Democratic Party Apparatchiks Insist on Going With Weaker Presidential Candidate

The AP (Associated Press) and NBC on June 6 declared Hillary Clinton the winner of the Democratic Party nomination for president. Totaling up the delegates she won in state primaries and caucuses and adding the over 500 unelected "superdelegates" (party poohbahs and assorted elected officials) backing her, they figured she has hit the magic number of a majority of delegates. Thus seeming to obviate the June 7 California, New Jersey, and other primaries. California being by far the most populous U.S. state, with the most delegates, and once again consigned to political irrelevancy.  [1]
Clinton's "victory" is actually not great news for the Democrats.

Senator Bernard Sanders has consistently polled stronger against Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton has. Yet the Party apparatus, controlled by the Clintons and their minions, is going with the weaker candidate, Hillary Clinton. (Perhaps we should refer to the Democratic Party as the "Clinton Machine." Even since 1992, that seems to be about what it is.)

In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted in mid-May among 1,109 registered voters, Clinton beat Trump 47% to 41%, a lead of 6%. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3%, which means the two candidates could actually be dead even. In any event, poll results are volatile, and public opinion is very fickle.  [2]

Sanders, on the other hand, leads Trump 51% to 38%, a pretty wide margin. (The New York Times calls that "a more hypothetical matchup," striving to be neutral, I suppose. Can't really fault that circumlocution.)

Sanders has consistently done better in polls against Trump than has Clinton for months now. So logically, the Democratic Party should at least be giving serious consideration to Sanders.
But the Democrats would probably rather LOSE the election than anoint Sanders as their standard-bearer.

It seems that their role as protectors of corporate hegemony trumps even their own partisan self-interest.

Sanders is hardly a radical. He calls himself a "democratic socialist," by which he apparently means New Deal Democrat or social democrat. That is, he's for a decent "safety net" for the population, rather than dog-eat-dog capitalism with most of the wealth going to a small class of plutocrats, as in late 19th century-early 20th century America (which the Republicans relentlessly push returning to, being an atavistic, revanchist party), or the system of crumbs doled out as pacifiers as favored by the current Democratic Party. The Republicans would eliminate the crumbs: the Democrats, under their last two presidents, Obama and Bill Clinton, have proved willing to "compromise" with the Republicans and reduce the amount of the crumbs. As in any compromise with fanatics, such compromises are only temporary, as the fanatics always come back and demand more until reaching their ultimate goal. Thus the "reasonable" sellouts eventually "compromise" their way to utter defeat. (THAT'S the "lesson of Munich"!)

Both of the hegemonic political parties are fronts for big capital interests. (The Libertarian Party are laissez-faire capitalists like the Republicans minus the crony capitalism of the Republicans, and lacking the taste for militarism and imperialism of the two ruling parties. The Republican Party in actual elections almost entirely sweeps up libertarian-minded voters.)

Both Clinton and Trump were viewed negatively by over 50% of the respondents to the poll. This too is consistent over time. If one were to included people not registered to vote in the tally, those negatives would probably be even higher. People who don't register are either thoroughly disgusted with the system, alienated from it, or indifferent. (Or just unmotivated.) So a high percentage of them have no use for "politicians" generally.

Now, it's true that Clinton got more votes in the Democratic primaries than Sanders. But in the general election in November, independents and Republicans will be voting too. The point is, Sanders does better than Clinton in that situation. Certainly among independents, and while only a relatively small percentage of Republicans would ordinarily vote for the Democratic presidential candidate, I suspect that more would go for Sanders than for Clinton. Because even though he calls himself a "democratic socialist," he acts like he wants to shake things up, something many Republicans want. Plus, he's a bit of a crotchety, ornery old coot, as are many Republicans. And they really hate Clinton. Then there's the fact that a significant number of Republicans can't abide Donald Trump. So I think it is clear that Sanders would actually be the better opponent against Trump.

Sanders is officially an "independent," while functioning as a "left wing" Democrat in the mold of a Dennis Kucinich. The Democrats usually have someone playing the role of "progressive" in order to continue to dupe progressives into voting for their corporate hegemonist and mass-murdering imperialist party. Sanders, like Kucinich, like indeed all of the handful of "progressive" Democrats in the Congress, is a lone wolf who refuses to even form a caucus of progressives in the Congress. That fact alone is enough to prove that these people aren't serious.  [3]

Sanders is functionally a Democrat in the Senate, as he votes their way almost always. In return, they reward Sanders with plum seats on various Senate committees. They also don't try to unseat him in Vermont elections.

But the Clintons are practitioners of cronyism on a vast scale, especially with their multi-billion dollar "foundation." They are a source of jobs and money. And they wired the Democratic Party power structure long ago. Hillary landed in New York State as a political carpetbagger and bumped aside other Democratic Party politicians who were "in line" to run for a Senate seat there. That's how she became a U.S. Senator. Then it was expected she would be the Party's presidential candidate in 2008, as if by some divine right of succession. The upstart hustler from Illinois, Barack Hussein Obama, yanked the rug out from under her with his slick moves, willingness to shamelessly lie about his future policies, and the technical brilliance of his campaign machinery. And oodles of money from Wall Street and other precincts of Big Capital (who obviously knew his "progressive" rhetoric was a sham to dupe the rubes- I mean, the citizens).

Ironically, Obama is very much like Hillary's husband, Bill Clinton. Both are very adept con artists, lacking any conscience, very good at lying (unlike Nixon) which they do convincingly. And both implemented very repressive policies domestically, and liberally killed people abroad.

Yeah, life is ironic sometimes.

1]  Here's one measure of how profoundly undemocratic the U.S. is- and this is never spoken of. The U.S. Senate, the upper chamber of the U.S. Congress, is immensely powerful. Because of its archaic and anti-democratic rules and procedures, a single Senator can block legislation.

Each of the 50 states elects 2 Senators to the Senate, for a total of 100. The state of California, as of July 2014, had a population as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau of just shy of 39 million people. The 22 least populous states had a total population of about 39 and a half million. So Californians had two whole Senators to represent them in the U.S. Senate, while virtually the same number of people from elsewhere (mostly reactionary backwaters) had 44, close to half the entire Senate!

The least populous state, Wyoming, Dick Cheneyland, with a population barely over half a million, has the same number of Senators as California, which has 66 times Wyoming's population. A 66 to 1 ratio. 66 Californians equal 1 Wyoman in political weight.

Nice and democratic!

2]  "Republicans Want Their Party to Unify Behind Donald Trump, Poll Shows," New York Times, May 19, 2016.

3]  Ralph Nader has thoroughly exposed this sham. See for example this excerpt from Nader's appearance on Democracy Now!, May 18, 2015, when he was interviewed by Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez. Sanders snubbed him for 15 years, and 9 Congressional "progressives" completely ignored his pleas to them to form a united front to advance an agenda.

Here's the transcript of the relevant portion of the interview:

RALPH NADER: Bernie Sanders does not answer my calls. Fifteen years, he’s never answered a telephone call, never replied to a letter, never replied to a meeting that I wanted to go down and see him. I even had to write an article on this, called "Bernie, We Thought We Knew Ye!" One of the problems he’s going to face, other than his good graces in Vermont, is that he doesn’t have good political antennae. He doesn’t have political social graces. And he’s going to have to change that. A lot of his friends have told me that that’s a problem. But most progressive senators don’t really respond to any progressive group that tries to push him to do more than they want to do. I wrote nine letters to nine progressive senators, like Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and saying, "Look, you’re all lone rangers doing good things, but you’re going nowhere. So why don’t you get together into a caucus of nine, 10, 12 senators in the Senate and push a unified agenda on poverty, on labor, on the environment, on trade, on military policy? You might really get somewhere. At the least, you’ll raise these issues more prominently." Not a single response. Called up, said, "Would they respond?" Not a single response. I did finally have to go down and meet with the general counsel for Senator Warren. But by and large, that’s the problem with the left. That’s the problem of progressives. They don’t link with one another. You never see Heritage Foundation or Cato or all these right-wing groups tolerate members of Congress treating them that way who are supposed to be on their side.- "Ralph Nader on Bernie Sanders' Presidential Bid & His Unanswered Letters to the White House," Democracy Now!, May 18, 2015.]

The Unbearable Phoniness of Congressional "Progressives."

              Sheesh! Looks like my time in the limelight is just about up.

Clinton Victory "Historic"- For Those With No Knowledge of History

And for those who feign no knowledge of history. They're the ones brainwashing the ones who apparently have no actual knowledge.

That is, propagandists (aka "journalists") manipulate the masses. As usual.

What's the big "historic" event? A female is set to be nominated for president of the U.S. by one of the two oligarchic parties here.

Hillary Clinton won decisively in Democratic primaries in California and New Jersey June 7, trouncing Senator "Bernie" Sanders. (She also won in two insignificant states with small populations and thus few delegates.) She had already declared the winner of the Democratic nomination for president the day before by the AP and NBC, based on their calculation of her "superdelegate" (unelected party apparatchiks and officials) count of about 550. (These convention delegates aren't chosen by voters and are a Party elite.) Thus Clinton started the "race" with a huge head start over Sanders as almost all the superdelegates were in her bag before the first primary or caucus. (That's the best way to win a race. Start with a big head start.)

Her wins in the primaries of June 7th actually changed nothing, except to increase her lead. Sanders' position was already virtually hopeless, at least in terms of achieving the Democratic Party nomination for president. (His other game is to wield some influence on  the party's platform and policies. At the same time he seems to have a hard time letting go of the quixotic idea that Clinton's over half a thousand superdelegates could desert her and vote for him at the convention. The Clintons have a machine, the Party is wired.)

That didn't stop Clinton, her personal propaganda machine, and the bourgeois media in general (and not just in the U.S.!) from showering the world with the glad tidings that "history" had just been made.

You'd think they could at least wait until she actually gets elected president. (That seems to be something that "the" media is trying to effectuate, as U.S. elites are increasingly anxious at the prospect of one Donald John Trump becoming chief executive of U.S. imperialism. So the media is trying to head off that outcome by "going negative" on Trump and positive on Clinton. Excepting of course the GOP bullhorns of Rupert Murdoch, for now at least.)

So let's put this in perspective. What we see is this:

Hillary Clinton Campaign Declares She Made "History"- and the Propaganda System Agrees.

And what literally happened is this:

A person with a vagina is to be the chosen candidate for president from one of the two ruling U.S. parties instead of a person with a penis.

That has never happened before.

To which a person capable of logical thought would say:

So what?

What matters are the person's ideology, values, character, class interests, and political loyalties and commitments. And past history.

Hillary Clinton is nothing new under the sun in U.S. politics. Just as Barack Obama was nothing new. Both are completely committed to the existing power structure of the U.S., an economic system dominated by corporate oligarchy, a system of bourgeois class dictatorship, and imperialism that relentlessly seeks world domination, never ceasing for a second to increase its power globally. Clinton and the international assassin Kissinger share a very public, mutual admiration.

The pigmentation and genitalia of such agents of the system can hardly be very important.

But they are certainly made to seem important. And that has important uses politically and ideologically for the existing power system.

Blacks and women, who are mostly without power in the U.S. and considered inferior (although this is no longer overtly acknowledged) in general are alienated or skeptical of the system, and suffer more from it than white males. (Yes, these are sweeping generalizations with plenty of individual exceptions.) So having a black or female as the top symbol of the system gives them a sense of identification with it, renewing their loyalty to it and faith in its legitimacy and benigness.

Secondly, it draws them into the system as aspirants to power. Clinton explicitly hit this point in her victory speech after her primary wins, saying this proves there is nothing women can't do, there's no "limit" to how high they can rise. (Assuming you're willing to be evil and murderous, as Clinton is. She's an accomplice in protecting the murderous coup regime in Honduras, and shamelessly boasts of her role doing this in her last book.) [1]

By the way, one reason for the white male rage we see in America now (men that Trump, who projects as an angry white powerful male, appeals to) is their sense that they are not an overclass anymore. Now they have to be "equal" to women and blacks, not superior. The idiots lack any class consciousness as well as human consciousness.

As far as the World Historic Signicance of all this, if Clinton does become president, she'll be trailing Cleopatra VII by a mere 2,068 years as a female ruler. (And Cleopatra was a historical laggard compared to the pharaoh Hatshepsut, who came to power around 1473 BCE- 3,490 years ahead of Clinton, assuming she arrives at the White House next January. In fact, there were thirteen female pharaohs of Egypt.)

For that matter, Clinton is lagging behind numerous other female rulers throughout history.

Like Indira Gandhi of India in  1966. 51 years before Clinton will be sworn in as president in January 2017, if she wins. Or Margaret Thatcher of Britain in 1979, Queen Victoria in 1837,  Elizabeth I in 1558, Mary Tudor in 1553. (People the British media apparently never heard of, as they too jumped on the "historic" Clinton victory bandwagon.)  [2]

But maybe "history" is different from history.

Or maybe what they're all saying is that something only counts when the U.S. does it.

Obama's election was similarly hailed with hysterical hosannas as "historic." As if a brown-skinned man had never ruled before. (That too is very old hat, also going back thousands of years.)
Maybe what's "historic" is the part that always goes unmentioned. The U.S. is SO racist and SO sexist that it's a VERY BIG DEAL if the U.S. can finally vote for a black for a female in the twenty-first century.

Actually that's not very impressive.

I'll tell you one thing the U.S. is a leader in:

Chauvinism.

1]  Clinton, in her victory pep rally speech to her supporters, also shouted out a line that hit a populist note: "If we stand together we will rise together because we are stronger together." Yeah, we're all in this together! And she's just one of the gals. (Only one with a multi-billion dollar foundation funded by foreigners buying favors. But hey, play your cards right, and maybe one day you too can get paid a quarter million a pop to give speeches to finance capitalists.)

2]  The British government propaganda network BBC had it as Clinton's supporters "waved American flags as they celebrated an historic occasion," for example. The British "news"papers also seemed to be suffering from historical amnesia, invoking the "H" word, including the liberal Guardian. The Murdoch-owned Times of London labeled it "a historic night;" it was "Hillary Clinton's historic moment" in the rightwing Telegraph's headline, and the Mirror...nothing! Weird. Lots of lurid, half-baked crap of the type one sees in U.S. supermarket tabloids, however.

There's a slew of articles about the numerous women rulers throughout history and in various regions at Powerful Women Rulers Everyone Should Know.

The paid propaganda and the "news" propaganda are in agreement- this is "Historic!!"

 The Empress is Ready To Meet Her Destiny!

Hillary Clinton Campaign Declares She Made "History"- Propaganda System Agrees

Sanders Wins Yet Another Primary, Still Losing Race For Democratic Party Nomination for President of U.S.

Bernard Sanders won big in West Virginia, to no avail. Hillary Clinton almost has enough delegates to clinch the party's nomination. Sanders as won in 19 states, Clinton in 23, but Clinton has hundreds of unelected so-called "superdelegates," Democratic party officials who in effect comprise a Clinton Machine, who are going to vote for her at the convention, cheering lustily in the process. Clinton only needs to win 14% of the remaining delegates at stake to put her over the top.

The Clintons have controlled the Democratic Party ever since Bill ran for president in 1992. Indeed, crucial to that takeover was his prominence in the "Democratic Leadership Council,' a right-wing cabal that operated like a communist party central committee, wielding power within the party.

Even though a Clinton hasn't been president for over 15 years, and a Democrat has occupied the White House for almost eight years now, the Clintons still control the undemocratic Democratic Party.

Ironically, the hard right-wing Republican Party is more democratic than the Democrats. A man loathed by party poohbahs, Donald Trump, is on track to win that party's presidential nomination, eliminating 16 competitors in the process (including the royalist Jeb Bush) by dint of winning the votes in the state primaries.