More morsels and chewy fun-sized bits, guaranteed to go down with minimal effort.
The First Democratic Debate
I confess that I did not watch the debate "as it happened" - I only saw a few clips. So I cannot judge performance or what was actually said. I can, however, provide a view on the reactions I've been seeing on various media outlets and the Internet.
Here's my big gripe. Virtually every poll taken immediately after the shindig showed Bernie Sanders overwhelmingly winning the debate, but the pundit class, down to the talking head, said Hillary "crushed" it, "smoked" it, and other semi-creative metaphors for winning the debate. Now, a few days after the debate, I'm seeing what appears to be modified poll results showing how Hillary "won". This should prove to anyone observing, beyond any shadow of any doubt, that Big Media is actively trying to rig this election. Jeb! and Hillary are the establishment choices, people who they can control. Sanders is a wild card, complete with wild hair and wild hand gestures. They won't be able to control things in DC under a Sanders presidency - something that even Ann Coulter recognized when, on her soul-home of Foxy News, she stated that "Hillary is the one we want to run against." She's seeing a deja-vu situation here, and I actually agree with her.
Another theory tossed around about the perceived "smooth ride" Hillary was expected to get and have faciliated by the DNC, is that the leadership of the DNC is predominantly women, who have a vested interested in putting a woman in the Oval Office. This theory strikes me as, besides misogynistic, somewhat short-sighted and failing to see the big picture. Hillary is the establishment candidate - she hobnobs with the banks and corporate America, goes to their garden parties, and for the most part, IS one of them. Her funding sources are virtually the same as those for Jeb! and the other Republican puppets.
Wither Democratic Underground?
I used to be a semi-regular contributor to Democratic Underground. At one time, I looked forward to seeing features such as the "Top 10 Conservative Idiots", and generally found the give-and-take enjoyable - at least in most of the threads in which I participated. SInce well before Hillary announced her candidacy, however, I've seen an increasingly militancy regarding her campaign - and I use the word "militancy" judiciously in this case. To some of the posters who embody this militancy, through insults, snark, quasi-personal attacks, treating anybody who doesn't tow their line as an enemy, or worse, threatening those with whom they disagree with TOS violation reports, this seems to be a sacred duty. I'm going to name a couple of the biggest offenders here: VanillaRhapsody and Wyldwolf, I'm calling you out. People like this, who I suspect are at the very least, campaign volunteers if not paid professionals working on behalf of the Clinton campaign or the DNC (they're synonymous these days), will trot out charts and "fact sheets" about Clinton's voting record ('NillaRap is notorious for this), and will tell people not in agreement with them that they are not "loyal Democrats", "left-leaning independents" (GASP!!!) and other diatribes that question the offender's loyalty to the Democratic Party.
I recall a post (I don't have the link right now), which explains some of this behavior. The poster stated that it's "because we remember 1972" and the disunity of that campaign leading to the nomination of a well-meaning, brilliant, yet unprepared candidate - Senator George McGovern. Remember: this was over two decades prior to the creation of Foxy News, and look what the media machine and the Repubs were able to do to the Democratic candidates in that campaign. When you get a chance, I recommend Googling not only McGovern, but also Edmund Muskie. These men were driven right through the wringer with the bad press, innuendos, and in the case of Muskie, dirty tricks. The landslide for Nixon was only a small part of the tragedy. Another part is what this campaign did to these men, and those that supported them. Even larger that those was the continued deaths in Vietnam, and what was to come two years later.
So what is the logic here? Here's my bet. These people look at Sanders and see a rerun of McGovern. They see a candidate who wears "socialism" like a badge when most of the country still has no real idea of what it is. They see Hillary as tried and true, and somebody who has already had the opposition research done against her and has come out as the Democratic front-runner in 2016. Many of them also see this as "her due" - given her career in public service. Also, as with any cult of personality, they will see their favorite candidate through the lenses of what they want to see, rather than what is actually true. She may have a lefty-leaning voting record as a Senator (in some things), but she's way too cozy with Wall Street and the Banks to be called any kind of progressive. She's also a known hawk when it comes to foreign and military policy. This "rose-colored glass" effect also exists with some Sanders supporters, who may be so focused on his economic message that they forget to see his stand on gun rights - which may be appropriate for a rural state like Vermont but not for the metropolitan areas like NYC and Los Angeles.
So in short, I'm finding that Democratic Underground is becoming less and less hospitable to those of us who question Hillary's anointment. The political operatives know the value of sites like DU and intend to leverage them to the hilt, so, my prediction is that they will pretty much take over DU and exile the "dissenters". Fine. I'll take my commentary to Facebook.
