In the wake of another Clinton loss, this time in Wisconsin, Clinton is now taking the Sanders campaign seriously. After allegations of voter suppression, a media blackout of the Sanders campaign, buried debates, pandering, flip flopping (she was for single payer, then against it, then for it again), nearly constant disingenuous remarks, and condescending remarks, Clinton is down to her finally options, disqualify and defeat Sanders, party unity be damned, we will unify the party later.
If there is a party to unify later. It is said that some 33% of Sanders supporters will never vote for Clinton, and the truth is I think that number is closer to 11%, right now anyway. At this stage in the game, Clinton is willing to go full Tea Party on the Democratic Party to fulfill her blind ambitions, to become the president. She is willing to sacrifice everything from liberal and progressive ideas, to the party for which she runs, and she will even risk the chance for future women who seek to become president, and no cares does she give.
As it has always been with Clinton, she has to be first, she has to win, and anyone in her way is not on an obstacle to be overcame, but an enemy that must be thoroughly decimated. Look at what she did to a 12 year old rape victim, and then think what she will do to an adult, don't believe me, look at what she tried to do to Obama in 2007 and 2008. She is seeking to disqualify, and defeat Sanders, she is seeking to cut every political throat she can, even against the better judgment of observers, and political experts. She talks about Sanders in tones of “He is a new Democrat”, and “I don't know how much of a Democrat he is.” Well Ms. Clinton, if she was better informed, if she actually did research on it, she would see that Sanders has mostly sided with the Democratic Party. In the past he has fund raised for Democratic candidates, he has endorsed them, he has sided with them on many issues, he has attempted to make the party better. Sure he has an (I-VT) behind his name, but how many of us independents have mostly sided, or for that matter, always sided with the Democratic Party? If Sanders was not a Democrat, why do they allow him to caucus with them, hold chairs within their ranks. It is because he was long ago recognized as a member of the Democratic Party. She said Sanders should tone it down, yet she wants to continue screaming in a tone deaf voice. She talks about Sanders supporters being uninformed, yet when she questions Sander's Democratic Party ties, she comes across as uninformed.
She continues to be disingenuous, and condescending. One does not loose 37% of the vote in any state unless there is a major problem. Several weeks ago Clinton was up 25% in Wisconsin, only to loose it by roughly 12%. It is painfully obvious to many sitting here watching the primaries tick by. She is running the exact same campaign she ran all those years ago, she merely played at updating the playbook, because her opponent is not Mr. Obama, its Bernie Sanders. So, Clinton wants to play the role of the noble champion for rights, while she is under investigation by the FBI, she wants to tell us all how much she is going to do. Every other week something new comes up, some new gaffe, some old scandal is brought back to the light of day. When asked what law or laws she has broken, you can't name one, because she has never technically broken a law. And yes, Clinton supporters are right to point it out, she is right to say that she has never technically broken the law. But do not become offended when I say that just because something is not illegal, that does not mean that it is right. What happened in the economic holocaust known as the 2008 recession was perfectly legal, but it was not right, what Wall Street and the banksters did should have been illegal, it was patently wrong on nearly every level a sane human being has, but it was legal. Clinton bundling money from fossil fuel industries, from Wall Street lobbyists, and bankers is legal, but wrong. Clinton is the perfect example of what a successful politician is in America. She is the perfect example of what is wrong with politicians in America today. Saying whatever she has to in order to win, while using ties with corporations to make those comments disappear, or make them appear out of context. Funny that after saying $15 an hour for minimum wage was too much (she preferred $12 an hour), she was on stage when the Governor of New York signed the $15 minimum wage bill. This was after Sanders went to march with those pushing for the bill, and pushing for $15 an hour nationwide.
So who is the real politician in the crowd? Its not Sanders, look at his appearance, and the way he speaks. This is a man who looks wild eyed, his hair and clothing is disheveled, not at all presidential, but the looks of a man who has been tediously working up to the moment he is called on stage. He speaks with a genuine tone of anger, and resentment as to what has befallen his fellow man, he isn't talking point perfect, his speeches always seem to be off script. He is animated, constantly throwing his hands and arms about, shifting as if he is not entirely comfortable in front of cameras, no that is not it, its like he is trying to make direct eye contact with every single person in the live audience and every person who is sitting in front of a screen. It might not be considered presidential to be that way, but it is the common man speaking, someone who was thrust on stage, someone willing to be there, but not the most comfortable with it.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, business is going to pick up, I promise you all that. For ever lie I see coming out of the Clinton camp, I am going to openly call her out on it. We should always take the time to look into what a candidate says. She is going to call Sanders on gun control (a minor issue for me), an issue Sanders has stated was better reformed on a state level, outside of specific controls. She will throw out his vote on the Crime Bill that she supported, when she called youths “super predators,” who should be “brought to heel.” If he had voted no, today we would be inundated with snide comments about his vote against domestic violence protection. He voted yes on that bill, as bad as it was, because he saw the potential and the good it could have, he called out the bad, while praising the good. You will find that a lot with Sanders, you can't say that for Clinton. Then again, all you will find with Clinton is the praise.
When it all washes down, because Clinton has so many years of off colored comments, and poor choices in policy stances/actions, when she tries to smear Sanders, its going to open her up for rebuttal. For as ugly as she has the potential to be, its going to be handed back to her in spades, and we haven't even got to the general yet. Its a brilliant plan, destroy your chances of winning, because you are annoyed by people holding you accountable for what you have said or done. People are not voting for Sanders, because their parents are voting for Trump or Clinton... They are voting for Sanders because for the first time in their lives they see a candidate who is willing to fight for them, not some cardboard cutout of a politician who tells them one thing, then does another. Sanders is not appealing to only naive kids, or duped young adults, he is appealing to people tired of more of the same. More wars, more trade agreements, more knife wounds to the back, more corruption, and no accountability for those who helped shape the destruction of our hopes and dreams. Do you need proof of that, look at what Dah Hair has done on the GOP side of the process. Sure, he is running out of steam now, but he took them to task, and while a brokered convention is likely, he might pull off a coup. Sanders is sitting in a similar boat. Both the DNC and the GOP are trying to silence the insurgent candidates, and its going to backfire. We might have a legitimate four way race to the White House.
In other news, there are a few petitions to the United Nations, to get the Democratic Primary investigated ( http://pac.petitions.moveon.org/sign/get-un-observers-to-investig , https://www.change.org/p/jeff-weaver-request-un-investigation-into-democratic-primary-election?recruiter=2675063&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=share_twitter_responsive , https://www.change.org/p/new-progressive-party-get-u-n-observers-to-investigate-voter-fraud-in-the-democratic-primaries ). Now, we are big into getting the UN to investigate other countries where there have been oddities in election results. Since 2000, there have been reported irregularities with the presidential elections. Maybe its time we do the same.