If you watched CNN’s Anderson Cooper throw political batting-practice to Hillary Clinton, you’re supposed to believe that she actually intends to un-stack the deck.
By RA Monaco
Most people who are “feelin’ the bern” have deafened to the unimaginative discussions about how money will ultimately decide our 2016 presidential election. We get it—we’re screwed. And, we’re mad as hell!
If you watched CNN’s Anderson Cooper throw political batting-practice to Hillary Clinton during the recent debate, you’re supposed to believe that she actually intends to un-stack the deck and make “it possible for every child to live up to his or her God-given potential.”
Apparently, CNN and Hillary both view Americans as having become so weak minded, intellectually dumbed-down, brain-washed, misinformed, or at least too tired to become informed, that we will ignore the inconsistencies in her boasts of progressivism. Her claims of progressivism and history, when examined more closely don’t seem to be the solid footing she’s asked you to accept.
Instead of focusing on the more serious issues facing our country—poverty, inequality, trade policies, and the Citizens United Supreme Court decision—CNN, like most of the media, zeroed-in on Sanders politically unorthodox solidarity with Clinton about her “damn emails.” The context of Bernie Sanders response was about the failures of the media, not political solidarity with Hillary. The “damn emails” was Bernie’s example of the shallow media coverage of the issues—now confirmed.
At this point, CNN has earned the reputation for something other than journalism—allow me to provide a few examples.
Asking Bernie Sanders, “Do Black lives matter, or do all lives matter?” during the debate, pulled back the curtain on the Establishment game when they didn’t pose the same question to Hillary. Didn’t every American want to hear Hillary’s response to that same question?
The fact that CNN soft-tossed a different question to Hillary, “what will you do for African Americans in this country that President Obama couldn’t” says plenty about this establishment-scripted theater we were delivered. Instead of asking only Hillary and using the word “couldn’t” which seems to imply that the President was unable to capitulate enough, a more probative question would’ve substituted the word “didn’t” and let the chips fall.
My take away from this Hillary-crafted sleight-of-hand, is that the battle field for the democratic nomination may ultimately rest with African American voters. CNN is calling the pitches, giving Hillary the signs and throwing batting practice fastballs over the plate for her to swing away.
CNN has projected a willingness to gloss over Hillary’s profound lack of authenticity. Not unlike what Fox News does for anointed conservatives. They’ve become the unofficial public relations cable network for establishment democrats like Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel.
CNN is the same cable network that politically coordinated the eight-part documentary series “Chicagoland” with the mayor’s office in advance of Rahm Emanuel’s highly contested reelection. Like Hillary, the media savvy Rahm Emanuel was launched from the Obama Administration, initially serving as his Chief of Staff.
When the CNN debate came around to the subject of overreaching illegal surveillance of the NSA, there was no follow-up challenge to Clinton’s disingenuous suggestion that Edward Snowden could have gotten all the protections of a whistleblower. Shouldn’t Anderson Cooper have asked Hillary about Thomas Drake? Or, for the name of someone who has successfully used the traditional whistle blowing process since 9/11?
In an email to the Intercept, the executive director of the Government Accountability Project Anna Myers commented that “Hillary Clinton is wrong and misinformed” about her suggestion and Snowden’s act of conscience.
Here’s a question for Black Lives Matter activists: Even if Hillary greases your political wheels, promises you more than every other candidate and continues to show up at your churches, do you really think she will fight for your causes? Are Black Lives Matter activists really giving Hillary a pass on the stereotyped racism and misogyny the Clinton’s used during their “Welfare Queen” campaign against federal assistance?
Plenty of witnesses have spoken out about Hillary’s days at the Children’s Defense Fund and her betrayal of those children as First Lady which, during the recent debate, Hillary actually used to support her claim of progressive activism. Does she get a pass on that too?
Doesn’t Hillary’s poll-watching flip-flop on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) undermine your confidence a little? Her going on the record against the TPP is misleading—it’s politically calculated theater, not independent thinking—look who has funded her campaign. Our trade policies have cost us millions of decent jobs.
In fact, as First Lady, Hillary championed President Bill Clinton’s disastrous North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) which simply opened the exit door for domestic manufacturing to leave for cheap labor.
With substantial support from republicans, President Obama’s TPP crusade will no doubt leverage campaign finance support across the aisle—the promise of future campaign dollars may well determine its passage. The President has strategically engineered an up-and-down vote on the TPP which, by design, is intended to circumvent both legislative debate and amendment.
Bernie Sanders’ position on the TPP is unqualified and a clear matter of record. Anderson Cooper’s question to Hillary smacks of politically scripted poll watching. It’s disingenuous for Hillary to qualify her position in response to the question. As the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has had access to far more information about the secret trade agreement than legislators. Simply go back to her response and listen carefully to Hillary’s words. Clearly, she’s positioned herself to support the TPP at some point in the future.
Chicagoans’ with dreams of “hope and change” have been loyal to President Obama—how has that worked for them? In 2012, we still had 46.5 million people living in poverty. Our now underemployed and flexible workforce makes less than we did in 2008. Beyond big banks and transnational corporations, who exactly recovered—students, homeowners, and our youth?
Using gender and a page from the Obama playbook, Hillary somehow thinks her uterus translates into Americans hope for change. She brought it up! Now she wants your vote—maybe CNN will do a documentary series for her too.
Here’s a history question for Black Lives Matter activists: Was Hillary part of the desegregation protests for Chicago Public Schools in the 60’s? Bernie Sanders was! In fact, Sanders was an on campus leader of the civil rights movement at the University of Chicago where he got his political science degree in 1964.
What could Black Lives Matter activists have learned from Sanders’ public statement, “I plead guilty—I should have been more sensitive at the beginning of this campaign to talk about this issue?”
Now, when was the last time you heard a politician stand up and take it on the chin?
Bernie Sanders has spent fifty years fighting for civil rights and your dignity—isn’t he the type of ally Black Lives Matter activists should embrace?
In August, the Sanders’ campaign responded to the Black Lives Matter movement with a racial justice platform—he’s been a reliable civil rights vote in the Senate since 2006 and before that, throughout his seven terms in the House. His voting record supports the conclusion that he “walks the walk.”
Sanders’ focus on economic justice should also be important to Black Lives Matter activists. How often have we seen a candidate with a long established voting record that supports their platform?
If rumors are actuate, Deray Mckesson may monitor a Black Lives Matter Town Hall for these candidates—let us hope these questions are explored as well as the police violence Americans now know is real.
In 2010, Sanders stood up to President Obama in defiance of continuing the Bush Era tax cuts for the wealthy. He has continued working to curb the excesses of the Patriot Act. He has consistently opposed military interventions and was a strong opponent of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and overtly critical of the War on Terror, particularly mass surveillance and the USA Patriot Act. He remains a proponent of universal healthcare.
Bernie Sanders has stood in the path of republicans and, sadly, the President from cutting Social Security while turning the debate towards expanding it. Now, republicans are planning to shut down the government while holding Social Security and Medicare hostage to their extortion tactics.
He’s savvy to republicans’ growing support for immigration reforms because he believes they hope to use Latinos to lower wages. Sanders response is to embrace immigration reforms and raise the minimum wage, not build a wall.
Black Lives Matter activists could go a long way, it seems, toward helping their own cause—a genuinely important cause—by working to help inform Bernie Sanders so that he understands the full scope of their needs and concerns. In doing that, Black Lives Matter activists might also help change the financial calculus of electoral politics.
The question for the American “people” needs to be, who will speak for us—not who will raise the most campaign cash.