Yes. And even & especially in Vermont, where he has not been able to brand anyone else remotely similar. If you go back a ways, Anthony Pollina and Bernie have worked together, I would characterize as loosely at best over the years. There are and have been no other Progressives similar to Bernie. Closest was consumer advocate Ralph Nader, but even so not the same record of statesmanship to go on, and a different I’d dare say weirder brand with the whole Green thing. Not that I’m against green things. I like them, generally. But they are typically bland like eating a pile of leaves. Cows would like them more than people do. Progressives just haven’t figured out how to coalesce. One would think Progressive rage at the status quo would be enough to cause them to cohere, but instead it tends to make them decohere. Maybe this time it will be different when they realize they have a shot, finally, with Bernie? I dunno. We’ll have to give it the good old college try.
Sanders’ campaign has been confirming what a lot of people (like yourself, @anon61221983, @Kimmo, etc.) have surmised for a long time – the Democratic party (as a whole) is at least partially in cahoots with the Republicans. They may not be different sides of the exact, same coin, but they’re certainly coins deposited into the same corporatist bank.
It’s very telling how so many establishment Democratic Senators have announced their support for Clinton while not a single one has put support behind Sanders.
Hillary Clinton was literally a part of the Obama administration as Secretary of State and is yet another establishment Democrat that failed American progressives on many issues.
That’s why we’re seeing a lot of establishment support for Clinton via old and tired Democratic Senators while dynamic, grassroots organizations are overwhelmingly aligning with and supporting Bernie Sanders in droves.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders has a solid record of being painfully critical of the Democratic party and Obama on many of the policies and issues critical to progressives.
Sanders is an Independent running against an establishment Democrat as a reformist Democratic candidate. The upcoming debates (that Hillary is dreading and even desperately attempting to avoid) will clearly show Hillary as a pandering flip-flopper while Sanders will be seen as the steadfast progressive he’s been for decades.
Hillary’s artful dodging, flip-flopping and pandering as her campaign drolls on is going to increasingly remind progressives of Obama’s failed promises. Meanwhile, when anyone asks Sanders about the issues, he and his supporters will continue to point out his solid, past record that consistently backs him up for decades on end.
This is why as time and name recognition has gone on, Sanders has continued to make gains while Hillary has continued to lose her grip with progressives.
Sanders is similar to a single payer system for health care. The more Americans find out about him and how he actually works, the more they support him.
I think these campaigns are clearly showing us who is bought and sold… and by whom.
This is a historic battle for America’s soul. Who will win? Astroturfers, the establishment status quo and corporatist lackeys that are launching disingenuous campaigns to enable the rich to get richer or a true, word-of-mouth (offline and online), grassroots campaign that’s supported by the people and for the people?
This may sound overdramatic to some, but I think this may be one of the last chances for the American public to keep from losing what’s left of our dwindling representative democracy within our struggling republic. We need to use it or we’re going to lose it.
If Hillary Clinton wins, it will be a win for an aristocracy that clearly paid her off to maintain their already entrenched status quo. Meanwhile, it will be a tragic loss for the American public who wants more representation, upward mobility and less fleecing from a quasi-governmental, quid pro quo system that resembles corporate communism.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m pro-business and a capitalist (mostly) that wants free enterprise that symbiotically benefits individuals and the communities they work in. However, there’s no freedom of enterprise when monolithic oligopolies and monopolies are able to pull the strings against innovation, upward mobility and small business growth with the flick of a corrupt, quid pro quo, quasi-governmental lobbying complex.
The fight of our lifetimes is ON.
I think it’s lazy to say that we’ve all become accustomed to it, but it’s important to recognize that most people have.
But we have - it’s inescapable. I remember a time when the scumbags unfolding their neoliberal agenda would surprise me with their heinous corruption, and I’d be no less surprised by the ability of the brain-dead populace to lap that shit up.
But after a while, surprise at the scumbags just settled into resigned loathing, and surprise at the fuckwit populace dwindled into mere puzzlement.
Then I read The Authoritarians, and realised that’s it, we’re fucked. A critical mass of stupidity has been reached.
Thankfully, my grasp of the scumbags’ avarice was insufficient to predict they might actually be short-sighted enough to go too far too soon for people to continue to tolerate it (AFAIK that’s only the case in the US)… let’s hope those cunts have blown it.
The only thing I think is inescapable is reality. Whatever fallacies people like to use to hide from it will die with them. The way I see it, it doesn’t matter how many such people there may be, they will by their nature not be effective people - except within their own corrupt sphere of influence (effluence?).
Maybe we can make a virus that induces the next generation to be born insusceptible to cognitive biases. A big project, but It beats working towards our own slavery.
I’m not in Europe, but I am keeping an eye on it. A reservedly hopeful one, inspired by a large percentage of the Greek populace. “We will not keep eating your shit forever!” is a message many are hearing, no matter how much Merkel, Inc. tries to muffle it.
Sounds like a cool concept for a rare, non-dystopian?, sci-fi novel.
An infectious virus is manufactured and released into the wild. The virus alters the minds of most of humanity to become vastly better critical thinkers and more empathic, etc.
“Infected” groups like ISIS will later be documented crying in the streets and attempting to make amends for all the horrific damage they’ve caused to humanity.
The newly humbled Exxon corporatists who knowingly committed crimes against humanity invest all their ill-gotten profits into sustainable energy.
However, there’s an unforeseen side effect. Humans slowly but surely all develop ESP and can increasingly hear each other’s thoughts. No more lies are possible.
John Brunner’s The Stone That Never Came Down has basically that premise.
Thank you! I’ll have to read it when I get a chance!
Speaking of “shit”… check out this desperate NYT hit piece on Sanders:
Bernie Sanders Courts Martha’s Vineyard Donors
It’s a disingenuous hit piece the NYT is carrying out in collusion with the corporatist right (the establishment that backs Clinton).
It’s not journalism, it’s the New York Times.
They simply wanted to mention that Sanders was there and muddle the waters so readers will hopefully infer that Sanders begged for and perhaps even received large donations from rich people for his own campaign.
That’s not what actually happened, but the purpose of that New York Times article was meant to confuse and indoctrinate, not enlighten their readers.
Of course, the conservatives are already eating it up and using the NYT hit piece to promote propaganda against Sanders.
An Anatomy of a New York Times hit piece:
(emphasis mine)
Bernie Sanders Courts Martha’s Vineyard Donors
Nice, vague headline, NYT. One couldn’t possibly infer from it that Sanders is begging (courting) for money from donors for his own campaign. For a respectable news organization, the headline should have accurately read something like this:
Bernie Sanders Attends Fundraiser For Other Democratic Senators
or
Bernie Sanders Attends Fundraiser For Democratic Party
However, the NYT wants to remain vague and allow the public to infer otherwise. Now… in case the vague, misleading headline isn’t enough, they go on to write:
“But Mr. Sanders quietly stepped off the campaign trail this weekend to visit Martha’s Vineyard , a favorite summer destination of the country’s elite”
The writer slipped the word “quietly” into that sentence in order to very obviously infer that Sanders has something to hide.
The NYT wants the reader to infer that Sanders has ditched his principles, is “sneaking” into a secret, elite fundraiser to perhaps enrich his own campaign via undignified begging (courting).
This isn’t true and it shouldn’t be inferred, yet the New York Times isn’t interested in the truth here. The NYT wants to embolden Sanders’ foes, demoralize his base and dissuade potential supporters with vague allusions of hypocrisy.
Never us mind that Republicans have been whoring for billionaire sugar daddies. Let’s not look at all the massive, Wall Street bankster donors that have been lining the eager pockets of the Clinton campaign.
The NYT would have us believe the outrageous lie that Sanders is no different.
the country’s elite, in order to mix with representatives of some of the same interests he inveighs against in his stump speech.
Again, the trashy NYT wants the reader to infer that Sanders is “mixing” with rich interests in order to “court” them and bring money into his own campaign.
Not true, but the NYT is only interested in stealthily reinforcing misconceptions that work against Sanders.
They could have been really clear about why Sanders was there by this point in the article, but that would’ve involved journalism.
a supporter of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, suggested Mr. Sanders’s appearance suggested he was more pragmatic than his rhetoric would let on.
Who is this unnamed “supporter”? Was this a Clinton operative? Was this one of Clinton’s rich donors? Both? Or, was this a figment of the writer’s imagination in order to help reinforce the narrative that “Sanders snuck into a sekrit enclave of rich people in order to hypocritically beg and snag money for his campaign”?
“So why would he take the weekend to spend in Martha’s Vineyard with wealthy people who are donating at least $37,000 and change to the DSCC?”
That’s not supposed to look like the obtuse, loaded question it really is…
In context of the preceding NYT narrative they’ve purposefully set against Sanders, our conveniently anonymous Clinton “supporter” is now supposedly asking a reasonable question about our hypocritical villain in this story.
I mean, what in the world was Bernie Sanders doing “sneaking” into a “wealthy enclave” and surrounding himself with all these wealthy people? Why was he there? It must be for awful reasons. What a hypocrite we should assume he is now.
Back to reality…
Here’s what the NYT doesn’t want to tell us…
Aside from speaking truth to power, Sanders was there to assist Democratic Senators to win and maintain seats in the future. His agendas as president will very obviously meet gridlock from Republican obstructionism if he doesn’t have enough Democratic support and solidarity in the future.
Sanders isn’t an idiot who thinks every other Democratic politician is going to magically follow his lead and attempt to grow grassroots movements to support them before the next elections.
Bernie Sanders has spent decades working and aligning himself with grassroots organizations. Sanders has their powerful, growing support to aid his campaign. These are grassroots forces that are turning out to be very formidable for disingenuous, Republican astroturfers as well as daring to increasingly cut into Hillary Clinton’s dwindling lead against Sanders.
On the other hand, most Democrats haven’t established that level of grassroots support (if any at all). It’s part of what’s wrong with our current political system in both parties. Nonetheless, these Democrats must win those seats or Sanders’ administration and his progressive agendas for average Americans will be obstructed.
Should Sanders ignore that situation? Should Sanders pretend to exist in a utopia and pretend these other Democrats don’t need money from their usual sources?
Is this the work of a hypocrite who is shunning his principles? Hardly — it’s the work of someone who, unlike Obama, plans on truly enacting his progressive policies after being elected instead of pandering to the left while spinning his wheels against Republican obstructionism.
Sanders isn’t just preparing to win the White House, he’s also preparing to become an effective president. That’s why he’s already setting up preliminary attacks against corporatist rivals such as the Comcast oligopoly and aligning himself with allies in the process.
The New York Times and their owners don’t want to report that nuanced reality. They want to distort Sanders’ actions as that of a sneaky hypocrite who is merely attempting to line his pockets when he thinks his base isn’t somehow looking.
Never mind the fact that the fundraiser was a very public event with obvious intentions. If Sanders wanted to raise secret money or corporate money with strings attached he would have done so like Clinton and the other Republicans have done with their scummy Super PACs, dark money, Wall Street bribe donations and billionaire sugar daddies the Republicans are whoring themselves to.
However, those facts don’t fit into this NYT narrative and hit piece against Bernie Sanders.
The criticism illustrates the rising irritation among some establishment-aligned Democrats with Mr. Sanders, an independent who caucuses as a Democrat. Some in the party are personally fond of Mr. Sanders, but believe his challenge of Mrs. Clinton, the overwhelming front-runner, is quixotic and will serve chiefly to push Mrs. Clinton to the left and delight Republicans hoping the former secretary of state has to spend money on a primary threat.
The NYT is duplicating the same tactic that FOX News uses where they utilize the “some people say” weasel wording to disparage a person instead of using real sources or simply speaking for themselves.
Observe:
It’s a great way for FOX News and the NYT to express their own opinions and attack someone without accepting journalistic responsibility for it. It’s also a cover tactic for those who don’t want to be held accountable for sponsoring disingenuous hit pieces that their media lapdogs like FOX News and NYT carry out for them.
A similar concept is where corporations like Walmart privatize profits while socializing losses. They benefit themselves behind a deceitful, protective wall of kickbacks and bribes towards the corporate news media while everyone else in America loses a genuine fourth branch and becomes misinformed, hopeless, apathetic, and even indoctrinated to fight against their very own interests.
No wonder the NYT despises Bernie Sanders. He’s a threat to their owners’ money and a threat to their quid pro quo business model between them.
Asked about Mr. Sanders’s appearance at the fund-raiser, his spokesman, Michael Briggs, said he would not recalibrate his populist language in the wealthy enclave.
In context of the rest of this shit hit piece, the NYT is now implying that Sanders should “recalibrate” his “language”.
“Language” is code for “rhetoric” and “recalibrate” is code for “flip-flop” and/or “capitulate”.
So, what is the NYT really asking??
“Shouldn’t that hypocrite change his disingenuous rhetoric now that we’ve inferred he’s been caught secretly pocketing a bunch of money from wealthy donors?”
Of course, by the time you’ve scrolled down this far where you can finally read a response from Sanders’ spokesperson… This following bold headline pops up with a giant picture of Hillary that says:
Hillary Clinton Picks Up Teachers’ Union Endorsement
Oh, how convenient. Once you’re just about done reading about how awful Bernie Sanders is, you scroll down and see the next headline below showing support for Hillary Clinton.
Of course at that point you might miss the part buried at the end of the Sanders’ hit piece within only several short sentences that Bernie was at the fundraiser to speak truth to power and help others to reclaim Democratic control of the Senate.
Meanwhile… guess what the other side is up to?
Wisconsin Living Wage Update: Scott Walker Expected To Sign Budget Eliminating Living Wage, Cutting University Funding, Loosening Restrictions On Payday Lenders
Working on it. 
Although this would be the structure of every moral tale ever… so really, it’s been done. But what hasn’t?
Well, he does have a shit-eating grin, so I suspect he’s been down that road before.
However, it wouldn’t hurt to contact the NYT editor to politely voice your disapproval of the shabby hit piece disguised as an article. I think some others on Reddit are doing so as well.
Ah, fuck the NYT.
Read Rolling Stone instead 
Well, that’s it right there. I describe myself as a Libertarian Socialist- I believe that everyone should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, and that the role of government is to see that everyone has the boots to do it with.
I think it’s about time that we start taking back capitalism. Look at what happened with Market Basket last year (and since). We can do this.
From the second article:
Now grocery shoppers want to spend more in grocery stores, including eating meals and socializing
Bernie Sanders is already accomplishing something very vital.
He’s exposing the establishment Democrats for what they are:
This is a very good thing for this nation. It’s time for some indoctrinated progressives to see the truth about some of the top Democrats such as Hillary.
Hillary Clinton is flip-flopping and pandering to the American public in one hand whilst keeping her other hand outstretched to Wall Street banksters who will expect and will get quid pro quo for their money. Hillary Clinton will be Republican-lite and will throw most of the American people under the bus.
Sanders also went to jail for the civil rights movement. Sanders has a history to be proud of. Hillary? No so much.
The truth will set Sanders free, while the truth will increasingly become shackles for someone like Hillary Clinton and other Republicans like her.
If anyone is interested, it looks like the official Sanders campaign might use Discourse to help the community organize. I can connect you with someone there if you want, just PM me by clicking or tapping my avatar over ← there.
I was thinking maybe someone from this list? 
You can do what a lot of supporters are doing to counteract Hillary’s astroturf campaign… spread the word online about the issues that matter to you and why Sanders will fight in that regard to better the world.
