The Day After Hillary Wins-The MSM Kills Her, and Trump Appeals to Berniebots

I watched David Axelrod, Obama’s former campaign ad guru, at CNN doing a ‘Killing me softly” version on Hillary Clinton (HC) last night, the NY primaries day. It looked ominous because he proved in the 2008 primaries that he is an expert at killing Hillary.

He kept saying that HC, in order to not provoke Sanders’s followers, whom she may need if she wins the nomination, should not respond to his attacks against her and should not get angry. He dismissed Sanders’ dirty tactics of character assassination and lies against her. The implication was that she should be a good-girl and ignore the bully.

But that’s how he, Axelrod, ran his Obama campaign against her: he made her look ‘bitchy’ whenever she responded to Obama’s character assassination tactics. It’s no secret that Obama  and Axelrod, together, and Hillary are not in ‘good terms’ with each other.

That’s how Hillary is going to lose the elections: the MSM, Obama’s representative (Axelrod) there and the GOP will shred her to smithereens with misogyny, character assassination and outright lies. Today, less than 16hrs since her NY victory, the WaPo has this headline: The Take: Clinton got what she needed, but her image is underwater. The NY Times asks Sanders to stay in the race but makes no reference to his negative campaign threatening to handle the presidency to Trump.

The MSM is part and parcel of the presidential election process. They have more power to shape opinions than the politicians themselves. If the MSM is against you, you have an uphill battle to fight.

The only good news is that Gloria Borger, CNN’s Chief Political Analyst, who have been constantly bashing HC, showed a sign that women are finally noticing the misogynistic hack job that is been done on her. Gloria actually, somehow meekly, managed to respond to Axelrod’s comment observing that, as they were discussing (that democrats should start attacking Trump)

whenever Hillary tries to focus on Trump, Bernie gets under her skin an starts accusing her and bringing the emails, and she then has to pivot back to Bernie to respond to the accusations”.

Axelrod went actually mute: he couldn’t respond. The MSM is not 100% efficient, as shown by Trump’s and Hillary’s continued staying power despite the personal attacks. But the fact that  Sanders won Upstate New York prove that they have a powerful effect. The MSM has never criticized Sanders nor vetted his record; they attack Hillary if she responds to his smearing campaign. That’s how he won Upstate New York.

You can check my research on WaPo’s negative articles on HC and the positive for Sanders here.

Axelrod and Gloria Borger talking to each other. Old snapshot, clearly.

Trump Appeals to Berniebots

Trump, on the other side of the aisle, last night displayed his new tactic for recruiting ‘democratic’ voters: appealing to berniebots. He, ever so innocently, said:

I don’t like that Bernie guy, but what is  going there with the super delegates is worse, worse here.

The man is not the moron we all thought he is. He is effective in his conning. The purpose of that statement he made was to lure the berniebots whom he knows are expressing the idea of supporting him and not Hillary. All he has to do is sweeten his bait and they will flock to him. The honey in this case is ‘victimhood‘: he, just like Sanders, is a victim of the ‘establishment’. He wants to  commensurate with Sanders’ followers. ‘I have more in common with you than you with Hillary’, that is his message to them.

And bite they will.

Bernie Sanders And The Left’s Inability to Learn From Recent History (Part 2)(Reviewed)

In my earlier post I talked about the left’s willingness to buy into  mystic candidates who use their charismatic persona to hide their true class identity: minions of the oligarchs, pawns to manage the ‘establishment’.

Now I describe what I saw about Obama in 2008, the real Obama, not the charismatic leader, which presaged to me the yuuge disappointment the left was walking into by supporting him.

Obama’s Campaign Was Not A Movement (This was added recently.)

First, you must keep this in mind: to be a movement there must be participation by the rank and file in the decision process of that group. Following a charismatic politician doesn’t constitute ‘a movement’, at least not from the leftists’ point of view. Ask yourselves, what happened to that Obama ‘movement’ after he won? Take your time. Now answer this: Did his followers had any input in his campaign, any decision-making right to influence the issues, or what to do after he won? Did he keep the movement alive after he won?

The Real Obama Was All Over the Place

Most of what follows happened in the period of 2007-2008. I gathered this information  from the comfort of my little apartment; there’s no reason the left didn’t see their political debacle  coming.  I saw it. I can’t put everything I had here, this is a lot. I hope it makes sense. Feel free to comment; no insults, please.

Let me start with the most evident sign in 2008 that Obama was going to be the capitalists’ hammer to the working class: his membership at The Hamilton Project. (All quotes are from my old blog.)

The Hamilton Project was formed  in 2006 by the DLC “to blunt the political demands for protectionism…and the group was willing to take on entrenched Democratic interests such as teaching unions.”[sirotablog] says that the project was created “for softening the impact of globalization without interfering with international trade…with an eye to fiscal austerity and balanced budget”.

A Tiny described them more appropriately: “The members of the advisory council of The Hamilton Project include numerous investment bankers. They’re people who should naturally be Republicans, but just can’t bear having to hang out with Pat Robertson”.

Robert Rubin, one of the main creators of the Hamilton Project, “demanded during the debate over CAFTA that congressional Democrats back off their efforts to include labor, human rights and environmental protections in the pact. [Lou Dobbs, CNN, 3/2005]

In the words of Politico: “Oh sure, the group [THP] claims it is going to look at critical issues like income inequality – but you can be sure they will look at the issue without looking at issues like “free” trade that are fueling that inequality. Because make no mistake about it – this move today [the creation of THP] is nothing more than the beginning of a frontal attack by Corporate America on the progressive movement, using the Democratic Party as an all-too-transparent cloak of legitimacy”.

Barack Obama was a willing partner of that plan. Did his presidential economic policies aligned with that discussion in 2008? Of course, he protected the globalists. He was ready for it:

“This Is Not a Bloodless Process”:

“…there are real consequences to the work that is being done here [THP]. There are people …who have seen their jobs eliminated…Some of that, then will end up manifesting itself in the sort of nativist sentiment, protectionism, and anti-immigration sentiment…This is not a bloodless process.”

About health insurance and CHANGE:

“If we’ve got a winner-take all economy…then our tax policies can help cushion the blow [to the losers] through providing health care. So if people lose their jobs they’re not losing their health care as well. That actually makes for a more flexible work force that makes workers more mobile and less resistant to change.”

The messiah of “change” was working to make that change less probable by making workers “less resistant to change”.

It doesn’t get more capitalist than that. Obama was invited by and became a member of The Hamilton Project (THP) in 2008. You probably recognize Robert Rubin’s name; a pal to Bill Clinton and Obama. He was Obama’s economic adviser who got his protégés, Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, into the White House.

Don’t point your guns at Hillary yet. We still have to deal with Sanders, later.

Obama Never Promised Anything to Black America

I said before that Obama was groomed for his first presidential bid. His first book, Dreams of My Father, was re-published four years before the 2008 primaries, with a new introduction tailored to introduce him to white America, letting them know they should not be scared of him as a Black man because..he feels he has nothing in common with African-Americans. He would offer something “finer” than “African bloodlines”.

In it he made clear that race was not going to be part of his campaign or presidency. That’s why he seldom made reference to his race during the primaries or the presidential campaigns…and why issues of the Black community had no place in his presidency, only when they were brought by crisis that could not be ignored because they were plastered all over the MSM.

His book was an account about how he went to the Black community to find out if he shared a Black experience with them and came out realizing he didn’t…because he is unique:

“I can’t even hold up my experience as being somehow representative of the black American experience…”

“learning to accept that particular truth – that I can embrace my black brothers and sisters, whether in this country of Africa, and affirm a common destiny without pretending to speak to, or for, all our various struggles – is part of what this book is about.”

“Communities [Black] had to be created…This community I imagined was still in the making...I believed that it might, over time, admit the uniqueness of my life. That was my idea of organizing. It was a promise of redemption.

“…notions of purity-of race or culture-could no more serve as the basis for the typical black American’s self-esteem than it could for mine. Our sense of wholeness would have to arise from something more fine than the bloodlines we’d inherited.”[He doesn’t say what that might be.]

The “fine” was his uniqueness, his messianic persona: he was above race. His bloodline was not ‘fine’ enough.

There was much more there; I still wonder if the left read the book or just skimmed over it. The lack of policy during his presidency to address the problems of African-Americans was anticipated there in the book.

The Black Community is like the loving, committed spouse, willing to ignore immediate needs so their partner can conquer the world. But at the end of the day, something must be delivered.” []

He promised nothing to AAs, and delivered nothing to them. The same guy from quoted above, later called Obama “Barack Obama: the Kunta Kinte of 2008” blasting him for throwing every Black leader under the bus. And Obama’s speech on father’s day didn’t help much, either. I’m sure you remember it.

Obama was not vetted by the left, period.

How Obama’s Allure Crossed Class Boundaries

This is one piece of information that I found doing the research on him in 2008 that alerted me about his deceitfulness, from his own mouth:

BO said in an interview with Cathleen Falsani (Chicago Sun-Times, 4/2004) that

“The nature of politics, you want to have everybody like you and project the best possible traits onto you. Often that’s by being as vague as possible, or appealing to the lowest common denominators. The more specific and detailed you are on issues as personal and fundamental as your faith the more potentially dangerous it is”

What he described there, four years before the primaries, was more than mere salesmanship: it is tested cult psychology. He presented himself  as a blank screen, provided a few coded words (‘hope’, etc.) to guide you and, dutifully, you would  fill in the blanks with your own dreams and values. Obama was a collective illusion. African-Americans filled that blank screen with their dreams of freedom and of being treated with dignity; they thought it was him promising them ‘redemption’, even though he seldom spoke about race during the campaigns.

The labor movement also projected their dreams into the Obama blank screen:

“Just wait until we have a Labor Department under President Obama.” shouted Congresswoman Jan Schakwosky in a labor movement’s rally in Chicago in 2007.

Obama even said that Blacks would benefit ‘indirectly’ from his presidency because he was going to make ‘everybody’s lives better.

And it was by being a “blank screen” that everybody fell for him, including the kings of the MSM and the communists. From my other blog:

This is Rupert Murdoch gushing over Obama:

He is a rock star. It’s fantastic. I love what he is saying about education. I don’t think he will win Florida…..but he will win in Ohio and the election. I am anxious to meet him. I want to see if he will walk the walk.” [the Huffington Post]

Frank Chapman, CPUSA supporter, hailing BO’s victory in the Iowa caucuses:

Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle. Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary “mole”, not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through.”

It never occurred to the communist experts in class politics that if the oligarchs were supporting him, if one of the kings of the MSM,  the instrument with which the people are brainwashed daily , was so enamored with him, something was not kosher. They simply bought into the mainstream collective delusion.

But there was plenty of evidence showing that he had a conservative-republican leaning.

“Some of Obama’s peers question the motives of this second-year law student. They find it puzzling that despite Obama’s openly progressive views on social issues, he has also won support from staunch conservatives…criticism from fellow black students for being too conciliatory toward conservatives and not choosing more blacks to other top positions on the law review.”

Did BO’s message of hope made Wall Street speculators grow a heart?

Of course not. Finally, I said this in 2008:

Obama’s “coalition of the willing”, as I dub this coalition of extreme right and left wing political elements supporting his bid for POTUS, contains in itself the seeds of self-destruction. Ask yourself, How can the interests of deep pocket capitalists coincide with that of the Marxist left, the black nationalist and separatists, the NOI (Nation Of Islam), and the “organized working class” actively supporting BO? Or this equally interesting question: why do the leftists perceive BO as their ally despite his frequent flip flopping on economical and war issues?

I had more in my 2008 blog. The point being that, for those who see Obama’s administration as a betrayal of his promise for “hope and change”, you only have yourselves to blame for having been doped. What he really was, it was written all over the wall.

Next post: Sanders and Hillary.

Summing up The Primaries

This is the big picture: Two Issues Going On

Voter Anger and GOP Internal Ideological War

Finally, as I have commented all along, the MSM is reporting the true nature of the “voters anger”, picking up from Larry Summers letter to the voters: the working class is feeling the pressure of globalists control of the economy. Outsourcing jobs, etc, is killing the working class and they are angry.

The two-party system has been  a failure as a tool for the working class: they are tired of electing people who just work for the elite once elected. This discontent has been boiling since 2008, when the elite groomed Obama as a populist with the “hope and change” mantra to pacify the electorate. It worked then, they are having more problem with two-party system this time.

The two Outsiders: Only One is the Real Threat to the System

They are not outsiders, they are just two big mouths riding the populist discontent, but only Trump embodies the ideological  war.

He represents the centrists in the GOP, as opposed to the globalist faction and the neo-conservatives, the cut-throat conservatives who are tripping over each other to show they will screw the working class better. Trump is riling against the globalists, their outsourcing jobs, etc. Angry voters like that, but it makes the globalist angry.

Trump has become such a threat to the globalists (because he is the voice of the people affected by the globalists policies), that they are coming out making not so veiled threats to the voters. My opinion is that the globalists (Summers, e.g.) will use dirty tactics to impair Trump. They will use provocateurs at Trump’s rallies, which they are using now, to create an environment of violence to pit the working class against each other.

Sanders is being by the MSM, despite them crying to the opposite. Even the Brookings Institute has crowned him as their preferred socialist. Sanders is NOT a threat to them, only Trump is. Sanders is a tool, his job is to keep the voters in the two-party system with the illusion that they can change the democratic party.

The KKK, Farrakhan and Latinos supporting Trump is an aberration only if one is not aware of the politics of class wars. As I have discussed, the two-party system is all the working class is allowed to use to express their anger over class issues; that’s why these opposing groups are with Trump. They are not with Sanders because he scares them with ‘socialism’. Hillary is the balancing act for the elite: they may turn to her to quash Trump, unless he is saddled and go the way of the elite, in which case HC is toast. They hate her, they rather go with Trump, if he behaves.

So, how will this end? Who knows, but there are forces and interests that can’t be named openly by the MSM. The class wars is what they can’t mention. That’s what’s going on. Will the working class finally forms a third-party? That’s the elite’s fear. That’s why they forced Trump to promise he would not go independent, same for Sanders.

The lesson for the working class should be: get out of the two-party system.

You can see more on these issues in my earlier posts.

Trump’s Victories and the Schizophrenic Working Class [updated]

Factor #1: Anger over the ‘establishment’: The Two-party System Fulfilling its Duty
Factor #2: That Pesky Working Class Bitching About the Economy
Start the Revolution

I just watched Trump’s Nevada victory speech on YouTube. He crowed that everybody loves him because he won with  the highly educated voter, the highly uneducated (he particularly loves them), the fat, etc., and now, he said, “even the Latinos love me”: he won 45% of the Latino votes there. That’s an eye opener for the same reason he said  “even” the Latinos loves him. He was as surprised as we are that this group would support him after his attacks on them as a group and as a people.

So, what gives? Well, that’s the purpose of this post: a search for any facts that could reasonably explain a highly bizarro picture of the working class people stampeding to embrace the oligarchs who offend and oppress them.  I have here some of the pointers deliberately ignored by the MSM.

Factor #1: Anger over the ‘establishment’: The Two-party System Fulfilling its Duty

Most MSM pundits, voicing the thoughts of the oligarchy for whom they work, point at voter anger over ‘the establishment’ as Trump’s and Sanders appeal to voters. The elite would have not  noticed the level of that anger were it not for Trump and Sander: they are the only ones verbalizing the anger of the working class.  I propose that when the MSM describes the Donald’s and Sanders victories as voter anger, the oligarchy is expressing awareness  that it  is exceeding the levels of oppression tolerated by the population they are ruling over. They have to do something about that, don’t they?

But I also propose that the appeal voters see  in these two candidates is plain anger,  that both Sanders and Trump verbalize angry and violent class sentiments; and that the other qualifiers (‘at the establishment’, ‘at the party’…) are the only licit objects provided by the oligarchy’ media to them  over which to discharge their political class anger. It’s not the elite who owns the parties, or the two-party system or capitalism; the problem identified for them by the elite is the politicians who control the parties and sell their souls to the elite: they are the  ‘establishment‘.

Thus, the voters have no choice but to choose from inside the parties the ones that say what the voters are thinking, not the ones who repeat the same old promises. As in life in general, it usually happens that the ‘different’ ones are the most outrageous and ‘colorful’.

Look, Trump and Sanders are ‘outsiders’ inside the two-party system; they have both promised to the powers that be that they will not be ‘spoilers’.  Their appearing to be ‘alien‘ to the establishment (pun intended), provides a psychological outlet to the frustrated citizens, but within the safe confines of the two-party system controlled by the oligarchs. It’s a repeat of Obama’s fake anti-Wall Street populism. Trump and Sanders personify, with their angry remarks, working class sentiments and, at the same time, keep the ‘solutions’ within the confines of the two-party system. The message is: There is no class struggle or  class wars in the USA, only greedy politicians.


Either way, the oligarchs always win.

The Purpose of the Two-party System

Trapped in the two-party holographic democracy ,  at the end, after having voted for each party and seeing their misfortunes unaddressed, the citizens see their political power reduced to choosing from between the less of two evils, the party less likely to reduce them to the status of discarded squeezed orange. That’s the purpose of the two-party system, to castrate the working class.

The absurdity of voters protecting Trump’s violent, sexist and all other immoral attacks on the working class consist in that they are giving him the power to denounce the system from his own elitist point of view.

There is nothing more disturbing and indecent than the working class willingly relinquishing its power to their oppressors: Donald Trump as representative of the interests of the working class. Now, that’s rich.

If the class anger were to spill outside the two-party system coop, the elite would be unable to control it. Therein the danger mentioned by Lloyd Blankfein,  Wall Street’s Goldman Sachs CEO  (and the closest you get to having a king), referring to Sanders dragging his name, vilifying him and other oligarchs in these primaries:

“To personalize it, it has the potential to be a dangerous moment, not just for Wall Street, not just for the people are particularly targeted but for anybody who is a little bit out of line.”

That was a public scolding of Sanders, telling him to tone down his ‘anti-Wall Street’ rhetoric. You see, Lloyd is not afraid of Sanders, a member of the establishment; he is afraid of the out-of-control angry citizens, just as kings became afraid of their angry plebs running amok beheading kings during the ‘glorious revolution’ of 1789.

No king or bankster CEO have being able to forget that “dangerous moment” in history. Lloyd even said to the media in 2009 that he would start carrying a gun on his person if people continued to express such ire at him and other crooks over the 2008 financial debacle and the bail out. He is terrified of the angry mob demanding he and his pals be brought to justice for his crimes.

Lloyd to Sanders: Don’t you dare use my name in vane, specially after YOU voted to bail me out and said you feel PROUD to defend that vote.


People, if your memory has not being yet totally deleted, it should remind you of Obama’s first year in the WH when, after he publicly shamed the banksters and said “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”, they ALL marched there to tell him in person to stop badmouthing them who bought him the presidency.

It worked in both cases: Obama never again spoke in that tone and refused to prosecute them, despite his campaign promises. Sanders, well, after the scolding and the not-so-veiled threat (“There is a pendulum that swings in markets and also in the political economy as well.”), his plans for WS is to ‘ask’ them to be less greedy.

Given that Sanders, as Obama before him, protected them from prosecution and proudly bailed them out…

Yet you voted for a number of programs to try to get the economy moving including the Recovery Act, otherwise known as the Stimulus.

[Sanders] So I am proud to defend it.[!!!]

I see no reason, except posturing for the naive voter, to believe that he will be a Marx in the White House breaking banks right and left by fiat. The ‘establishment’ is safe and in secure hands with ANY of the candidates as long as they keep the voters confined in the two-party system.

When the citizens, as a group, can not correctly identify the source of their anger, it becomes an emotion easily manipulated by experts in molding public opinion and channeled into objects that function as punching bags, defusing their political power. That’s the purpose of the two-party system.


Factor #2: That Pesky Working Class Bitching About the Economy

The real anger of citizens in the new millennium is...class anger.

The republican voter’ scorn for Mexicans is a misdirected anger over lost jobs. The blame for lost jobs and the economic suffering of the working class ought to be cast on those who control the economy: the oligarchs and the banksters. Elected politicians are paid workers of the oligarchic class. (You know that, I’m not saying anything new here. I have read your comments online, and, whether you are a republican or democrat, you have stated the same sentiments I have just described in this paragraph.)

As for anger over ‘big government’, same deal. The working class delusion is YUUGE, and schizophrenic.  It is two-fold: 1) thinking that the problem with ‘big government’ is that it regulates and stifles the elite – they think the crumbs will not trickle from the ‘trickle down’ economy if capitalists are not free to create profits, and 2) that big government is ‘welfare state’, you know, good for the ‘free loader’, (described as anyone below ‘me’ or who isn’t ‘me’). Adopting the neo-liberal ideology is what makes the working class schizophrenic.

So, what we are witnessing in this presidential elections is nothing more than the working class having a temper tantrum: big capitalists refusing to drop some crumbs to them. As long as the baby stays in the crib, daddy will be fine. If baby tries to get out of the crib more than twice, daddy is bound to have a fit of anger  and seriously spank the baby.

As long as the working class refuses to look at itself in the mirror and see that they have nothing in common with the likes of Lloyd Blankfein, Trump and even Sanders, they will remain like angry babies in the crib of the two-party system.

Start the Revolution

I have discussed here and here the reasons why Sanders is not the ‘socialist revolutionary’ his followers have deluded themselves into believing he is. The only radical revolution his followers can start is creating a third-party; call it whatever, ‘the party of consumers’ or ‘the workers party’, whatever. As long as you are in the two-party system begging for crumbs (reduce student debt, relief from police brutality, reform Wall Street, jobs), that’s what you’ll get: one crumb to quiet you down.

I don’t expect them doing that any time soon. We are running out of time. Disorganized we can’t fight against the oligarchs’ wars and the police state. It ain’t gonna be like in the 1940s. The future, with its digital technology, is rendering human mind down to software.





Origin of MSM Love Affair with Sanders: at The Brookings Institution

Sanders Capitulation
The ‘Conversation’
Dispelling Their Fears
Conclusion: Third-party is the real revolution


I have been ‘bitching’ in this blog about how the MSM has given Bernie Sanders a pass (up to now) on his daring in-your-face socialist-revolution themed presidential primaries campaign.


I have given examples of him ‘passing’ but no evidence of the ‘ticket’  itself. Well, I found the pass ticket!!


It solves the mystery of why, why has the MSM abstained from unfurling on Sanders the traditional red-scare fear-mongering flag we all expect to be unfurled on anyone who dares to barely whisper the word ‘socialism’, let alone together with the word ‘revolution’.

It all starts at The Brookings Institution, a preeminent influential elitist’s (the ‘10%érs’) think-tank  where all presidential candidates are vetted by the representatives of the oligarchy. Long-shots candidates like Obama and Sanders go through the same ‘investiture’ ceremony as regular  establishment candidates do. Get Brookings blessings and you have a real shot at the presidency; and to get their blessings all you have to do is promise them that, if you win, you will work for them.

In this post I deconstruct the ‘conversation’ that served as  the official public ordination of Sanders at Brookings with the representatives of the elite and the elite MSM, E.J. Dionne as moderator. The conversation is an outstanding example of Orwellian language hiding the ‘Wall Street revolution’ behind Sanders’ populist ‘revolution’.  Yes, for them suspicion breeds confidence.

At the end of the conversation you will see that Brookings finds Sanders to be a valuable partner they can count on to defend WS when they need it the most.  Also, consistent with E.J. Dionne’s admiration for Sanders, every time you read an article of him about the primaries in the MSM, rest assured it is in Sanders favor, whether the headline has Sanders’ name or not. That is payback to Sanders in MSM currency for his vote and defense of the Stimulus Package bill, the bailout of WS.



The Hamilton Project is an economic policy initiative at the Brookings Institution.

Sanders Capitulations

You will see in this post, among other things, how Sanders and Dionne ease Wall Street’s angst about him, how Sanders qualifies his ‘socialism’ as low as “somewhere where Pope Francis is,“; he dispels fears that he may want to take “the means of production”; you’ll see him telling them how PROUD he is of  defending his vote for the  Stimulus Package bill that saved the WS crooks. You’ll see Sanders asking for the MSM support. As you have seen so far, WS has been happy to abide by his petition. Also, the Keystone Pipeline? He promised them, if he wins, it will not be “a priority” of his administration.

Note: This is the same investiture process I discussed   in 2008 to show Obama’s promises to the elite.

The ‘Conversation’

On Monday, February 9, 2015, The Brookings Institution hosted Sanders for a ‘conversation with Senator Bernie Sanders” (transcript).

While the activity was promoted as part of “our ongoing conversation on the future of our economy and of shared economic growth“, its real goal was to 1) dispel any concerns among its members about Sanders’ ‘socialist’ trappings, and 2) to let the MSM elite selected for the activity ask, for their clarification, the questions that will not be asked in public about his ‘ideology’. These people know the right questions to ask, as opposed to the little people trained to follow lovable  personalities and to not ask questions.

Those goals were clear from (Senior Fellow at Brookings) E. J.’Dionne’s very first words introducing Sanders (highlights by me):

…it is a pleasure to welcome a self-described proud democratic socialist here to Brookings. These days the word “socialist” is thrown around as an epithet, and the socialists I know are insulted when President Obama’s called a socialist because they argue he is too moderate to be a democratic socialist, but the thing we forget is the vibrancy of the democratic socialist tradition in the United States, and bear in mind we’re talking democratic, small “d” socialist, i.e., Scandinavia, not the old Soviet Union, and that in the American tradition we are talking about people from Eugene Debs to Norman Thomas to Michael Harrington to people today like Barbara Ehrenreich. This is a lively American tradition that has influenced policy in our country in a great many ways, and so it is refreshing to have a senator who doesn’t run away from a particular part of our American tradition.

Holy moly! That was the mother of all whitewashing. I didn’t know the oligarchy was proud, PROUD! of  this nation’ “socialist tradition of democratic socialism” and of Eugene Debs – the same guy they sent to  die in prison (released shortly before dying) for being a “proud socialist”. I didn’t even know there was a “tradition” of socialism here. Live and learn, people; live and learn. I had to read it at the Brookings Institute. Now, let’s analyze the rest of E.J.’s introduction.


This is what Debs was fighting against and for which he was sent to prison. When The Brookings Institute says they are “proud” of that history, they mean they are proud of having won over the socialists and of sending Debs to prison. It was the beginning of the very successful red scare bait.

First: This is the Brookings presenting Sanders to its members and the select MSM workers. That means they had already vetted Sanders at closed doors and found him kosher to be consumed by its group. They then fed the members a scripted ‘conversation’ to dispel any fears and to cast their approval on Sanders, not only as non-threatening ‘pinko’, but actually as a highly palatable presidential material.

Dispelling Their Fears

Thus Dionne’s intro, “it is a pleasure” is code for ‘we like him a lot, don’t be scared of the socialist’.  For him, the word socialist is an “epithet‘ to describe a person, not a philosophy, and gives Obama (accused of being a socialist in the 2008 primaries) as an example of how safe that type of socialists are. Dionne artfully dispels the fears of ‘socialist” candidates by referencing  Obama’s socialist detractors  to qualify him as not–a-socialist.  Dionne doesn’t have to say it himself and the Brookings is not on record saying that Obama (and Sanders) are not  socialists; socialists themselves did the work for the elite when they undressed Obama of his ‘socialist’ garment. Dionne knows his craft: he doesn’t have to be on record admitting that Obama and Sanders are no threat to the ‘establishment’.

Small ‘d’ and Big ‘c’

(Still on that first quote.) Then, don’t be afraid of Sanders’ socialism: it comes with “small ‘d’“, meaning small democracy, nothing they can’t handle with their big ‘c’ for ‘big capitalism’. By mentioning Debs, they remind their membership, in masterful Orwellian fashion, that they know how to handle unruly socialists. This is not the Soviet Union, here socialism is a “lively tradition”, is…like fun.  Do you really think that Dionne and Brookings elite have admiration for Debs? It’s high quality spin.

A  socialist “lively tradition” means the traditional class wars that are part and parcel of  capitalism. And as with all class wars, it is very lively indeed, action packed with marches and police  beatingswhere the labor movement loses most of the time. So, it is “refreshing‘ for Brookings to have Sanders, who doesn’t run away from a PARTICULAR part of that tradition. Which ‘part’ is that? That was very cryptic, wasn’t it, with no specification of what Dionne meant by it. Also, we all know how the lively class wars have influenced our policies: Taft Hardly and other policies to restraint the working class demands.

You see, they don’t have to clarify how the labor movement (‘socialism’) has ‘influenced our policies’ because they know. Language allows them to not be specific when a group of people share the same values. You are thinking “influenced our policies” means, for example, good labor policies (8 hrs shifts), but they are thinking Taft Hardly. Do you think they are proud of the labor movement achievements in labor policies, or proud of the Taft Hardly anti-labor policies? Our angry youngsters who have seen the video of this ‘conversation’ think that Dionne was truly praising  socialism in the USA. Reading between the lines is important when you are dealing with the oligarchy. But let’s continue.

Then E.J. continues approvingly of Sanders’ record in COngress, and to make sure you don’t leave with doubts about on whose side Sanders is , he (Brookings through E.J.’s mouth) said this:

…so when we have Senator Sanders and Senator McCain working together, we can produce miracles in public policy.

McCain is code for the republican party. It’s not ‘I can work on both sides of the isle’; it’s more like ‘I have your back’. You’ll see below.

Are you scared that he is an atheist socialist? No need to worry:

And while Senator Sanders will not be talking about miracles today, I will close by saying that he is a fan of Pope Francis.

Should the elitists worry about how far to the left he is, or how big his…’d’ (democracy) is? Nope. This interaction between him and E.J. is VERY telling:

[Sanders] “Sorry, government in this country is going to work for all of us and not just the top 1 percent.” Thank you very much. (Applause)
MR. DIONNE: Thank you, Senator Sanders, for that carefully hedged, cautious, political (laughter) speech.
SENATOR SANDERS: I was very quiet. This is the Brookings and I didn’t want —
MR. DIONNE: Yeah, this is a moderate version of this speech.
SENATOR SANDERS: That’s right.

He doesn’t want to…scare them, is what that interaction means. Dionne saved him from saying the words.

Are they afraid he is going to nationalize the means of production? NOOOOO WAAAY.

[E.J.] In this long list of proposals you do not propose public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, and you are very critical of the way capitalism works, but what is your view of the market economy in general and capitalism in particular? 
SENATOR SANDERS: Well, in that regard I think I come down somewhere where Pope Francis is, who I think, by the way, has played an extraordinary role in the last several years in raising issues internationally that have not been raised by such a prominent figure.

Mother of God!!!! His socialism is based on Pope Francis!!! That’s all he has. People:it can’t get any safer for them than that, unless he speaks approvingly of capitalism.

[Sanders] so, E. J., capitalism does a lot of good things. It creates wealth.

Wealth?! For who? He doesn’t have to say it because they all get his drift.

Wait! It’s not over. How ’bout the economy and Wall Street? They are scared. Should they be? Nah. You see, while Sanders has been harping publicly about how bad the economy is, he eases the oligarchs by saying that he believes the economy is better now than six years ago, no need to ‘redistribute’ or change anything at the root:

[E.J.] you do say that we are better off economically than we were six years ago,…

And this ‘harping’ is acknowledged and dismissed for what it is: political posturing.

[E.J]…you have a pretty tough litany of what’s wrong with the economy as it exists…Yet you voted for a number of programs to try to get the economy moving including [there were others] the Recovery Act, otherwise known as the Stimulus.

[Sanders] So I am proud to defend it.[!!!]

Now, that was music for Wall Streets representatives’ ears there. You see, the Sandernistas refuse to ask the right questions, instead they find excuses when confronted with his pro-Wall Street votes. You can be sure that WS doesn’t forget what he did for them. It’s payback time people.

Other quotes:

MR. DIONNE: Is there a place for something like Wall Street in a Bernie Sanders economy?

SENATOR SANDERS: Well, look, banking plays an important role, obviously, in our society, and in that I’m pretty conservative.

Avoiding the question of whether he wants the Working Families (socialists) endorsement.

SPEAKER: Do you view the Working Families Endorsement of Elizabeth Warren as a setback?
SENATOR SANDERS: Well, I’m not sure that Senator Warren is going to be running for office.

About wars, another version of Obama’ “stupid wars”, which means he will continue the wars, not ‘for ever’, of course:

[Sanders] I do not disagree with the air attacks that the United States is coordinating, for example. What I just don’t want to see is a ground presence and never-ending war.

The Keystone Pipeline: not a priority for his administration if he wins.

[Sanders] …but if you were the Republican Party or any group of people you really think that you would put up the Keystone Pipeline as your first order of business? I’m against the Keystone Pipeline; fought it very hard, but there are people who disagree with me. [WS, for example, whom he will have to listen to]. Do you really think that a Canadian pipeline which will provide 35 permanent jobs is the most important issue facing America…?

The way the ‘conversation’ ended is telling too. Sanders asks, in not so veiled manner, for the MSM support in exchange for him running on the democratic side and not being “a spoiler”.  And E.J. makes a subtle quote of Lenin, showing that they, the capitalists,  know their communists.

[Sanders] [[Asking for help from the MSM]] Will the media cover you if you run as an Independent?  So, these are some of the issues that I’m wrestling with.
MR. DIONNE: I just want to close by saying that the late Mike Harrington used to say that he was for the left wing of the possible, and I think that Senator Sanders is pushing the definition of the possible, and I thank him and all of you for a very enlightening exploration of what can be done [for Sanders and Wall Street], and if I may use the phrase what is to be done. Thank you very, very much. (Applause)


I’m not telling you NOT to vote for Sanders. All I’m trying to do is making you aware that a vote for Sanders is NOT a vote for revolution nor for socialism. Considering that the Sandersnistas don’t ask the right questions, they don’t know which of the many definitions and tonalities of ‘socialism’  Sanders has in mind. The Brookings are clear, though.

Also, Sanders is very clear that he speaks about the “1%”, and some times the “0.1%”. In other words, all those WS honchos who are big millionaires but not billionaires, the ‘10%’, are part of the group his ‘revolution’ is going to protect. But they are part of the problem too. It is highly improbable that anyone with over 20 million bucks has the interests of the unemployed and poor in his or her mind. And yet, that person is not technically part of the 1%. Sanders is more a neo liberal than a socialist.

If you want to know how acceptable a politician is to the elite, see if the Brookings invite him or her and what he or she says to them. Again, I researched this for Obama in 2008, I can see that Sanders is following the same path of his lukewarm socialist predecessor.

I don’t speak about Hillary here because she is not the one running promising a revolution. We all know what to expect from her, she is in the system.

So there. Voting for Sanders means pushing the real revolution back another 20 years.

If you want a revolution, you must leave the two-party system and create a truly progressive third-party or join those already there. Also, I consider more important getting seats in Congress than the presidency. Progressives don’t have to get caught up in the presidential elections.

Bernie Sanders and the MSM Attacks [updated]

MSM and Obama
MSM and Sanders
The Big Question: Why?

All presidential primaries have three basic components: the public/voters, the candidates with their respective party, and the main-stream media (MSM).

Generally speaking, the MSM elects the winner and loser candidate with its power to shape public opinion. Wow. That’s some claim, isn’t it? You would accept/reject that proposition depending on your political inclination, that’s a fact. Chances are some progressives would agree with my claim. It is not for nothing that the MSM is called the fourth power, and that governments all around the globe fight to control it: it can start or stop a revolution.

For example:

Protesters scuffle with police along inaugural route WASHINGTON (AP) George W. Bush’s motorcade lurched through the largest inaugural protests since Richard Nixon on Saturday, enduring thousands of protesters who hurled insults, bottles, tomatoes and an egg. Protesters clashed briefly with police clad in riot gear at a few flash points while Bush remained inside his armored stretch car for most of the parade up a soggy, cold Pennsylvania Avenue. Police ordered the motorcade to slow in anticipation of some protests, and then to speed through others. A couple of protesters threw bottles and tomatoes before the presidential limousine arrived, and one hurled an egg that landed near the motorcade, the Secret Service said.

The MSM didn’t show to the public the massive protest (lots of African-Americans too) on George W. Bush’s first presidential inauguration  after stealing the elections (remember?), and the push-and-shove with the police. Here, pick any article.   Because of that omission a people’s ‘spring revolt’ of sorts was crushed and, to  this day, people believe that the American public passively accepted the Florida decision on the Gore vs Bush election. So, let’s take that first sentence in the paragraph above as true, if only for argument sake. (See my post explaining how MSM’s uncritical support is a payout to Sanders for his vote for the Stimulus Package that saved Wall Street.)

MSM and Obama

In addition, for all the ‘hope and change’  and the  revolution of the Obama primary campaign vs Clinton in 2008, the MSM basically hanged Hillary Clinton (HC) to the high tree of misogyny for all to see, and stood by Obama. Even Fox News capitalist owner, Rupert Murdock fell totally in love with Obama.

This is Rupert Murdoch gushing over Obama:

“He is a rock star. It’s fantastic. I love what he is saying about education. I don’t think he will win Florida…..but he will win in Ohio and the election. I am anxious to meet him. I want to see if he will walk the walk.”
The Perfect Storm or How Obama is going to wreck this country

Clearly, when the capitalist owner of news corporation  like Fox News feels like that about ‘revolutionary’ Obama, it could only mean that Obama is not a ‘red threat’ to the capitalist elite. That link is to my blog for the 2008 primaries where I correctly described how Obama was going to stand for Wall Street. Sorry, people, it did happen. I had other hit-and-misses there.

Denying that it was the MSM who gave Obama his victory with its attack on HC, shows lack of awareness of the tools used by its propaganda machine (the use of psychological techniques, manipulation of language and images…), or gross opportunism. Hey, these techniques are in the curriculum of colleges and universities, it’s not ‘conspiracy theory’.

MSM and Sanders

Today’s democratic primaries is deja-vu all over again, with the difference that today the MSM is hanging HC on the tree of ‘dishonesty’. The email gossip has not stuck and, today,  misogyny is not PC, it can’t be blatantly used day in and day out as they used to do in 2008. They have to find something to destroy her, so they hammer on ‘honesty’. [See True Reasons Why Hillary Is Unelectable ] But, they can’t attack one candidate and ignore the other. The MSM follows attacks on HC with propaganda about how ‘trustworthy’ Bernie Sanders is. Three examples:

Bernie Sanders, Your Cool Socialist Grandpa    NY Times

Hillary Clinton has a major honesty problem after New Hampshire     WaPo

Bernie Sanders beats Hillary Clinton on honesty, battle against Wall Street  NY Daily News

Sanders has profited from the media’s lack of interest in challenging his self-presentation as a kind of non-politician. He’s similarly benefitted from his mostly-unchallenged self-presentation as a kind of happy warrior — angry and loud, yes, but in a lovably earnest kind of way. The Clinton campaign has desperately tried to get the media to challenge this image.  Salon

Charles Koch: This is the one issue where Bernie Sanders is right [added 2/19/16] – uber elitist conservative capitalist endorsing Sanders at the Washington Post.

The Big Question: Why?

That’s the missing question during both the 2008 and in today’s primaries campaigns: Why did the MSM worked for Obama and is today working for Sanders, two ‘socialists’ supposedly questioning the sacrosanct capitalist system? You have to be dead wood to not have wondered about this, if at least once on a trip to Wal-Mart.

That question can not  and should not be asked by the public because the answer is more dangerous to WS and the ‘corrupt elite’ than Obama and Sanders ‘socialist-revolution’ campaigns. The MSM must keep the elections to the level of personality battles: who is more ‘honest’, more ‘likable’…

A public with no political acumen can’t ask the pertinent questions. The job of the MSM is to prevent the public from going there. There’s got to be a reason why they hate HC more than some ‘socialist’. You can bet your house it is NOT because she is ‘dishonest’.

Why is it that two candidates considered ‘long shots’ are openly supported by the MSM? Why is the historical bogey man, socialism and ‘revolution’, together in one sentence, not causing a barrage of ‘red scare’ alerts in the MSM? Even Silicon Valley tech elite is with Sanders.

Clearly Sanders is no threat to the capitalists. Period.

“In November 2015, Sanders announced that he would be a Democrat from then on, and will run in any future elections as a Democrat.”


Voted YES on $192B additional “anti-recession” stimulus spending. (Jul 2009).Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic “recovery” package. (Feb 2009).Voted YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight. (Apr 2006) Voted YES on authorizing states to collect Internet sales taxes. (May 2013)Voted YES on keeping Cuba travel ban until political prisoners released. (Jul 2001)In 2000, Sanders voted with republicans for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, a landmark bill that blocked federal agencies from regulating credit default swaps — the complex contracts at the heart of the 2008 financial crisis.