"For a full year -- from early 2015 to early 2016 -- Sanders supporters were told that superdelegates pick whoever they believe is the strongest general-election candidate," Seth Abramson wrote in "Sanders' Supporters Have Been Lied to And Here's How." He elaborated on it in "How to Explain the Sanders Campaign to an Idiot, Paul Krugman or a Clintonite in 8 Sentences" and most recently pointed out how Clinton herself had subscribed to such a theory in "Clinton in 2008 Opposed Early Call of Primary, Told Media 'Nomination Will Be Up to the Superdelegates.'" Now she's switched to claiming superdelegates should support the candidate with more popular votes -- the opposite reason of why they were created. For them to simply ratify the popular vote would make no sense.
The two--the popular leader and the better general election candidate--could coincide but they do not this year, as Brexit highlights concerns about Clinton's candidacy yet again. But now superdelegates' mysterious preferences are not only being used to declare the winner, but there is no discussion in the media as to why they should select Clinton over Sanders. A merited discussion over issues, records, and superdelegate voting is being squashed with her knowledge and consent.
This is all the more urgent as Clinton significantly lags Sanders in polling against Trump, potentially awaits indictment, is viewed as "honest and trustworthy" by about 30% of American voters. She is viewed unfavorably by 60 percent of white women and 75 percent of white male voters. (This after a remarkably clean primary, before what is likely to be an incredible dirty one.) Nationally and globally, those who champion corporate-friendly incrementalism, promising to do little to reverse planetary destruction and inequality, are scorned.
Matt Damon recently spoke at MIT's commencement about the Wall Street bankers that brought us the biggest "heist" in history, saying they may have gotten away with it but "when we pass you on the street and look you in the eye" "you don't have our respect." And so some of us will vote for her in November, should Sanders not win in July or embark on a third party run, after we evaluate the platform and factor in this season. Some of us won't. Regardless, she and her supporters should know that we see the utter corruption and exploitation of our democratic process being employed to smash an urgent and critical Democratic candidacy. We see something. We are saying something.
Finally, should she win the primary but lose in November, one can choose those responsible: a) the media, who hyped Trump while he performed similarly to Sanders at stadiums and in polls, then put Clinton's fake lock on the nomination, b) the gutless wonders of the superdelegates -- with the political influence of 10,000 voters -- who lack the courage or integrity to discuss their convictions openly or with their constituents, c) Clinton herself, a candidate of enormous flaws especially in 2016, who exploited or played along with jettisoning of our democracy, d) the DNC, who rigged the debate schedule and cycled massive donations, or, e) the Democratic Party establishment, closely linked to many electoral failures. Blaming Sanders' voters for any outcome is beyond ridiculous as a fair primary season would likely have produced a Sanders' win. But even if it would not have, we deserve to have processes and institutions perform their assigned role of promoting debate, and electoral integrity. "Only systems that serve the planet and serve the population of the planet can be allowed to survive, not ones that serve elites, be they political or corporate elites," as Russell Brand once said in an interview.
Sanders provokes what author Tom Frank says is an "almost an allergic reaction," among Democratic insiders and the liberal establishment for being a New Dealer, with his proposals out of President Franklin Roosevelt's platform. Yet it inspires many of us who will continue fighting. We will peacefully take to the streets, we'll organize, we'll battle in the courts, and we'll create hyperlocal to global models of socially and environmentally responsible institutions. But we can also consider our true superpower -- accountability for priorities and actions of those we have elected and will consider in November.
We disagree with Clinton and her clan: silence -- and silencing -- is not the answer. Accountability to a democracy ideals and progressive, humanist, and environmental priorities is. #StillSanders. #DemocracyMatters.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
9
7
7
