Podcast Recorded: Sat June 11 2016
Did the Democratic leadership and establishment Dems really give a sh!t about the outcome of the California primary, or was President Obama and Elizabeth Warren going to endorse Hillary Clinton no matter the outcome? As President Obama apparently becomes the first sitting president to endorse a candidate under FBI investigation, the establishment (media and politicians) still have their heads in the sand over Clinton’s record.
The California Democratic primary was held last week and we still don’t know who won. We know it wasn’t Roque de la Fuente. Even though the media decreed a Hillary Clinton victory, at least 3 counties so far have flipped to Bernie Sanders as over 2 million mail-in and provisional ballots are SLOWLY being counted.
Despite Clinton making absolutely no concrete efforts in outreach to Sanders’ supporters in any substantive way, the media has proclaimed the Democratic party “united” around Clinton’s candidacy. B!tch where? I don’t see it. It’s not the first time they’ve dressed opinion up as fact in an effort to will those opinions into existence.
In quick succession, following the media’s premature declaration of Clinton’s “win”, President Obama and Elizabeth Warren endorsed Clinton. Obama recorded an endorsement video on Tuesday June 7 while people in California, New Jersey, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota and New Mexico were still voting.
Obama’s endorsement makes him the only sitting President in modern history to endorse a candidate currently under FBI investigation. That fact, when applied to any other candidate — Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and even Bernie Sanders — would have been a means by which to run said candidate out of the race; no questions asked. But apparently Hillary Clinton has political ‘friends’ in high places or is magic.
According to reports, Obama quickly met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch around this time as well. How many Attorneys-General would prosecute the person endorsed by the President who appointed them to their position? So, the primary results really don’t matter to these people. Maybe some collection of individuals made sure it wouldn’t matter, but that’s a whole other topic.
Bernie Sanders illuminated a number of issues wrong with the very system in which the American government currently operates. President Obama dared not make an attempt to change the system. His actions (lack thereof) coupled with his own personal opinions have dictated his effectiveness as a President.
Clinton was Obama’s Secretary of State and has promised to continue his legacy. In a number of ways, he is just as compromised as she with regard to Wall St’s backing and foreign policy decisions. Disaster ensued after Clinton took the lead on some of those foreign policy decisions, by the way (Libya/Honduras).
Obama was always going to push for her as President in my opinion. For all we know, Obama’s endorsement may have been the revelation of a promise she coaxed out of him in the wake of the 2008 race. But Clinton also secured another endorsement from a former progressive hero, Elizabeth Warren.
The overestimation of Warren after 2016 primary >
The media has greatly overestimated Elizabeth Warren’s ability to bring Sanders supporters to heel. Many started to side-eye Warren when she refused to publicly take a side between the Wall St-compromised candidate and the candidate with which she shares a number of political views.
Warren straddled the fence and didn’t endorse anyone until it was obvious who would win. I don’t know whether Warren lacks the courage of her political convictions in the face of the first potential female candidate. I don’t know whether a backroom deal was cut between her and Clinton where she (Warren) would stay neutral. God forbid Warren be the woman who trips up the “first female president”! Clinton supporters think there’s a special place in hell for those types of women, right? #ICANT
Warren may have been trying to protect her power in the Senate in case Sanders lost, which makes her silence even more cowardly and establishment-like in my opinion. Don’t pretend to be a big, bad progressive but keep a closed mouth, especially when opening it could’ve meant the difference between a ‘Presumptive Nominee Clinton’ and a ‘Presumptive Nominee Sanders’.
It’s okay because #ImWithHer >
Clinton is an incredibly flawed candidate, to be sure. Clinton has taken millions from Wall St and is under investigation for deleting thousands of emails after setting up a private server in her house. She also pushed for the destabilization of Libya and made excuses for the coup in Honduras — which also destabilized that country and sent women and children fleeing for their lives.
When Sanders supporters highlight these facts, they are often called “sore losers” or “bitter” by short-sighted party-first-country-second Democrats who don’t see these issues as problems because it’s “Hillary” and they’re “with her”. #gtfohwtbs
Clinton’s baggage is a real problem regardless of how Clintonites/Hillbots feel about Sanders’ supporters. Her record is what it is regardless of how condescending the corporate media chooses to be. Clinton’s think-small, incremental, war-hawk plans are what they are regardless of how much her seven-figure liberal supporters try to ignore them.
This campaign is not like 2008. Obama and Clinton were arguing over who’s Annie Oakley with each other, but both were taking millions in Wall St cash. The argument between Sanders and Clinton is over the very infrastructure that supports the way we choose elected officials, respond to the needs of American people, and how much freedom to wreak havoc we give multinational corporations. These are MASSIVE issues which won’t be resolved with the same old political tactics of yesteryear.
Listen to the Podcast for much more! @whisperwatch
Duncan Beattie – Seven Hundred Beats