From the Say Wha? Desk

Who's on first?

It's revealing that the establishment media in the U.S., having taken repeated notice of the number of French voters who abstained or cast blank ballots in the French presidential election to raise questions about Emmanuel Macron's legitimacy ("blank invalid ballots account for 9% of all registered voters; abstention rate at 24.52%"), is not similarly troubled about the U.S. government's legitimacy given that about 40% of adult Americans routinely abstain from voting.

"French election results: The case for saying Marine Le Pen actually came third," as one headline put it. Applying this analysis to November's results, Donald Trump came in third, Hillary Clinton second, and -- to the relief of most Americans -- None of the Above is president of United States.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump sing "Baby it's Cold Outside"

"Is Bernie Sanders an effective political leader?"

Sen. Bernie Sanders' supporters are accused of idealizing their candidate and ignoring his flaws and mistakes. But part of Sanders appeal lies in the fact that his campaign is focused on process and on building a movement that will help to turn the nation in a more positive direction than it has been in since the rise of Reaganism and Clintonism. Such a movement will be able to influence the behavior of those in power, including Bernie Sanders, just as the peace, civil rights and labor movements once did. In this context, his flaws and mistakes are less important than they might otherwise be.

As for his record of leadership, Sen. Sanders was largely responsible for the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 that provided "for an increase in the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans," not an insignificant piece of legislation.

It's worth noting in this context that, even given the cooperative nature of legislating, just a handful of bills, between four and six percent, submitted by members of Congress come to a vote and even fewer, somewhere between two and four percent, are enacted. It is striking that during his years in the House the Independent Socialist from Vermont had the highest rate of successfully passing amendments, bettering the record of any member from either major party.

Developing and introducing original legislation is a small part of what members of Congress are sent to Washington to do: co-sponsoring legislation (which Sanders has done for more than 200 successful bills) is another; also vitally important is organizing support for or opposition to proposed legislation among both legislative colleagues and the public; that he is good at this is presumably why the Democratic Senate leadership appointed Sen. Sanders to at least seven committees and named him chair of the important committee on the budget; actively participating in hearings, which Sen. Sanders also has been very active at; reviewing and voting on proposed bills; participating in oversight and investigation of the conduct of the legislative branch; and meeting and assisting constituents, which Sen. Sanders also must have a handle on, since he has held elective office for more that three decades and is viewed favorably by about 80% of his constituents in his home state.

One other thing: Sanders is frequently accused of introducing bills that have "no chance of passing." This misses an important part of the legislative process: preparing the ground for the future. In the Thirties and in the Sixties, opportunities opened up to make historic advances in social and economic progress. One important reason for the legislative achievements of the New Deal and the Great Society is that the groundwork had been laid by decades of debate over proposals that, when they were introduced, had "no chance of passing" (in fact, most of them had "no chance of passing" even in the legislative session in which they passed). The reason that the Sanders candidacy is so important is that it lays the groundwork for future advances in social and economic policy. It's not that a new New Deal will result immediately from Sanders' election, but that, for the first time since the early 1970s, we will be arguing over the right things.

About the frequently heard charge that he couldn't pass his "Socialist" (really, New Deal and Great Society) program even when "a totally Democratic Congress and Speaker" held sway: At no time since the Sixties, has the Congress not had a conservative majority. The big corner offices may have changed hands a few times, but the kleptocracy and the corporate agenda have never been seriously challenged. In so far as there has been resistance to business as usual, though, it has come from the Progressive Caucus in the House, made up of Liberal Democrats and founded by -- wait for it -- Bernie Sanders.

Despite the fact that Congress at certain points since the early 1970s has been nominally in the hands of Democrats is irrelevant, because the conservative majority -- made up of both Democrats and Republicans -- controlled both houses during the entire period. That nothing was done during the 25 working days with a Democratic supermajority underscores the the need to change business as usual in Washington by changing the makeup of the legislature. But you use what you have. Advancing the candidacy of Sen. Sanders is a step in the right direction.

Finally, it has to be kept in mind that one of Sanders' great blind spots is militarism. Although not nearly the hawk that Hillary Clinton is, Sanders supported brutal economic sanctions, drone assassinations and the legislation that paved the way for the Iraq War. One of the first jobs of his supporters if he is elected will be to oppose his endorsement of a militarized foreign policy, the same as it will be should Donald Trump or Clinton be commander in chief (the difference being that progressives will have considerably more influence in a Sanders administration).

It won't matter who is elected in 2016 if 2017 doesn't mark the rebirth of an independent, people's movement, accountable to its members, strong and disciplined enough to change the outcome of federal and local elections, and effective enough eventually either to wrest control of the Democratic Party from Wall Street and the corporations or to evolve into a viable progressive party. Sanders supporters are united in their persistent belief that change is possible, that the nation's present level of decline and dysfunction is not the way things need to be.

Follow-up: Has Bernie Sanders been given a pass on his own record on regime change? The Intercept's Jeremy Scahill tells Democracy Now! it can't be ignored that Sanders supported brutal economic sanctions, drone assassinations and the neocon legislation that paved the way for the Iraq. War:

Second Thoughts

“I want to be the president for the struggling, the striving and the successful.” -- Hillary Clinton, before the Michigan primary

“I don’t want to be the president for those who are already successful — they don’t need me. I want to be the president for the struggling and the striving.” -- Hillary Clinton, after the Michigan primary

Extra credit:

It's not over 'til it's over.

There's more to the primaries than picking the nominee. The delegates to the convention will write, amend and approve the party platform. Speeches will be made to the nation in prime time. The party chair will be chosen and DNC positions filled. Whether the nominee is Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton, the more progressives that are elected to the convention, the more likely that the Democratic Party will return to its historic role as the champion of social and economic equality.

"Why do so many Democrats hate Hillary Clinton?"

It's not personal.

Any other establishment neo-liberal who ran, especially this year with

so many citizens fed up with business-as-usual, would be drawing the same kind of fire.

It's intensified in her case by her identification with and participation in her husband's administration's policies -- militarization of foreign policy; NAFTA, the push toward deregulation, particularly of the banks (see, the Great Recession) and telecom companies; the Drug War and mass incarceration; the cruel welfare reforms; embracing austerity and fetishizing balanced budgets.

Additionally, there is her habit of seeing every foreign policy issue as a nail needing hammering by the military, and her close ties to Wall Street and the corporate elite. Finally, she lacks a natural politician's gift for retail politics; she isn't light enough on her feet to pirouette past repeated panders and policy shifts without anyone noticing; belated adoption of progressive positions doesn't play as evolving, it looks like cynicism and politics-as-usual:

Fair or not, many Democratic voters perceive her campaign as a con.

Reading List:
-> The most surreal moment in the Democratic debates came when one of America’s most powerful insiders took umbrage at an accurate characterization of whom she represents. Of Course Hillary Clinton Exemplifies the Establishment by Conor Friedersdorf (The Atlantic).
-> How Neoliberal is Hillary Clinton? by Le Gauchiste (Daily Kos).
-> Neoliberalism from Reagan to Clinton by Gregory Albo (Monthly Review), a review of Surrender: How the Clinton Administration Completed the Reagan Revolution by Michael Meeropol (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1998).
-> Hillary Clinton isn’t a champion of women’s rights. She’s the embodiment of corporate feminism. Hillary Clinton’s Empowerment by Kevin Young & Diana C. Sierra Becerra (Jacobin)
-> David Harvey not only looks into the political and economic dangers that surround us now, but also examines the prospects for more socially just alternatives. A Brief History of Neoliberalism by David Harvey (Oxford University Press).
-> If the Democrats lose in November 2016, they can't say they weren't warned: Stop Hillary! by Doug Henwood (2014: Harper's) and Ready for Hillary? Really? by Pierre Guerlain (2013: Truthout).

Poor me

Apparently, so desperate is the Hillary Clinton campaign it has decided to play the victim card. But if that's going to be our criterion for choosing the president, shouldn't we go with Joe Biden? He's had it a lot rougher than she has.

So it goes

As the senator from Vermont likes to say, let's be perfectly clear about this: "Bernie Sanders swept to a massive victory in the New Hampshire Democratic primary on Tuesday in a stunning win over Hillary Clinton that will send shockwaves through her campaign and give the Vermont senator much needed momentum as he heads for tougher states further south" (The Guardian).

Trending

All nine eligible residents of Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, have voted, and it's looking grim for Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Ohio governor John Kasich was the Republican winner, beating Donald Trump by three votes to two, while Senator Bernie Sanders swept with all four of the Democratic votes.

Must see TV: Two Principled Progressives Discuss H. Clinton

"The Best, uh, Person"

Is it too late to pitch a remake, no, I'm sorry, a re-imagination of Frank Schaffner's great movie The Best Man -- screenplay by Gore Vidal, starring Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson -- in time for this year's election? In the 1964 film, as IMDb puts it, "[t]he two front runners for their party's Presidential nomination, one principled and the other ruthless, vie for the ex-President's endorsement." Actually, the story's a lot more complicated and interesting than that, including the presence in the race of one Gov. John Merwin, a being so spectral even the actor who played him (William R. Ebersol) (or is it Eberson?) has vanished into the mists of time.

In the new version, the front runner, a seasoned center-right politician (Meryl Streep), is challenged from her left by an idealistic, small-state U.S. Senator (Larry David, because Sam Elliott or Tom Selleck wouldn't be believable). The race has its ups and downs -- shifting poll numbers, primaries won and lost, petty scandals, social-media hits and misses, staff screw-ups, family embarrassments, yada yada, but as we open act three, the major candidates arrive at the convention unexpectedly neck and neck.

The President (Will Smith), busy with drone targets and blueprints for his presidential library and frankly not really very interested, dithers until the day of the vote, then makes a brilliant address to convention delegates that leaves the decision up to them. The surging enthusiasm of the challengers' supporters seems to be tipping the balance his way.

The former front runner, sensing the tide has turned against her, realizing she must concede, is unable to forgive the competitor who has exposed her feet of clay. In the final moment, she throws her delegates to the third candidate in the race, the chimerical governor (Tim Daly) who is last seen for a heart-stopping ten seconds -- the mood: a new day? a perilous future? the loneliness of power? "Happy Days Are Here Again"? "Gonna Fly Now"? a lot is going to depend on the soundtrack here -- on an escalator to the convention floor to accept the nomination.

Reading list:
Eleven populist points about the Bernie blizzard: Berserk Clinton Bigwigs Launch Nixonian Attack Against Surging Sanders by Brent Budowsky (Observer)

Further viewing:
Theater Talk: Playwright Gore Vidal on "The Best Man" (YouTube).

Homework:
Buy The Best Man by Gore Vidal, directed by Franklin Schaffner, with Henry Fonda and Cliff Robertson (Amazon).

The Bernie Beat Goes On

In 2008, the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign was moved to share this picture of young Barack Obama with the voting public.

In 1987, while serving as Burlington’s mayor, Bernie Sanders recorded an album of folk classics for the defunct BurlingTown Recordings label. Vermont's Seven Days found it in an archive search for Bernie Beat, its digital guide to Sanders' colorful political career. Sen. Sanders better watch out; if the Clinton campaign decides to go after the folk music vote, you can bet this will be everywhere: Sanders sings The Banks Are Made of Marble, and it ain't pretty.

The leaders of both parties are underestimating Bernie Sanders

Now that the worried Clinton campaign has turned its guns on a surging Bernie Sanders, Clinton's supporters have begun to express concern that the Vermont senator will be especially vulnerable to attacks from the right (so vulnerable, in fact, that the Clinton campaign itself is using them).

What the Republicans will do, of course, is try to slime the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is.

Barack Obama, who gave his enemies nothing to work with beyond the color of his skin, was vilified as an alien, Muslim, Socialist Pawn of Wall Street, and tyrant -- a weak one at that, but they rarely bothered to question his ethics, because no one would believe that he was personally corrupt. In Sanders' case, too, they have little to work with, now that it has become apparent that "socialism" is no longer frightening the horses, although the GOP will probably attempt to have the voters take notice of his age, as one Clinton surrogate is already trying to do, and his ethnicity.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is the best Democratic opponent you could wish for, if your only hope of winning is a smear campaign.

Reading list:
Democrats can't hold the White House forever. Losing in 2016 might make more strategic sense than losing in 2020. Fine, give the GOP four years: The liberal case for either Bernie Sanders, or electing a Republican president by Walker Bragman (Salon).

What kind of experience does Bernie Sanders have? Let's take a look. Bernie Gets It Done: Sanders' Record of Pushing Through Major Reforms Will Surprise You by Zaid Jilani (AlterNet).

Want specifics?: Bernie Sanders Releases Details on Health Plan That Would Raise Taxes but, He Argues, Save on Costs by Yamiche Alcindor and Alan Rappeport (The New York Times).

The Clinton camp is lambasting Bernie Sanders' health care plan, but its critique is blatantly dishonest. Clinton's Health Care Attack Makes No Sense by Pat Garofalo (U.S.News).

Extra credit:
Rant o' the Day: How the Democratic Establishment Manipulates Us by JosephK74 (Daily Kos).

A failure to communicate

Let me see if I have this straight.

Hillary Clinton must be supported for president -- just because, despite a lifetime of carrying water for some of the most destructive and rapacious agents of American capitalism, from Walmart to Goldman Sachs.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, must be rejected, because some of his supporters, at risk of harming no one beyond themselves, are rude and immature.

Is that about it?

If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try everyone's patience again.

In a democracy, it's no one's "turn." In politics, nothing is "inevitable."

Hillary Clinton was the inevitable candidate in 2008.

But the more progressive elements of the Democratic Party united on Super Tuesday to stop her; nearly accidentally -- nobody really knew who Barack Obama was, we ended up with a better candidate and arguably a better chief executive. There's no reason this can't happen again, and, this time, because of Bernie Sanders' consistent thirty-year record of service, we know that we'd get not only a better candidate but also an immeasurably better president.

We are told we must support Clinton because it is "her turn," and because she will inevitably win (of course, the same promise was made for John Kerry and Mike Dukakis). But, since she is a militarist and a prime defender of her class' interests, how is that even a good thing?

What happens if Hillary Clinton stalls or stumbles?

At this point, with the Republicans in chaos and Bernie Sanders' insurgency her only significant Democratic opposition, Hillary Clinton should be dominating the polls. That she's not must be scaring the bejesus out of the Democratic establishment. But what are they going to do about it? It's not like they have a deep bench. They don't want Elizabeth Warren or Sanders, though either of them would be electoral gold in November. Joe Biden is older than dirt and goofier than a Shmoo. Andrew Cuomo gives cynicism a bad name and has not been seasoned by a previous national run. The idea of drafting Al Gore is fantastical, as is the thought that they'd find Jim Webb or Martin O'Malley fit to run (who's Lincoln Chafee, again?). That the party kingmakers should have seen this coming is beside the point. What are they going to about it now?

Here's the breakdown:
Bush leads Clinton 41-36 in Colorado; 42-36 in Iowa; and 42-39 in Virginia.
Walker leads Clinton 47-38 in Colorado; 45-37 in Iowa; and 43-40 in Virginia.
Rubio leads Clinton 46-38 in Colorado; 44-36 in Iowa; and 43-41 in Virginia.

These are all states Obama won both times and they are essential components of a Democratic victory next year. "Trustworthiness," or lack thereof, seems to be what's doing Clinton in, and there's little about her halting, content-less campaign so far to indicate she can overcome people's distrust and dislike. Instead of trying to protect Clinton in the primaries, the Democrats should designate a substitute now or face having her drag the rest of the party's congressional and state candidates down with her when she whiffs in November 2016.

The rest of the story: Hillary Clinton is trailing the 3 strongest Republican candidates in 3 key swing states by Brett LoGiurato (Business Insider).

Reading list: Why Liberals Have to Be Radicals by Robert Kuttner: The reforms needed to restore the country's shared prosperity are to the left of all the candidates, including Sanders.

Addendum: I am asked what I have against former Senator Jim Webb. I don't have any particular issues with Webb that I don't have with any likely Democratic nominee; but I think the party poohbahs would regard him as a minor candidate, too independent, too unseasoned, too Southern, too identified with the military to please the party base, and probably a little too difficult to brand plausibly as a progressive (despite the fact that he voted with the party most of the time that he was in the Senate), something any Democratic Party nominee will have to pretend to be in 2016.

Hillary Clnton's Bloviation Seminar

In her official presidential campaign announcement speech, Hillary Clinton said she would reform the tax code, increase public investment in research, help communities transitioning to cleaner energy sources, establish an infrastructure bank, make preschool and child care universally available, increase college affordability, expand leave time for illness and family needs, raise the minimum wage, ban discrimination against gay people, reform campaign finance, and create automatic voter registration. It is impolite to point out that every one of these initiatives is the purview of the federal legislature (or in a few cases, the states) and that the Clinton campaign is pursuing a narrow strategy of targeting only a handful of contested states, meaning that her campaign will almost certainly result in fewer Democrats in Congress? And that about the things that are the purview of the executive, such as military adventurism, the security state, international trade, we are hearing nothing?

Will the Democrats choose the only candidate who can lose to Donald Trump?

As Hillary Clinton continues to slide, the Democrats will realize they've walked themselves into a corner. Will they try an end run around the primaries by attempting to hijack the convention for, say, Joe Biden? Or accept that they have a choice between Bernie Sanders and Martin O'Malley, the latter of whom will have to be repackaged as the lesser-of-two-goods to make him palatable to the powers that be?