“It’s a necessary measure. [They] are useless to us in their wild state. They will break free unless you snuff out their will to resist. A good trainer knows that you’ve got to take [them] from [their] independent state in nature and create a dependent state, so they will become more productive to our needs. […] When you get them young enough, you can get them to do almost anything.”
Underground (WGN), s01e07
“I heard you”. In her acceptance speech, the Democratic nominee by default didn’t have too many words for the Sanders camp. All dressed in immaculate white, she did say all Democrats were in this (her holy Assumption) together, and that her fight was also their fight. But what stood out from the rest were these three simple words, as equivocal – more so even – as the historic words General De Gaulle pronounced on the 4th of June, 1958, in front of the colorful crowd that had gathered in Algiers to listen to what he had to say, on the eve of decolonization and civil war : « je vous ai compris« . As far as he was concerned, many were wondering and have been wondering ever since who he had actually understood : the natives who wanted their independence, the binationals who were worried for their future, or the French hard-liners who were anything but ready to give up their dominion over the North-African country.
In Clinton’s case, the interpretations vary between “I heard you”, but I am behind the wheel now, “I heard you”, and I want you to shut up immediately (She has something of a primary school teacher, hasn’t she ?) and “I heard you”, and when I’m elected (‘if’ is such a party-crasher…), I’m going to appoint a few Sanders superdelegates to second-line positions in my administration to cut him off from his network and prevent it from doing more harm.
“I invite a lot of Republicans and independents who I’ve been seeing on the campaign trail, who’ve been reaching out to me, I invite them to join with Democrats.”
CNN, May 4, 2016
Torn apart between her natural electorate and the Petraeus/Gates/Hayden/Bloomberg & Co-current, which would be of vital use to her in the long run if she wants to avoid new government shutdowns, will Clinton, now that the quadrennial show is behind her, reorient her campaign towards a more aggressive set of American values ? Can she ?
In any case, countless are the media-clintonites who are now openly, sometimes on the edge of disrespect and even vulgarity, warning against a new Nader-effect the Green-party candidate might bring about. And they do this, of course, in the studios of the same television networks that worked so hard to get the ugly creature from the swamp out of its natural habitat.
Indeed, it is to Nader, the Democratic establishment has been arguing, Gore owed his defeat, fifteen years ago. But what these political prosecutors fail to remember is that in 1992, Billy Boy got elected with flying colors in spite of billionaire Ross Perot’s candidacy, which nonetheless cost him over six million votes, according to exit polls (1). In 1996, Perot ran again, yet Billy’s victory margin was even bigger. Therefore, it is safe to say that Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate who, throughout the years, had become a thorn in the side of the US automobile industry, the activist siding with common people against big business, was the ideal scapegoat.
These days, all fingers are pointing to Jill Stein as the possible cause of a Clinton defeat. The enemy is at the gates, you see, and all hands ought therefore to be on deck. Giving in to any holier-than-thou-ism in this time of crisis, as neo-fascism is threatening to engulf the greatest country in the world, would not only be irresponsible : it would be goddamn suicidal ! Think of the SCOTUS appointments the creature might make, of the official lynch parties it might sanction, of the red buttons it might push.
But as the Green party correctly pointed out, they are not the problem. Why frighten people when there is no reason to ? It may take a while to get the undemocratic duopoly at the head of the commission on presidential debates to lower the 15 % threshold (2). It may take even longer to get Congress to introduce proportional-vote reforms and formally abolish the winner-takes-all clause for presidential elections. But there is no objective reason, none whatsoever, to delay ranked voting (3) any longer.
This is why those who want to thumb their noses at the system should do so with a light heart, knowing that if the creature should ever come to sit in the oval office, they would bear no responsibility for it : only the oversized egos of the two frontrunners would… (4)
“By the way, forget the young, the poor, the working class. It’s not your constituency. Strength, stability, security, prosperity. Scare them, then make them feel safe. That’s your platform. It’s the only one you’ve got.”
Australian spin doctor to Leila al-Fayeed
Tyrant (FX), s03e04, Prayer for Our Daughters
Noteworthy, however, is that on a national basis, the same poll indicated there was an even split of Perot’s voters between Clinton and George H.W. Bush.