This is tilting at windmills too! But (and I'm smiling here and not
chastising)...I love tilting at windmills....
It seems to be what I'm all about, and perhaps it is what this list is
about.
Again I'm not chastising you or anyone at all here.
I think we all are a bunch of goodly folks and we are all hapless romantics
is all.
And that is too bad for I think the world needs we hapless romantics.
Or maybe we need hope less romantics.
I don't know really. I've been subjected to totallyinsane things here in
Michigan for so long I don't know the difference.
I really do.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Miriam Vieni" <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2016 6:09 PM
Subject: [blind-democracy] Sanders Campaign's Commitment To Victory
Irritates Media, Offends Clinton Campaign
Sanders Campaign's Commitment To Victory Irritates Media, Offends Clinton
Campaign
Published on
Thursday, April 21, 2016
by
Shadowproof
Sanders Campaign's Commitment To Victory Irritates Media, Offends Clinton
Campaign
by
Kevin Gosztola
Bernie Sanders, candidate for the Democratic nomination for President of the
United States, visited Penn State's Recreation Hall for a rally on the
evening of April 19. (Photo: Penn State on Flickr)
Once again, for the umpteenth time in the Democratic presidential primary,
there is a dominant narrative in the establishment news media that it is
over for Bernie Sanders. News outlets have crunched the numbers, again, and
after the loss to Hillary Clinton in New York, conventional wisdom is
Sanders cannot win.
"Sanders went from a protest candidate in the Democratic primary to a
contender for the nomination. His campaign believed it could win. It still
believes it can win."
Such harping is presented as if it is a neutral perspective solely based on
mathematics that is not driven by any influence the Clinton campaign may
have over media institutions. However, the fact is there are 1,400 pledged
delegates left to win in contests. Clinton has 1,442 pledged delegates while
Sanders has 1,209 pledged delegates. It's a lead of 233 pledged delegates,
which he could still overcome in June, especially if he continues to surge
in California-a state with 475 delegates to be won.
To put it more concisely, Sanders has a path to victory. His campaign is not
all but done. It would be all but done if there weren't over a thousand
pledged delegates to be awarded. That is not the case.
Another piece of context missing in most news coverage is that an Emerson
College poll had Sanders losing to Clinton by close to fifty points in late
March. His campaign surged and managed to win 40 percent of the vote, which
was what the campaign saw as a "credibility threshold" they needed to
achieve.
Clinton is very well known in New York. The state elected Clinton as their
senator twice. Virginia Fields, former borough president for Manhattan and a
Clinton surrogate, said on Democracy Now!, "Senator Clinton, in terms of
relationships with African Americans in the Latino communities, is much
stronger, certainly, than that of Senator Sanders here in the state of New
York." But she won't necessarily have the same kind of rapport with voters
to boost her campaign in the remaining states.
Now, there is a misperception, which has spread since Sanders campaign
manager Jeff Weaver appeared on MSNBC last night. Numerous reports quoted
Weaver and suggested the campaign plans to upend the will of voters and flip
superdelegates to win the Democratic presidential nomination at the
convention in July.
The Washington Post's Philip Bump-who recently argued the average donation
to the Sanders campaign is $28, not $27-wrote, "Sanders supporters loathe
the superdelegates, who they fairly see as undemocratic," and, "Would
Sanders's supporters want to win by acclamation from the undemocratic
supers? Some would, sure. But it isn't what they expected."
For The Nation, Joan Walsh, an outspoken Clinton supporter, called Weaver's
comments "discouraging" and said flipping superdelegates at the convention
"would certainly make the July convention a spectacle, but it's unlikely to
help his candidate win."
However, what Bump, Walsh, and others seem to misunderstand is Weaver made
his comments under the presumption that neither Clinton nor Sanders will
meet the 2,383 pledged delegate threshold needed to clinch the nomination
before the convention. Both candidates will need to make cases to
superdelegates to clinch the nomination. Clinton will have to keep the
superdelegates from switching and Sanders will have to find some way to
persuade superdelegates to support him over the establishment's favored
candidate.
Clinton and Sanders, as has been the case throughout the primary, will bring
a significant attention to the superdelegate system employed by the
Democratic Party. The surrogates and supporters for both candidates will
inevitably find new reasons to loathe the system by the time the convention
is over. Both candidates will wage a kind of information war in the media to
convince the population that their strategy respects the will of voters,
even as the party elites have their moment to demonstrate how they have more
influence as superdelegates.
There is nothing wrong with lobbying superdelegates. Dennis Archer, a
superdelegate from Michigan and former mayor of Detroit who supports
Clinton, told The Guardian, "I would do the same thing if I were them and
I'm not at all offended at them. One would expect that to occur."
Yet, as numerous people reflect on the Democratic primary the day after the
New York primary, why is it offensive to so many liberal and establishment
Democrats, particularly those who back Clinton?
When Sanders declared his candidacy, he was cast in the role of pushing
Clinton to the left or influencing her on issues so she would become a
"better" or "stronger" candidate since she would inevitably be the
Democratic nominee. He forced her to declare opposition to the Keystone XL
tar sands oil pipeline. He forced her to declare opposition to the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, even though she lobbied for it as Secretary of
State.
By January of this year, the Sanders campaign grew into a formidable force,
which could beat her in state primaries. He said in June 2015 if the
campaign did well in Iowa and New Hampshire, he'd become a "credible
candidate" and a "lot more money" would come in to support the campaign.
Sanders performed well in those states and managed to build a fundraising
apparatus, which could pull in small-dollar donations that exceeded $1
million each day.
Sanders went from a protest candidate in the Democratic primary to a
contender for the nomination. His campaign believed it could win. It still
believes it can win. For that reason, every day it continues to function as
a competitive alternative to Clinton it is met with disgust from Democratic
elites and an establishment, which wants to see the campaign crushed.
After the New York primary, an unnamed senior Clinton aide told POLITICO's
Glenn Thrush, "We kicked his ass tonight," and, "I hope this convinces
Bernie to tone it down. If not, fuck him." David Axelrod, who worked as a
chief strategist for both of Obama's presidential campaigns, tweeted,
"Minutes after Hillary Clinton talks unity, her spokeswoman calls Senator
Sanders' campaign 'destructive.' I honestly don't get it." David Plouffe, an
Obama campaign strategist who endorsed Clinton, accused the Sanders campaign
of "fraud" because they sent out fundraising email saying there still was a
path to the nomination. Brad Woodhouse, president of the Clinton super PAC,
Correct the Record, characterized Sanders as a "spoiler," even though he has
every right to fight for the nomination at the convention as Clinton does.
The Clinton campaign and its network of surrogates and super PACs insists
Sanders went "personal and negative," and that "backfired" on him badly in
the state. The truth is, after the Wisconsin primary, it set in motion a
plan in New York to "disqualify" Sanders in order to end his win streak. In
interviews, the campaign insinuated Sanders was not qualified and provoked
Sanders into outlining a number of reasons why she should be considered
unqualified. When the Clinton campaign expressed outrage, the Sanders
campaign was put in a position where it had to back down, apologize, or
continue to face reporters, who would keep raising the issue of her
"qualifications." It was a perfect, yet sleazy way of stunting Sanders'
surge in New York.
"It is premature to grapple with how the movement around the campaign can
continue after the campaign is over when it frankly is not over yet."
Another sleazy line of attack involved gun control and the claim that the
"highest per capita number" of guns used in crimes in New York came from
Vermont, and, therefore, the senator from Vermont, who is running for
president, bears some responsibility for violent crime. Not a bit of this
attack on Sanders was correct. The Washington Post gave Clinton "three
Pinocchios" for crafting a talking point deliberately intended to leave
voters with a misleading impression.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Clinton during a debate in Brooklyn, "Are you
seriously blaming Vermont, and implicitly Senator Sanders, for New York's
gun violence?" Clinton said, "No, of course not. Of course not," which
prompted Sanders to laugh at her denial. She then said, "It's not a laughing
matter," and painted him as someone who would push the National Rifle
Association's agenda as president, even though he takes many of the same
positions on gun control as she does. Then, Correct the Record pushed
campaign propaganda into the media suggesting Sanders thought gun violence
was a "laughing matter."
The campaign even pit Sanders against families whose loved ones were
slaughtered in the Sandy Hook massacre and reveled in the fact that he was
being asked to apologize for a massacre he was not responsible for at all.
It falsely suggested Sanders believed the families had no right to sue the
manufacturer of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle used by Adam Lanza.
Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign said nothing about how the State Department
under Clinton signed off on a $4.2 million arms deal with the manufacturer,
Remington Arms Company.
Former President Bill Clinton joked on April 15 that young Sanders
supporters would "shoot every third person on Wall Street" if Sanders was
elected. Of course, if anyone finds this funny, it is because they believe
Sanders has left-wing supporters who would only be satisfied with Wall
Street reform that involved murdering corporate executives responsible for
fraud and other forms of corruption.
The establishment news media-in service to the Clinton campaign-has
patronized Sanders as if he was a marginal candidate, even when he won state
primaries. "Will you support Hillary?" "Will you tell your supporters to
vote for Hillary?" "Will you make sure the Democratic Party can unify in
November?" "Will you tone it down?" "Will you reconsider repeatedly pointing
out how Clinton is a corporate Democrat because it is disrespectful?"
But Sanders and his campaign have no interest in playing the part of protest
candidate, especially because talking like Sanders does not mean Clinton
will follow through on the rhetoric she deploys to prevent her campaign from
dwindling. It also is premature to grapple with how the movement around the
campaign can continue after the campaign is over when it frankly is not over
yet. The Sanders campaign is in the midst of a war for a nomination that
will give voters a viable alternative to two oligarchs in November, and it
is not about to quit now.
Copyright FDL Media Group C, All Rights Reserved.
Kevin Gosztola
Skip to main content
//
. DONATE
. SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Thursday, April 21, 2016
. Home
. World
. U.S.
. Canada
. Climate
. War & Peace
. Economy
. Rights
. Solutions
. Democracy Awakening
. Political Revolution
. Panama Papers
. Election 2016
. Donald Trump
Sanders Campaign's Commitment To Victory Irritates Media, Offends Clinton
Campaign
Published on
Thursday, April 21, 2016
by
Shadowproof
Sanders Campaign's Commitment To Victory Irritates Media, Offends Clinton
Campaign
by
Kevin Gosztola
. 66 Comments
.
. Bernie Sanders, candidate for the Democratic nomination for
President of the United States, visited Penn State's Recreation Hall for a
rally on the evening of April 19. (Photo: Penn State on Flickr)
. Once again, for the umpteenth time in the Democratic presidential
primary, there is a dominant narrative in the establishment news media that
it is over for Bernie Sanders. News outlets have crunched the numbers,
again, and after the loss to Hillary Clinton in New York, conventional
wisdom is Sanders cannot win.
. "Sanders went from a protest candidate in the Democratic primary to
a contender for the nomination. His campaign believed it could win. It still
believes it can win."
. Such harping is presented as if it is a neutral perspective solely
based on mathematics that is not driven by any influence the Clinton
campaign may have over media institutions. However, the fact is there are
1,400 pledged delegates left to win in contests. Clinton has 1,442 pledged
delegates while Sanders has 1,209 pledged delegates. It's a lead of 233
pledged delegates, which he could still overcome in June, especially if he
continues to surge in California-a state with 475 delegates to be won.
. To put it more concisely, Sanders has a path to victory. His
campaign is not all but done. It would be all but done if there weren't over
a thousand pledged delegates to be awarded. That is not the case.
Another piece of context missing in most news coverage is that an Emerson
College poll had Sanders losing to Clinton by close to fifty points in late
March. His campaign surged and managed to win 40 percent of the vote, which
was what the campaign saw as a "credibility threshold" they needed to
achieve.
Clinton is very well known in New York. The state elected Clinton as their
senator twice. Virginia Fields, former borough president for Manhattan and a
Clinton surrogate, said on Democracy Now!, "Senator Clinton, in terms of
relationships with African Americans in the Latino communities, is much
stronger, certainly, than that of Senator Sanders here in the state of New
York." But she won't necessarily have the same kind of rapport with voters
to boost her campaign in the remaining states.
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/cdspring16-articlehttps://secure.
actblue.com/contribute/page/cdspring16-article
Now, there is a misperception, which has spread since Sanders campaign
manager Jeff Weaver appeared on MSNBC last night. Numerous reports quoted
Weaver and suggested the campaign plans to upend the will of voters and flip
superdelegates to win the Democratic presidential nomination at the
convention in July.
The Washington Post's Philip Bump-who recently argued the average donation
to the Sanders campaign is $28, not $27-wrote, "Sanders supporters loathe
the superdelegates, who they fairly see as undemocratic," and, "Would
Sanders's supporters want to win by acclamation from the undemocratic
supers? Some would, sure. But it isn't what they expected."
For The Nation, Joan Walsh, an outspoken Clinton supporter, called Weaver's
comments "discouraging" and said flipping superdelegates at the convention
"would certainly make the July convention a spectacle, but it's unlikely to
help his candidate win."
However, what Bump, Walsh, and others seem to misunderstand is Weaver made
his comments under the presumption that neither Clinton nor Sanders will
meet the 2,383 pledged delegate threshold needed to clinch the nomination
before the convention. Both candidates will need to make cases to
superdelegates to clinch the nomination. Clinton will have to keep the
superdelegates from switching and Sanders will have to find some way to
persuade superdelegates to support him over the establishment's favored
candidate.
Clinton and Sanders, as has been the case throughout the primary, will bring
a significant attention to the superdelegate system employed by the
Democratic Party. The surrogates and supporters for both candidates will
inevitably find new reasons to loathe the system by the time the convention
is over. Both candidates will wage a kind of information war in the media to
convince the population that their strategy respects the will of voters,
even as the party elites have their moment to demonstrate how they have more
influence as superdelegates.
There is nothing wrong with lobbying superdelegates. Dennis Archer, a
superdelegate from Michigan and former mayor of Detroit who supports
Clinton, told The Guardian, "I would do the same thing if I were them and
I'm not at all offended at them. One would expect that to occur."
Yet, as numerous people reflect on the Democratic primary the day after the
New York primary, why is it offensive to so many liberal and establishment
Democrats, particularly those who back Clinton?
When Sanders declared his candidacy, he was cast in the role of pushing
Clinton to the left or influencing her on issues so she would become a
"better" or "stronger" candidate since she would inevitably be the
Democratic nominee. He forced her to declare opposition to the Keystone XL
tar sands oil pipeline. He forced her to declare opposition to the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, even though she lobbied for it as Secretary of
State.
By January of this year, the Sanders campaign grew into a formidable force,
which could beat her in state primaries. He said in June 2015 if the
campaign did well in Iowa and New Hampshire, he'd become a "credible
candidate" and a "lot more money" would come in to support the campaign.
Sanders performed well in those states and managed to build a fundraising
apparatus, which could pull in small-dollar donations that exceeded $1
million each day.
Sanders went from a protest candidate in the Democratic primary to a
contender for the nomination. His campaign believed it could win. It still
believes it can win. For that reason, every day it continues to function as
a competitive alternative to Clinton it is met with disgust from Democratic
elites and an establishment, which wants to see the campaign crushed.
After the New York primary, an unnamed senior Clinton aide told POLITICO's
Glenn Thrush, "We kicked his ass tonight," and, "I hope this convinces
Bernie to tone it down. If not, fuck him." David Axelrod, who worked as a
chief strategist for both of Obama's presidential campaigns, tweeted,
"Minutes after Hillary Clinton talks unity, her spokeswoman calls Senator
Sanders' campaign 'destructive.' I honestly don't get it." David Plouffe, an
Obama campaign strategist who endorsed Clinton, accused the Sanders campaign
of "fraud" because they sent out fundraising email saying there still was a
path to the nomination. Brad Woodhouse, president of the Clinton super PAC,
Correct the Record, characterized Sanders as a "spoiler," even though he has
every right to fight for the nomination at the convention as Clinton does.
The Clinton campaign and its network of surrogates and super PACs insists
Sanders went "personal and negative," and that "backfired" on him badly in
the state. The truth is, after the Wisconsin primary, it set in motion a
plan in New York to "disqualify" Sanders in order to end his win streak. In
interviews, the campaign insinuated Sanders was not qualified and provoked
Sanders into outlining a number of reasons why she should be considered
unqualified. When the Clinton campaign expressed outrage, the Sanders
campaign was put in a position where it had to back down, apologize, or
continue to face reporters, who would keep raising the issue of her
"qualifications." It was a perfect, yet sleazy way of stunting Sanders'
surge in New York.
"It is premature to grapple with how the movement around the campaign can
continue after the campaign is over when it frankly is not over yet."
Another sleazy line of attack involved gun control and the claim that the
"highest per capita number" of guns used in crimes in New York came from
Vermont, and, therefore, the senator from Vermont, who is running for
president, bears some responsibility for violent crime. Not a bit of this
attack on Sanders was correct. The Washington Post gave Clinton "three
Pinocchios" for crafting a talking point deliberately intended to leave
voters with a misleading impression.
CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Clinton during a debate in Brooklyn, "Are you
seriously blaming Vermont, and implicitly Senator Sanders, for New York's
gun violence?" Clinton said, "No, of course not. Of course not," which
prompted Sanders to laugh at her denial. She then said, "It's not a laughing
matter," and painted him as someone who would push the National Rifle
Association's agenda as president, even though he takes many of the same
positions on gun control as she does. Then, Correct the Record pushed
campaign propaganda into the media suggesting Sanders thought gun violence
was a "laughing matter."
The campaign even pit Sanders against families whose loved ones were
slaughtered in the Sandy Hook massacre and reveled in the fact that he was
being asked to apologize for a massacre he was not responsible for at all.
It falsely suggested Sanders believed the families had no right to sue the
manufacturer of the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle used by Adam Lanza.
Meanwhile, the Clinton campaign said nothing about how the State Department
under Clinton signed off on a $4.2 million arms deal with the manufacturer,
Remington Arms Company.
Former President Bill Clinton joked on April 15 that young Sanders
supporters would "shoot every third person on Wall Street" if Sanders was
elected. Of course, if anyone finds this funny, it is because they believe
Sanders has left-wing supporters who would only be satisfied with Wall
Street reform that involved murdering corporate executives responsible for
fraud and other forms of corruption.
The establishment news media-in service to the Clinton campaign-has
patronized Sanders as if he was a marginal candidate, even when he won state
primaries. "Will you support Hillary?" "Will you tell your supporters to
vote for Hillary?" "Will you make sure the Democratic Party can unify in
November?" "Will you tone it down?" "Will you reconsider repeatedly pointing
out how Clinton is a corporate Democrat because it is disrespectful?"
But Sanders and his campaign have no interest in playing the part of protest
candidate, especially because talking like Sanders does not mean Clinton
will follow through on the rhetoric she deploys to prevent her campaign from
dwindling. It also is premature to grapple with how the movement around the
campaign can continue after the campaign is over when it frankly is not over
yet. The Sanders campaign is in the midst of a war for a nomination that
will give voters a viable alternative to two oligarchs in November, and it
is not about to quit now.
Copyright FDL Media Group C, All Rights Reserved.
