organization's survey of "superdelegates": the
Democratic Party's 720 insiders, corporate donors and officials whose votes
for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected
delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced
their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for
Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of
the decisive superdelegates who said this.
Although the Sanders campaign rejected the validity of AP's declaration -
on
the ground that the superdelegates do not vote until the convention and he
intends to try to persuade them to vote for him - most major media outlets
followed the projection and declared Clinton the winner.
This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The
nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody
voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders
and
donors whose identities the media organization - incredibly - conceals. The
decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently
corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the
party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by
corporate interests, it's only fitting that their nomination process ends
with such an ignominious, awkward and undemocratic sputter.
None of this is to deny that Hillary Clinton - as was always the case from
the start - is highly likely to be the legitimately chosen winner of this
process. It's true that the party's governing rules are deliberately
undemocratic; unfair and even corrupt decisions were repeatedly made by
party officials to benefit Clinton; and the ostensibly neutral Democratic
National Committee (led by the incomparably heinous Debbie Wasserman
Schultz) constantly put not just its thumb but its entire body on the scale
to ensure she won. But it's also true that under the long-standing rules of
the Party, more people who voted preferred Clinton as their nominee over
Sanders. Independent of superdelegates, she just got more votes. There's no
denying that.
And just as was true in 2008 with Obama's nomination, it should be noted
that standing alone - i.e., without regard to the merits of the candidate -
Clinton's nomination is an important and positive milestone. Americans,
being Americans, will almost certainly overstate its world significance and
wallow in excessive self-congratulations: many countries on the planet have
elected women as their leaders, including many whose close family member
had
not previously served as president. Nonetheless, the U.S. presidency still
occupies an extremely influential political and cultural position in the
world. Particularly for a country with such an oppressive history on race
and gender, the election of the first African-American president and
nomination of the first female presidential candidate of a major party is
significant in shaping how people all over the world, especially children,
view their own and other people's potential and possibilities. But that's
all the more reason to lament this dreary conclusion.
That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such
an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of
what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive
aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance -
rallying behind a Wall-Street-funded, status-quo-perpetuating,
multi-millionaire militarist - is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party
got exactly the ending it deserved.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
Hillary Clinton. (photo: Brian Snyder/Reuters)
https://theintercept.com/2016/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonym
ous-super-delegates-declare-winner-through-media/https://theintercept.com/20
16/06/07/perfect-end-to-democratic-primary-anonymous-super-delegates-declare
-winner-through-media/
Perfect End to Democratic Primary: Anonymous Superdelegates Declare Winner
Through Media
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
07 June 16
ast night, Associated Press - on a day when nobody voted - surprised
everyone by abruptly declaring the Democratic Party primary over and
Hillary
Clinton the victor. The decree, issued the night before the California
primary in which polls show Clinton and Bernie Sanders in a very close
race,
was based on the media organization's survey of "superdelegates": the
Democratic Party's 720 insiders, corporate donors and officials whose votes
for the presidential nominee count the same as the actually elected
delegates. AP claims that superdelegates who had not previously announced
their intentions privately told AP reporters that they intend to vote for
Clinton, bringing her over the threshold. AP is concealing the identity of
the decisive superdelegates who said this.
Although the Sanders campaign rejected the validity of AP's declaration -
on
the ground that the superdelegates do not vote until the convention and he
intends to try to persuade them to vote for him - most major media outlets
followed the projection and declared Clinton the winner.
This is the perfect symbolic ending to the Democratic Party primary: The
nomination is consecrated by a media organization, on a day when nobody
voted, based on secret discussions with anonymous establishment insiders
and
donors whose identities the media organization - incredibly - conceals. The
decisive edifice of superdelegates is itself anti-democratic and inherently
corrupt: designed to prevent actual voters from making choices that the
party establishment dislikes. But for a party run by insiders and funded by
corporate interests, it's only fitting that their nomination process ends
with such an ignominious, awkward and undemocratic sputter.
None of this is to deny that Hillary Clinton - as was always the case from
the start - is highly likely to be the legitimately chosen winner of this
process. It's true that the party's governing rules are deliberately
undemocratic; unfair and even corrupt decisions were repeatedly made by
party officials to benefit Clinton; and the ostensibly neutral Democratic
National Committee (led by the incomparably heinous Debbie Wasserman
Schultz) constantly put not just its thumb but its entire body on the scale
to ensure she won. But it's also true that under the long-standing rules of
the Party, more people who voted preferred Clinton as their nominee over
Sanders. Independent of superdelegates, she just got more votes. There's no
denying that.
And just as was true in 2008 with Obama's nomination, it should be noted
that standing alone - i.e., without regard to the merits of the candidate -
Clinton's nomination is an important and positive milestone. Americans,
being Americans, will almost certainly overstate its world significance and
wallow in excessive self-congratulations: many countries on the planet have
elected women as their leaders, including many whose close family member
had
not previously served as president. Nonetheless, the U.S. presidency still
occupies an extremely influential political and cultural position in the
world. Particularly for a country with such an oppressive history on race
and gender, the election of the first African-American president and
nomination of the first female presidential candidate of a major party is
significant in shaping how people all over the world, especially children,
view their own and other people's potential and possibilities. But that's
all the more reason to lament this dreary conclusion.
That the Democratic Party nominating process is declared to be over in such
an uninspiring, secretive, and elite-driven manner is perfectly symbolic of
what the party, and its likely nominee, actually is. The one positive
aspect, though significant, is symbolic, while the actual substance -
rallying behind a Wall-Street-funded, status-quo-perpetuating,
multi-millionaire militarist - is grim in the extreme. The Democratic Party
got exactly the ending it deserved.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
