The New York Times is one of the most prominent mediums for the Democratic Party establishment’s talking points. On Sunday, after Bernie Sanders’ landslide victory in the Nevada caucus, here is what two front page articles on the subject are saying. It amounts to a case study of the paper’s and the Democratic establishment’s fear of Bernie winning the party nomination.
By now, we’ve all seen the utter obliteration of Michael Bloomberg in the last Democratic debate, an individual used to a room full of yes-men finally out from behind of his money and into the arena of give and take. And take, he did; if he was a mop, the floor would have been spotless. Relax; I do not think it is inappropriate for a member of the humble proletariat to take pleasure in the humiliation of an oligarch.
It is this author’s analysis that the effect of the Donald Trump presidency has been, somewhat paradoxically, to put wind in the sails of a kind of patriotic liberalism, reaffirming confidence in the forms and functions of US governance. Since Trump’s election, the calling words have been “not my president,” “not my country,” “this isn’t the America I know”–and the protagonists in the valiant anti-Trump struggle has been Robert Mueller, the FBI, Nancy Pelosi, the CIA, and NATO.
The all-or-nothing New Hampshire gamble of Tulsi Gabbard has come up snake eyes.
As I write, with 98 percent of the vote tallied, she is in seventh place, with a meager 3.3 percent of the vote, behind Tom Steyer. It is hard to imagine any path forward for her. And, frankly, one must acknowledge that this was a debacle of her own making.
Not only are we not going to have wars between major powers in this era of fascist upsurge (of course, as will be discussed, we shall have other wars), but, by the same token, this fascist upsurge will not burn out through any cataclysmic war. What we are likely to see is a lingering fascism of less murderous intensity, which, when in power, does not necessarily do away with all the forms of bourgeois democracy, does not necessarily physically annihilate the opposition, and may even allow itself to get voted out of power occasionally.
Introduction
The Tulsi Gabbard presidential campaign has filed a major law suit against Google. This article outlines the main points of the law suit and evidence the the social media giant Google has quietly acquired enormous influence on public perceptions and has been actively censoring alternative viewpoints.
Tulsi Now vs Google
The U.S. news networks are building up the suspense for the first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, but odds are it will be another hyped-up TV disgrace, say Bill Moyers and Michael Winship. By Bill Moyers and…Read more →
By asking Americans who they expect to vote for rather than who they want to be President, pollsters skew the numbers in favor of major-party candidates and help exclude third-party challengers from crucial debates, notes Sam Husseini. By Sam Husseini This week,…Read more →
Amid unprecedented dissatisfaction with the two major party candidates, public interest in opening the presidential debates to the Libertarian and Green party nominees should be honored, says Jeff Cohen. By Jeff Cohen If ten major TV networks got together and…Read more →
This is the written and expanded version of remarks I delivered at two well-attended and engaging events. The debate/panel “Debating the 2016 Presidential Elections and the Key Issues of Our Time” took place on February 5th and 6th in Oakland and San Francisco. Speakers included:
Black Agenda Report, special guest Glen Ford
