[“Speaking Truth To Empower”]
Sanders’ rise worries Wall Street and those who live lavishly because of America’s income inequality.
Many American voters are now “feeling the Bern” as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ grassroots message of economic empowerment and fairness gains traction after a strong showing in Iowa, gaining the most votes.
Heading into the New Hampshire Primary, Sanders seems poised to do something truly historic.
The numbers tell us he is extremely popular with young Americans who support him, unlike any other candidate we’ve seen in contemporary American politics. But Bernie’s rise is causing America’s economic elites to feel the heat, including Democratic Party leaders.
Tellingly, it now seems some are intent on sabotaging Sanders—even if it means four more years of Trump. Sanders’ rise worries Wall Street and those who live lavishly because of America’s wealth inequality.
We are now being told Armageddon will occur if Sanders is the Democratic nominee.
We now hear dire warnings that Sanders could take the Democratic Party, and the country, over a cliff. Isn’t it interesting these people show no such concern about the myriad serious problems hurting the country? Do we hear them sounding the alarm regarding real pressing problems like: affordable healthcare, affordable housing, high homelessness, economic anxiety, and other challenges?
Of course, Senator Sanders’s efforts at tackling income inequality, goes to the heart of addressing these matters These establishment figures don’t give a damn about suffering Americans, Black or White—especially, if it means they will have to pay a little more taxes.
Some are still using the old 20th Century Cold War scaremongering tactic of calling Sanders a “scary socialist.” However, this tactic is not working; Sanders’ supporters aren’t panicking.
Like the phony Republican “small government” argument, these folks only hate socialism and “big government” when it seeks to help regular struggling Americans. When Wall Street is the benefactor of corporate socialism, like through multi-billion dollar government bailout for the auto industry in 2009, we hear no hue and cry.
It appears some Democratic Party leaders are so afraid of Sanders’ rise they too are willing to sabotage his attempt to win the White House. We know they did everything to kneecap him during the 2016 Democratic Primary.
Recently, footage from an upcoming documentary shows Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton saying, of Senator Sanders, “Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done.” The “nobody” she is talking about here is clearly the Democratic leadership, not Democratic voters.
Clinton’s comment is interesting given the fact that Sanders, by a wide margin, is supported by young American voters 35 and under. No one has gotten more voter donations from regular folks, although he takes no corporate donations, Sanders is raising immense amounts of money from the masses—which means he isn’t beholden to the Wall Street pirates and big money donors who pervert politics.
Young Americans and disillusioned voters surely like Sanders. A Sanders candidacy will surely lead to high voter turnout for Democrats. So, why would Clinton make such a reactionary and malicious statement?
During a recent “Your Primary Playlist” podcast interview, with Emily Tisch Sussman, Clinton complained about the supporters of Sanders saying, “All the way up until the end, a lot of people highly identified with his campaign were urging people to vote third party, urging people not to vote. It had an impact.”
She also made this comment “in the 2016 primary, where I won by four million votes. I won overwhelmingly in delegates. There was no question about who was going to be the nominee. But unfortunately, you know, his campaign and his principal supporters were just very difficult and really, constantly not just attacking me, but my supporters.”
Here we hear a sour grapes Clinton blaming everyone but herself for losing in 2016 to Trump. So, it’s Sanders fault that his progressive base found her detestable?
Ever since Clinton lost the American Presidency to the most sexist, racist, president of our time, she has repeatedly pointed her finger everywhere else for her loss. It’s either because of what former FBI Director Jim Comey did, or it was the Russians helping Trump, or, something the DNC didn’t do right.
I’ve said this before: Russian interference was not the primary reason for Trump’s ascendance to the White House. Mainstream media interference was. Let’s remember this comment from former CBS CEO Les Moonves “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” Moonves here was talking about the media-saturated coverage of Trump—and all the money media companies were making off him.
The media, ever hungry for high ratings, irresponsibly gave Trump wall-to-wall coverage legitimized him in the eyes of many who don’t follow politics closely, but who gravitated to celebrities. Because of mainstream media’s greed, we are now suffering through this apprentice presidency.
However, these media companies never dreamed their behavior would help get Trump elected. This is likely because the media misjudged the weakness of the Clinton candidacy.
To listen to Secretary Clinton’s unbecoming whining about Senator Sanders’ supporters shows her bitterness at knowing she will never be president. But she should take responsibility for botching what should’ve been the first female presidency in the history of America.
There are a few important questions Clinton should ask herself. How come Bernie supporters who likely voted for Barack Obama not vote for her? Why did a majority of White women voters reject her? Why do so many Democratic-leaning voters dislike and distrust her?
One of the more disturbing incidents in Clinton’s political career is when she was shown laughing after the murder of former Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Quathafi by NATO-backed insurgents. Clinton made the infamously callous videotaped statement “We came, we saw, he died.” She rushed to Libya and posed for a photo with the rebels, hoping it would one day boost her presidential campaign.
Clinton had much to do with convincing President Obama to become involved in the NATO-led overthrow of Colonel Quathafi in 2011, which Obama should’ve never involved himself in. A New York Times story reported that former Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated Clinton’s support for Libyan intervention was the deciding factor in changing President Obama’s ambivalence.
The racist “rebels” who gained power after Quathafi’s demise have wreaked havoc in Libya ever since. Nearby African countries, like Mali, Burkina Faso, and Chad now face security crises because of the chaos in Libya.
During the 2016 campaign season, Clinton behaved like she was entitled to be the next president. Did she campaign hard enough to earn the presidency? Or, did she just take it for granted she would beat Trump?
Senator Sanders has something most politicians—including Secretary Clinton—don’t have: authenticity. For over 30 pl years, he has been a model of consistent advocacy for regular Americans. He represents public service at its finest. Since 2016, when many were first hearing his name, his support has steadily risen.
Secretary Clinton’s lack of authenticity is a primary reason why she was unable to win over progressive voters. Clinton never connected at the grassroots level and was just not trusted.
There is now a lot of bloviating bull blowing around questioning Senator Sanders’s “electability.” Somehow, Sanders is unelectable even though the numbers tell us he is leading in grassroots support among the masses of America’s young and disaffected.
The truth is: Wall Street and the establishment fear Sanders will win in November and usher in a historic period where all of America’s wealth is not just placed in the hands of the richest one percent.