Weary Of This Primary

I’ve had enough of this primary. The media has been flogging it since, well, Obama’s last inauguration, if we’re going to be honest. The past 6-8 months have worn me out. And I have lost patience for the thin-skinned followers of St. Bernard — not all of them, of course, but a certain faction of rabid Hillary-haters, the reactionary ones who have decided they will define “progressivism” for the rest of us (including those of us who were working the trenches when many of them were still playing with crayons.)

I have no patience for bullshit from “progressive” outlets like this:

Madeleine Albright Throws Shade To Young, Female Voters

No, she didn’t, Talking Points Memo, and you know better. She repeated a quote she’s been saying for years. Years. In fact, she’s been saying this so long, it’s been featured on a Starbucks cup and mangled by Sarah Palin:


This entire nonsense is being ginned up by the media, desperate to divide liberals because it’s so much more interesting and profitable for them when people are at each other’s throats. Lots more advertising money coming their way, amiright? So no, I will not tolerate anyone smearing Madeleine Albright because their fee-fees got hurt. Grow up.

And since I’m on my soap box about fake controversies, I really don’t get what the big deal is with Hillary Clinton’s speeches. Every public official makes speeches for money to various civic groups, business groups, corporate retreats, etc. There is an entire industry devoted to this. Higher profile individuals (like a former First Lady, U.S. Senator and Secretary of State) get bigger paychecks. Republicans do it. Democrats do it. Progressives do it. Tea Partiers do it.

Here’s one of Hillary’s Goldman Sachs speeches which supposedly makes her a Wall Street puppet: she was the main speaker at Goldman Sachs’ “10,000 Women” dinner, an “investing in women and girls” initiative that the firm started in 2008.

Clinton’s topic? Perhaps it was the Rothschild banking conspiracy? Or, “How to screw the poor?” Maybe she revealed details on how she plans to turn the Oval Office over to Wall Street when she’s president? No. It was “Proving the Case for Women Entrepreneurs.”

In fact, Hillary Clinton is represented by a speaker’s bureau. You know who’s represented by the same speaker’s bureau? Bernie Sanders. His All American Speakers bio says he talks about education and Jewish issues. Good for him, I bet they’re great speeches. Maybe someone can go through the 60,000+ YouTube videos of Sanders’ appearances and find one that I can post. I don’t have the time.

I don’t have the time for any of this shit. The reality is, there’s very little difference between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. In the two years they were in the Senate together, they voted the same 93% of the time.

I’m really tired of the demonization of Hillary Clinton. And please stop telling me “both sides do it,” because I’m not seeing nearly the headlines in mainstream media outlets targeting Sanders that I see coming from the other side. Did someone say something mean on Twitter? Yeah, sure. But I’m talking New York Times headlines and Talking Point Memo posts.

Bernie Sanders is the shiny-sparkly new thing, so a certain amount of media adoration is to be expected at this point. But just you wait, the MSM will lose interest just as it always does. The media loves nothing more than to smack down that which it has built up. “Dean Scream,” anybody? And I can just see it now, Hillary Clinton will get blamed for that, too. I’m already seeing people blame her for the more offensive “Bernie Bros” on social media, calling them “Clinton plants.” Seriosuly, people? You’ve got to be kidding me.

I just don’t have the patience for this bullshit, at all. Knock it off, and grow the fuck up. There is too much at stake here for us to be behaving this way.


Filed under 2016 Election, 2016 Presidential Election, feminism

19 responses to “Weary Of This Primary

  1. I couldn’t agree more if I had written it myself. Bernie is simply not winnable and we NEED to/HAVE to win in November.

  2. Thank you ! !!

    Bernie Sanders’ supporters have been vicious on Tweeters. They call Hillary Cunt.

  3. Yeah, SB, it is definitely getting ugly, although East TN Bernie supporters seem to not participate in the ‘hate’ Hillary campaign. One sad thing, most likely coming from the GOP PACs, possibly the Kochs’ machine is the dredging up of the old haters of Bill. I have seen “monica’ quoted online, as well as ‘Paula Jones” trying to get back in the spotlight, hating Bill….which, by the way, should give Hillary more clout in the way she ignored all that mess. back in the day. Although I am thrilled that thousands of YOUNG Democrats who are out working hard for both sides, I am encouraging all of them to stay focused on having A DEMOCRAT win the White House.

    • GALL

      Nice hand picked excerpt. How much material had to be reviewed before finally finding something that doesn’t make her look bad as a presidential candidate.
      She didn’t make >$200,000 for 13 minutes. Wheres the rest of it? Transparency would be to show all. Not just what makes her look good.

  4. GALL

    Nice hand picked excerpt. How much material had to be reviewed before finally finding something that doesn’t make her look bad as a presidential candidate.
    She didn’t make >$200,000 for 13 minutes. Wheres the rest of it? Transparency would be to show all. Not just what makes her look good.

    • Yes I’m certain her super-secret “fuck the poor” speech is out there, probably in a secret vault next to Michelle Obama’s “whitey speech.” Why don’t we get that ace reporter James O’Keefe on the case!

  5. Kathleen

    Amen. Thank you.

  6. hamletta


    Y’know why the anti-Clinton industrial complex got started? Because the Clintons were nice to blah people.

    Before there were blogs, there was Bartcop, God rest his soul. And he was right. In 1970s Arkansas, treating black people as equals was enough to make a back-slappin’ good ol’ boy the enemy.

    • “Because the Clintons were nice to blah people.” And because Hillary had the nerve to want to get involved in something more than choosing centerpieces and china patterns. She offended the wrong people when she first advocated for universal healthcare. But apparently she’s a “sellout” to AHIP now.

  7. Perry Aubrc

    I am so with you on this. A significant slice of the Sanders supporters seem to go out of their way to be condescending and insufferably smug, lecturing the rest of us on who is or is not acceptably “progressive” (I prefer liberal and proudly use the term to describe myself) and then trolling, demonizing and insulting not only Hillary Clinton but any one of us who might have the temerity to refuse to “feel the Bern.” Well, I’m not feeling the Bern at all.

    Like you, I have been working for candidates of the left since I went door to door for George McGovern in 1972, and I don’t need any supercilious millennial insulting my decision to support some other candidate. The fact is, I don’t want to see a neo-fascist Republican take over the White House and appoint another three goose-stepping ideologues like Scalia, Thomas and Alito to the Supreme Court. Goodbye same sex marriage, labor protections, voting rights, affirmative action, equal housing, corporate oversight, consumer protections, etc., etc., etc. Not to mention the assault on every other liberal/progressive accomplishment of the past 80 years. Sanders would lose in a landslide and take boatloads of Democrats down with him.

    And, BTW, why would the Democratic Party want to nominate someone who is not even a member of the Democratic Party and has spent a career slamming it?

    • why would the Democratic Party want to nominate someone who is not even a member of the Democratic Party and has spent a career slamming it?

      Any progressive position Hillary has ever taken is written off by the rabid Bernie faction as “pure political calculation” but the fact that Bernie is even running as a Democrat in the first place is exactly that!

    • Amen, Amen…The stakes are way too important in ways that will severely curtail every single civil liberty and human right which has been fought for and blood shed for over the past half century, if a neo-fascist or evangelical end-of-times religious true-believer with his own private, personal telephone to God acquires the power to appoint more Right wing ideologues to the Supreme Court simply because we on the Left bicker and indulge in internecine squabbles and fail to support the viable candidate with the strength and endurance to to ride out the coming explosion of lies and deception purchased by the $880,000,000 promised by the Kochs to thwart the Democratic nominee. I love Bernie for what he says, but I too volunteered in the 1972 McGovern campaign, and this movement reminds me too painfully of the naive assumptions about McGovern’s electability. It’s wonderful to be bright-eye, young and in love with an ideal…hard reality however, has a way of disabusing us of all those notions at the ballot box.

  8. I like Bernie, but not as a candidate.

  9. Randy

    Insert “Trump” and you have the same narrative from Red State(You can thank me later, someone’s got to do it) about electability. As I was showering this morning I was wondering if this primary season is some strange Baby Boomer Gestalt creation between the American Graffiti bunch and The Summer of Love bunch.

    • I don’t know why questioning Bernie’s electability is a subversive act. A prominent progressive voice (radio show, etc.) got in a huge huff when someone dared to say that the GOP was amassing a ton of oppo research they planned to throw at Sanders if he gets the nomination. That’s 100% true, and it’s going to be the same mix of half-truths and outright fabrications that they threw at Obama. For crying out loud, they called out Obama for hanging with BILL AYERS because they went to a barbecue together. Imagine all the crap they’ll find on Sanders. We already know what they have on Hillary, they’ve been repeating the same stuff for years.

  10. Prup (aka Jim Benton)

    Another loud “Thank You” from this part of Brooklyn. I have reached the stage with Bernie that I am in danger of losing respect for him that started building in the early 80s, when I was involved with a young woman — coincidentally black and bisexual — who told me how great Burlington was. And I’m not going to deny having made some criticiisms of Hillary and expressed my own worries, but that was in 2008. I really was afraid of her sabotaging Obama –and freely admit it was an absurd attack of paranoia..

    So I welcomed Bernie’s candidacy, figuring it would help keep Hillary focused, would give us a chance to pay tribute to a long-working soldier in the fields, and would last about until March.

    Thhere never was any serious idea pf actually nominating him, I was sure. It wasn’t just his age — though that, combined with a physique that hints he shares my attitude towards exercise — which matches the Immortal M.G. Krebs’ towards ‘work!’ — implies he might not be able to stand the pace of what has been one of the hardest jobs in the world. And I didn’t want to give Republicans the chance to argue that with all the Democrats in the country, we couldn’t find one person who’d always been in the party to run. We had to go outside it to find someone who was willing to defend the ‘horrors’ Obama was supposedly inflicting on ur nation.

    But as the battle has gone on, and as the Republicans hesitate between the orange horror and the preferred candidate of the religiously insane, while the Barnberners raved that Hillary is really “Dick Cheney in drag’ who is owned by the ‘war industry’ and insisted that a Senator who had rarely gotten anything passed in a Democratic Congress, and whose coattails were considerably shorter than his rivals could magically get the entire populace to force the new, possibly even more Republican Congress to follow his lead. (Hey guys, “Triumph of the Will’ wasn’t just a movie celebrating Nazism, it was a slogan of the Nazis, because they were arguing, in effect ‘with faith anything is possible.’)

    I started looking a little more closely at Sanders as a President, not just as a candidate, on ability and not on opinions, and I saw someone who has been ineffective at gathering his forces to actually win anything in Congress, or even to succeed — had he tried, which he didn’t — in getting like-minded Senators or Representatives elected. I see someone who doesn’t seem to understand either the strengths or the limitations of Presidential power. (What would Sandersism do for Flint — today, before the Revolution?) He has no foreign policy record AT ALL, he won’t even reveal the names of his advisors on foreign policy, and, honestly, it’s anyone’s guess if he HAS a foreign policy.

    I am afraid he is muddying a fine reputation — we need the Bernie Sanders types as much as any other type of Liberal — and centrist — that agrees with the fundamental ideas of our party. There are more than one ways of going forward, and none of us would get, or should want the utopia we can imagine, because we have three hundred milloin or so people that have to exist as part of the same club. But if he should go on and prove to be a real threat to Hillary, should he make the election of Trump or Cruz possible, he would be unforgivable for the rest of the short duration America would have left — and yes, I think Cruz and Trump are that dangerous.

    [very scattered, even for me, partially because of a long break in the middle, but hopefully I’ll get a chance to clarify it later.]

    • Prup (aka Jim Benton)

      One brief cite before I get busy again, and maybe one more in an hour or two. The first is from one of the “Big Four Little Blogs” (including this one) that I keep trying to develop a flow between. This if from JOBSANGER and is worth reading in its entirety, and clicking on the links. Red McLaughlin, like me, was and is an admirer of Bernie, even donating to his Senate campaign, but is getting more and more annoyed:

      That’s because he has been very dishonest in his talk about super-PACs. He continues to claim that he’s the only candidate who doesn’t have a super-PAC. That is a lie.

      The truth is that no candidate “has” a super-PAC. If they did, they would be violating federal election law. The law prohibits any candidate from having a connection with (or even coordinating with) a super-PAC. His inference, of course, is that Hillary Clinton has a super-PAC. She does not. She has super-PAC support, but so does Sanders (a fact that he omits when talking about this).

      He also charges that Hillary Clinton has raised money for a super-PAC. That is true. Clinton has helped the Priorities USA Action super-PAC to raise money. That is a progressive super-PAC founded to support the election of Barack Obama, and now supports the election of a progressive to be elected president in 2016. Priorities USA Action has spent very little in the primaries — preferring instead to save their money to fight for the Democratic nominee in the general election (which, ironically, would be Sanders if he could win the nomination).

      The impression Sanders is trying to give Democratic voters is that he is not getting super-PAC help, while his opponent (Clinton) is getting massive super-PAC help. Is that true. No. That turns out to also be a lie. The money spent to help the Clinton campaign in the primaries by all outside groups (Priorities Action USA, Correct The Record, Planned Parenthood, and the League of Conservation Voters) is $847,000. Those groups together don’t equal the super-PAC support Sanders has received from the National Nurses United super-PAC, which has spent about $1,000,000 to support Sanders.

      Self-righteous ‘purity’ is always dangerous, because it makes your enemies and some friends only celebrate when you are caught in the type of situation that we all do.

      Beale is right about the lies that Republicans dig up, but we don’t want to give them many truths they can use against us. (They’ll have some, none of us is able always to live up to our own standards, but lets not give them extras.)