I voted for Hillary Clinton in 2008 over Obama, and I will vote for her over Sanders. For all those Obama-fans, this post may not be of your liking, for I will compare the reasons I had for not voting for him with the reasons I have for not voting for Sanders. The reasons are similar because Sanders is a repeat of what I, may I say, correctly saw back in 2008.
Let me say something about me: I am not a ‘pure’ democrat; I have voted dem only because there are no viable alternatives to the two-party system. Also, I have been tested in the ‘revolution’ since 1972, having been in the pro-independence movement in Puerto Rico and in the different people’ struggles here in New York City since I moved here in 1982. Thus, I’m speaking as a leftist, not as a member of the democratic party.
When Obama started running in the 2008 democratic primaries, I, like everybody else, was moved by the possibility that a black man, and a ‘progressive’ at that, had a real chance of making it to the top. But because I had learned not to trust politicians and to research their records instead of taking them for their words, I went and did my research on Obama.
Of course, I was torn because I was also interested in having the first woman running, also with a chance, for the presidency. Her I knew better, most of us did. She was not perfect, but neither has been any male president of the US.
Soooo, as I started finding reliable info online about Obama not mentioned in the campaign, mostly from interviews he gave, his appeal to me started to look ‘iffy’, and then things got to the point of ‘oh, no, not you’. The info I found was so damning (in particular his speech at the elitist Hamilton Project think-tank), in my view, that for the first time I opened a blog, me who is not good at English grammar, to share what I had found. The blog is still out there: ‘the obama nightmare’, and so is my grammar. The blog’s title says how bad was what I had found. I will give details at the end of this ‘series’. Let me first present more common-sense material that should have been a clue since day one of their campaign to the left about who these candidates represent.
The Messiah and The Saint
Obama’s campaign was imbued, like Sanders’ today, with that air of mysticism. Idealization of these two politicians is an understatement.
You probably remember that the Obama campaign painted a halo around him. He himself spoke of his ‘movement’ as capable of ‘parting the waters’, figuratively speaking, of course?
Sanders, we see him portrayed as ‘the only one who tells the truth’, he never lies (despite having been a politician since the 1980s), his record in Congress shows (despite it haven’t been vetted by the MSM nor by his followers) shows that he has only supported bills protecting the downtrodden, and he has never received money from the elite (although it comes indirectly).
All of this is enough to make anyone a SAINT, which is why his followers adore him and pay obeisance to him. Of course, his recent trip to the Vatican and brief meeting with His Sanctity The Pope solidified that saintly image of Sanders. Now Sanders’ statements are taken as “moral economy” and in tune with the Pope’s. How can you argue against him without coming across as a despicable jerk?
As an experienced leftist, I learned not to follow politicians who gladly promote themselves as above the rest of humanity. When I see one doing it, I know he is not only a fake, but a liar and dangerous for the ’cause’.
There should be nothing more anathema to any leftist worthy of calling himself or herself so, than supporting…
- un-vetted party-establishment candidates,
- who gladly represent themselves to the working class as mystics
- and who peddle campaign slogans like ‘hope’, ‘change’, ‘revolution’ and ‘socialism’ with no record of having worked for it in the past. A job in Congress doesn’t count as working for ‘socialism’, at least not yet.
So, a pitch for sainthood was the first clue to me that Obama, as Sanders today, was working for the oligarchs. But here they are, the American left, drinking the sacramental wine, again.
Populist Candidates For the Downtrodden
Obama ran a populist campaign just as Sanders is doing today (and Trump, but that’s another story). Obama was groomed for his role (as discussed in the other blog) and ran knowing from day one that his was going to be a populist campaign. Sanders, however, was caught by surprise; he didn’t expect the success he is having, no one did. He just wanted to bring the issues important to the angry youngsters so they would come to the party and stop being so angry; seriously.
The point is that after 9/11 the oligarchs came out of the shadows to take direct control of power. They knew that their cut throat capitalism and thievery was going to destabilize the economy and create anger in the working class; that their thievery could not be hidden anymore. So, they needed new politicians, men who were seen as outside the ‘establishment’, populists who would bring the discontented and the oppressed back into the two-party system and neutralize their righteous anger there. That was Obama first, and now Sanders.
What I have just said can not be new for leftists and socialists. We know what the establishment parties do and for whom they work. As for ‘neutralizing’ the anger…many leftists and socialists agree in that it was Obama who killed the anti-war movement, and the Occupy movement too. How he did it? Well, you can’t argue with your saints, especially when they come at you with the police state to throw blessed peppered spray over your head.
Tomorrow, Part Two: Reel them in and Hillary’s ‘Via Dolorosa’
I will get into the details I had found about Obama that made me think he was a bad ‘event’ for the left and the working class.