Yet even if Sanders had conducted a more aggressive campaign against Clinton based on her dubious record, it's arguable the MSM would not have accorded such efforts that much attention in any event, now matter how on the money he was or how well such tactics might have played out with voters. Insofar as the MSM is concerned, the nomination of Clinton as the Democratic -- indeed, Establishment -- candidate, was a forgone conclusion from the get-go. The MSM's job is to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy.
All this was underscored by the amount of
MSM ink the respective campaigns garnered, with the Sanders' campaign receiving a
fraction as that of the Clinton effort. And even here that coverage has been
at best, begrudging. And this is without factoring in reports of vote rigging in
various primary contests and Democratic campaign funding
anomalies, all of which have but been ignored in mainstream circles. For their
part the MSM have long since abrogated any and all responsibility for guiding
voters in the selection of a president who might begin to reverse the course
America seems hell bent on pursuing, whether in the broad economic, financial,
social, military, national security, or geopolitical spheres. It was hardly
ever going to change gear this time around.
Last but not least is the aforementioned Clinton machine itself, whose principal operators are doubtless leaving nothing to chance in their relentless, ruthless drive towards the 'inevitable' nomination of their standard bearer and ultimately the presidency. This, coupled with the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) own 'out of the starting gate' anointment of HRC as the presumptive nominee along with the crucial backing (above and below board) that accompanies said "anointment", translated to Sanders having to work much harder to gain sufficient traction, and from there position himself as a more qualified, suitable candidate for nomination.
And though it may be too little, too late, some people within the AIM ranks are still calling into question her suitability, qualification, and fitness for the White House. To this end, in a recent article Robert Parry of Consortium News posed a simple but seemingly vexed question about HRC -- is she qualified to be president? As noted, this should be the most fundamental consideration, and not just with rank and file voters. In this an equally crucial question might be asked:
What kind of individual is the best person to reverse the course America seems intent on pursuing at the expense of everything it purports to stand for?
At one stage Obama held out this promise to America, and more recently for some, Sanders. And although the latter as of this writing may not be down for the count, certainly he has his work cut out for him in order to head the presumptive nominee off at the pass. Leaving aside any discussion of whether Donald Trump is a suitable candidate for the presidency (one for another time), in Parry's view, Mrs Clinton is decidedly not that person. For her part he says, Clinton,
'...seemed incapable of learning from her costly errors -- or perhaps she just understands that the politically safest course is to do what Washington's neocon-dominated foreign policy establishment wants...That way you get hailed as a serious thinker in The Washington Post and at think-tank conferences. Virtually all major columnists and big-name pundits praised Clinton's hawkish tendencies as Secretary of State, from her escalating tensions with Iran to tipping the balance of the debate in favor of "regime change" in Libya to urging direct U.S. military intervention in Syria in pursuit of another "regime change" there.'
Hillary Clinton is, indeed, the "Queen of Chaos", inhabiting her own real-life "House of Cards", one that has been constructed by a fawning, uncritical mainstream media, financed by wealthy elites and the denizens of Wall Street and [the] military-industrial-security complex, and all the while with its perennially vulnerable perimeter secured (at least for now) by the hegemonically minded neo-conservatives and their fellow travellers the (not-so) liberal interventionists. In other words, the real power enclaves that constitute the existentially toxic Washington political firmament.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
11
8
8
