Among the multitude of new developments since I temporarily dropped off the planet, the two Presidential Primary elections have probably been the most bizarre and potentially significant.
On one hand, the Republican race would have been a nightmare even without the Trump factor, but with him involved, it has resembled nothing so much as a train wreck into a dumpster fire. Fucking seriously. Ted Cruz is by far the more knowledgeable of the two leading candidates, and he is a theocratic psychopath who thinks he is anointed by God to lead the country into the End Times. Or, he’s some kind of radioactive garbage monster in an ill-fitting human-esque skin suit, intent on steering the species to certain destruction…
I’m not even getting into Trump. The man gets more media coverage than everyone else in the field combined. It is enough for anyone’s good, times about 1000.
The Democratic race has been much more significant, but it hasn’t had the same circus sideshow tone, so the media has tended to keep the coverage to a minimum. The last couple of weeks leading up to the New York primary have been a bit more intense, if only because the action is happening close to home for most national news outfits. The Clinton camp has also been tapping a couple of choice sources to do some of their dirty work (more on that later), or at the very least taking advantage of clearly shoddy journalism to make Bernie look inept.
The primary is already underway, so I’m just throwing out some decidedly non-rigorous opinions, and on a subject where there are already far too many flying around. Enjoy!
Any of my previous econ posts should make it clear that I’m a Bernie Sanders supporter, but I try to base my opinions on facts rather than rhetoric or propaganda. That said, I don’t have a perfect bullshit filter, so feel free to tell my if/why I’m an idiot, especially if you have some credible sources to back you up.
Basically, this state is a monster, and I think this is Hillary’s last big push to shut Bernie down. Her campaign seemed to be ceding ground for the last month or so, content to lose states she was likely to lose anyway, and instead concentrate on fortifying her senatorial home turf. California is an even bigger monster, but she doesn’t have as many natural advantages there, so like any good strategic operation, her campaign is picking it’s battles carefully.
The pressure on Bernie to leave the race is going to multiply exponentially if he loses here, and I imagine he’s going to ignore it completely and keep pushing to the convention. He’s got the money and no good reason to get out now. I don’t buy the argument that he’s hurting her against the Republicans. (Honestly, I still think he’s pulling more punches than he throws. Read up on the Clinton Foundation work in Haiti for an example. She’s got plenty of vulnerabilities that have yet to see light.) The worst he is going to do is further strengthen this new left resurgence and buy them more influence with an eventual Clinton administration and the DNC moving forward.
I think Sanders could win, but I strongly doubt he can win by as much as he needs to make up his delegate deficit before June. After his early losses, things need to go perfectly in any state that could possibly be contested, and while it’s gone fairly well so far, he hasn’t bought himself much in the way of breathing room, and I just don’t see his good luck continuing indefinitely. He’s had an impressive string of victories over the last 6 weeks or so, but as I said, I think the Clinton camp was in conservation mode for most of that time. That is decidedly not the case in New York.
Now that we’ve covered their legitimate advantages, let’s get to some of the underhanded shit Clinton’s operation has been engaged in during the New York lead-up. It started about as early as it could, with a hit-piece interview in the New York Daily News, released a mere day or two after Sanders capped off a seven-state run with a convincing victory in Wyoming. It was basically Bernie squared off against the entire editorial board, and the framing of the interview (as well as the resulting article and surrounding media analysis) was carefully tailored to make him look incompetent, specifically on questions of bank regulation.
In spite of early impressions, it turns out Sander’s answers to the board’s questions were exactly correct, and if anything the Daily News editorial board came out looking like they didn’t know the difference between the Dept. of Treasury and the Federal Reserve (see this, this, this). That, of course, didn’t stop the Clinton campaign from flogging the discredited article at every opportunity. It was some classic Karl Rove/Swift Boat chicanery, attacking an opponent’s strengths with misinformation, then using friendly media to saturate the news environment and create legitimate doubt where none should exist. But, then again, what did I expect? If there is a discernible Clinton brand, it is victory at any cost, and the truth is usually an early and frequent casualty.
I don’t know if I have to bother with the perennial accusations of sexism (usually leveled against Bernie supporters, rather than the man himself), but I will anyway. When a pro-Bernie Union rep. described all establishment politicians as “corporate whores,” the Hillary-friendly media was quick not only to personalize the attack against Clinton, but to claim it was an example of clear misogynist intent, as if there is no such thing as a male prostitute. There were probably better ways to approach his sentiments, for sure, but the assumption that he chose that analogy particularly because of Clinton’s much-vaunted status as “a woman” is fairly absurd. Besides, if anything, I’d say the association with U.S. politicians does more of a disservice to the nation’s prostitutes than the other way around. I’d guarantee the average brothel has a better approval rating than Congress at this point.
Over this last weekend, there was a similar mini-(non-)scandal that centered around Sanders supporters in California showering a Clinton motorcade with 1-dollar bills in protest of a massive nearby fundraiser. Cable networks pounced again, claiming (say it with me now) sexist undertones. CNN and MSNBC commentators both went out of their way to describe the symbolic gesture as being “like a strip club,” rather than simply being the most economical way of visually proving a point that could easily be used against any number of male politicians within our corrupt and cash-addled political system.
I’m sure I’m coming off as having my own sexist animus in these last couple of paragraphs, but that’s also kind of the point. The Clinton camp is counting on its ability to spin any attack on Hillary at all into a “sexist” attack, and to trust the larger culture to interpret those attacks accordingly. Obviously, Clinton is seen as untrustworthy simply because she’s a woman, not because she’s a person of constantly-evolving positions running against one of the most consistent political figures in recent U.S. politics. Her addiction to corporate cash is problematic because she’s a woman, not because she’s up against someone who makes a point to gather the vast majority of his funding from private individuals, rather than massive multinational corporate interests.
Ultimately, the Clinton campaign’s cynical use of feminism as a cover for her clear deficiencies as a candidate in this particular race is not only intellectually dishonest as hell, but it undercuts legitimate feminist concerns in the broader social context. You can only cry wolf like this so many times before people stop listening entirely… But again, victory at any cost. This is thinking she’s absorbed from her Wall Street connections: If claims of sexism seem to be working right now, then they are an asset to be exploited for maximum personal gain, and nothing more. You can call me a “Bernie Bro” for attacking her positions all you like, you’re only further proving my point.
The reality of the 2016 Democratic primary is this: Despite a cadre of massive systemic advantages and the support of basically the entire Democratic party establishment, Hillary Clinton, the pragmatic, triangulating centrist, is in a tough race with a self-identified socialist independent senator from Vermont, and it’s not like he hasn’t made his share of mistakes that a better candidate of any gender would have been able to capitalize on. The point is, Hillary Clinton isn’t doing anything that the DLC/New Democratic coalition hasn’t been doing for the last two decades, it simply doesn’t work anymore. The voters that make up the american left are changing, and they are not going to tolerate this sort of center-right elitist Democrat beholden to corporate interests anymore. Hillary will probably still win this, but I think a single-term presidency is a real possibility, especially is she insists on assuming that one of her party’s most valuable demographic groups (namely, younger voters) is too dumb to see through her bullshit and vote their own interests and beliefs. Any future democratic candidates for any office would do well to learn these lessons as quickly as possible.