Home
by Guest Sat Jul 13, 2019 8:41 amšta bi, skinuše tekst 
šta je to tako nezgodno pisalo?
šta je to tako nezgodno pisalo?
a future to believe in
Erős Pista
- Posts : 82754
Join date : 2012-06-10
Au, jbt.
_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."
Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
- Posts : 82754
Join date : 2012-06-10
Mislim, realno, tekst ima neki bitchy vibe, i na par mesta može da mu se učita nekakva homofobija (mada je autor i sam gej i piše iz pozicije insajder u gej kulturi). Na jednom mestu otprilike kaže - Mejor Pit je oženio prvog dečka, nije imao ni detinjstvo ni mladost, i pre ili kasnije će počne da juri momke sa strane, što nije po sebi problem, ali je problem ako si u tom trenutku u Beloj kući. Pretpostavljam da je to povod da ga skinu sa sajta.
A ima i ovo:
ALi meni se svideo. Duhovit je i suštinski tačan.
A ima i ovo:
ALi meni se svideo. Duhovit je i suštinski tačan.
_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."
Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
- Posts : 82754
Join date : 2012-06-10
My Mayor Pete ProblemHe's smart. He's nice. And he just might be the devil.
By Dale Peck
July 12, 2019
Mark Peterson/Redux
One of the worst things I ever did happened in 1992. I was leaving the bar called The Bar (RIP) on Second Avenue and 4th Street to go to a party called Tattooed Love Child at another bar, Fez, located in the basement of Time Cafe (RIP x 2). TLC was held on Wednesdays (Thursdays?), and I often went to The Bar after work for a few hours so I wouldn’t have to go all the way home first. So it was probably 10-ish, and I know it was late winter/early spring because I was carrying a copy of the completed manuscript of my first novel Martin and John, which I’d just turned in to my publisher that very day. Which makes me 24 and old enough to know better. Or who knows, maybe this was exactly the age to learn this kind of lesson.
What happened was: I was halfway down 4th Street when I heard someone yelling. I turned to see a large fellow running after me. At first I wondered if I was getting gay-bashed. But even though this guy didn’t set off my gaydar he still didn’t seem particularly menacing. When he got closer I clocked the pleated khakis (this was the era of the ACT UP clone—Doc Martens, Levi’s tight or baggy, and activist T-shirts—which look I had embraced fully) and rust-colored Brillo hair. I love me a good ginger, but you gotta know how to style it, especially if it runs frizzy. And so anyway, this guy, whose name was Garfield but said I could call him Gar, told me he’d been in The Bar but had been too shy to talk to me and decided to try his luck on the street. As politely as I could, I told him I wasn’t interested. He asked me how I could know I wasn’t interested when I didn’t know him, which was an invitation for me to tell him that not only did he look like a potato, he dressed, talked, and ran like a potato. Alas, I chose not to indulge his masochistic invitation.
He asked where I was going and I told him. He asked if he could go with me and I told him he could go to Fez if he wanted but he shouldn’t think he was going with me. He came. I quickly learned that he’d mastered the art of speaking in questions, which put me in the awkward position of answering him or ignoring him, which made me feel rude even though I’d told him I wasn’t interested. When he found out I was a writer he got excited and said I must love the New Yorker! I told him I hated the New Yorker. He asked how I could hate the New Yorker and I told him that besides the fact that the New Yorker published shitty fiction (plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose), and the only gay fiction it published was assimilationist and boring, there was also the fact that an editor there (Dan Menaker, if we’re naming names) had rejected a story of mine by suggesting in his correspondence with my agent (by which I mean that he wasn’t embarrassed to write this down, let alone worried about repercussions) that psychological problems were preventing me from creating effective fiction. (By the way, fuck you, Dan.) None of which made any sense to Gar. The New Yorker was important so I must love it. I just didn’t know I loved it yet. Or something like that. At some point in this exchange I remember saying something along the lines of Look, I’m just going to apologize now, because it’s pretty clear that sooner or later I’m going to say something really offensive to you and your feelings are going to be hurt. I don’t want to do that, but you’re clearly not getting the fact that you and I don’t look at the world the same way, and you keep thinking that if you hang around long enough we’re going to find common ground, when all you’re really doing is making our differences that much clearer. He laughed at this, one of those confused/nervous/defensive laughs, and if I’d been more mature I would have been more blunt and told him to get lost. But I too was a little deluded. I thought he had to get the hint eventually. But although I understood pretty much everything else about him, I failed to reckon fully with his lack of self-respect.
I told him I hated the New Yorker.
So: we got to Fez, where I ran into my friend Patrick (Cox, I think, but it’s been a minute), who looked at me like, What are you doing with this weirdo? I wouldn’t let Gar buy me a drink and I did my best to exclude him from my conversation with Patrick but he still wouldn’t take a hint. He must have hung around for a good hour. My answers to his questions grew more and more peremptory. Bear in mind I wasn’t disagreeing with him or dismissing his opinions just to get rid of him: we really had absolutely nothing in common. But we both read the New Yorker and we were both gay and we both wore clothes to cover our nakedness so clearly we were birds of a feather. Finally he said he had to leave. He asked for my number. I remember Patrick laughing in his face, but maybe that’s just because I wanted to laugh in his face. I was like, Are you serious? And he was like, We have so much in common, we should get to know each other better! When I was fifteen years old a pedophile used that line on me in the Chicago bus station, and if I’m being honest I had more in common with the pedo, who was about 50, black, and urban, while I was a white teenager from rural Kansas, than I did with dear old Gar. I told him I wasn’t going to give him my phone number or accept his. He seemed genuinely shocked and hurt, which of course made me feel like shit, which of course made me mad, because why should I feel like shit when I’d spent all night trying to rebuff him? He asked what he would have to do to get me to go out with him. Without thinking, I said, Take a good look at yourself and your world, reject everything in it, and then get back to me. It was the kind of soul-killing line people are always delivering in movies but never comes off in real life, mostly because even the most oblivious, self-hating person usually has enough wherewithal to cut someone off before they’re fully read for filth. I believe I have indicated that Gar did not possess this level of self-awareness. His face went shapeless and blank as though the bones of his skull had melted. For one second I thought I saw a hint of anger, which might’ve been the first thing he’d done all night that I could identify with. Then he scurried away.
Now, I’ve said shitty things to people before and since, but this one’s always stuck with me, partly because, though I’m a peevish fellow, it’s rare that I speak with genuine cruelty, and when I do it’s because I’ve chosen to. This just came out of me. But mostly I remember it because I knew I’d seriously wounded this guy, which, however annoying and clueless he was, was never my intention. I was and still am a very ’90s kind of gay, which is to say that I believe in the brotherhood of homos and the strength of our community, that however different we are we’re all bound together by the nature of our desire and the experience of living in a homophobic world. When one of your brothers fucks up, you school him. Sure, you might get a little Larry Kramer about it, but you don’t go all Arya-and-the-Night-King on his ass.
I’m telling you this because it’s what popped into my head when I tried to pin down my distaste for Pete Buttigieg. Mary Pete and I are just not the same kind of gay. (For those of you wondering about “Mary Pete”: a couple of months ago I asked Facebook what the gay equivalent of Uncle Tom was, and this was the answer at which we collectively arrived.) But Mary Pete and I aren’t different in the same way that Gar and I were different. Gar and I had nothing in common. Mary Pete and I have a lot in common, but at a certain point we came to a fork in the road and I took the one less traveled and he took the one that was freshly paved and bordered by flowers and white picket fences and every house had a hybrid in the driveway and some solar panels on the ceiling, but discrete ones, nothing garish, nothing that would interfere with the traditional look of the neighborhood or the resale value of your home.
By which I mean: Mary Pete is a neoliberal and a Jeffersonian meritocrat, which is to say he’s just another unrepentant or at least unexamined beneficiary of white male privilege who believes (just as Jay Inslee believes he’s done more for women’s reproductive rights than Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar) that he can make life better for all those people who are not like him, not because he knows anything about their lives but because he’s smart and nice and well-meaning, and when smart nice well-meaning people run things everything works out for the best. That’s just, you know, logical. It’s like, science. Like Kirsten Gillibrand, he believes in “healthy capitalism,” which is a bit like saying you believe in “healthy cancer”: Yeah, you can (usually) treat it, but wouldn’t you rather be cured?
Pete and I are just not the same kind of gay.
Most of what I dislike about Mary Pete was expressed in this Current Affairs article, which does a good job of using his own words (mostly from, ugh, Shortest Way Home, his memoir pretending to manifesto) to damn him. Shortest Way Home conjures a young Harvard student who thinks the word “edgy” is sufficient to describe both proto-Dumpster fascist Lyndon LaRouche and Noam Chomsky. His description of Harvard Square takes in those actors who belong to the school; the homeless people who live there are invisible to him, or, even worse, not worth mentioning. He seems perfectly content to dismiss left-wing student activists as “social justice warriors” despite the fact that this phrase is paradigmatic in right-wing discourse. He speaks fondly of his time at McKinsey, a company regularly described as one of the most evil corporations in the world. He joined the military long after 9/11 could sort-of-but-not-really be invoked to justify the U.S. propensity to go to other countries and kill lots of people. By 2007 it was no longer possible to pretend that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were anything other than failed, murderous exercises in empire-building and/or revenge, but despite the fact that these were the only places he was likely to serve he signed up anyway. And though he loves to talk about the notes he left his family in case he didn’t come back, by all accounts his chances of seeing combat were as low as they could be—but boy, he sure got a lot of cute pictures in uniform out of it!
Every move is simultaneously cynical and morally oblivious. They’re the steps one takes not to learn about the world but to become a marketable political candidate (hmmm, what’s a good counter to the whole sleeps-with-men thing? I know: military service!) (side benefit: you’re surrounded by hot guys!) and if as a Harvard-educated Rhodes Scholar you decide not to be a captain of industry, then clearly the White House is where you belong. I mean, sure, he wants to make the world a better place. But the operative word in that sentence, just as it was with Bill Clinton, is “he,” not “world,” and “better,” for Mary Pete, is just the neoliberal variation of “make America great again,” which is to say that in Buttigieg’s version of American history the progressive ideals in the First, Thirteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments, in the Civil Rights Act and Roe v. Wade and marriage equality, are the only authentically American ideas, whereas slavery and Jim Crow and border security and defense of marriage campaigns and heartbeat laws are nothing but aberrations, glitches in the code rather than yin to liberalism’s yang, warp to its weft, a set of ivory chess pieces lined up across from a set of ebony chess pieces and equally powerful.
Like Obama, Buttigieg seems always to be saying that the United States is the only place where someone like him could’ve succeeded, and that he wants everyone to enjoy the same peculiarly American successes that he’s had. But unlike Obama (whose naïveté was at least partly a pose), Buttigieg’s biography belies the idea that his success was either hard won or particularly unlikely. He’s lived the life of a comfortably middle-class white male, but he acts as if it’s his natural gifts (by which he means his intelligence and his ability to speak seven languages and play the piano, although they’re actually his whiteness and maleness and financial security) that have raised him above from the rabble. It’s right there in his “Medicare for all . . . who want it” song and dance. To Mary Pete this is simple egalitarianism and freedom of choice. If you want Medicare, you should be able to have it. And if you want private insurance you should be able to have that. It seems never to occur to him to ask why one would want to pay three or four or ten times more for health care than you have to. Could it possibly be because private insurance will get you better results than Medicare? And could private health care possibly provide better service than Medicare not because of marketplace competition but because as long as there’s a profit motive in health care medical corporations will always seek to maximize profits, and thus favor those “customers” who can pay the most? Embedded in this oblivion are both the liberal delusion that people are naturally good and the neoliberal sophistry that the market, like the tide, will raise everyone up with it.
Pete is just the neoliberal variation of “make America great again.”
Or take his response at the Democratic debate to the murder of Eric Logan by the South Bend police: “I’m not allowed to take sides until the investigation comes back.” Here is a mayor—a man—whose first allegiance isn’t to the victim or the victim’s family or the other people at risk because of a racist police force, but, at the very best, to the system, and maybe to nothing more than his own political future as a centrist Democrat. “I accept responsibility,” he told us, in the same way that the white teenaged boy who gets caught stealing a car or drunk-raping a girl says “I accept responsibility” and fully expects to let off without punishment, because boys will be boys, after all, and isn’t feeling bad punishment enough? Free education? Why, that’s unfair to the working class! They’ll end up paying for the education of all those millions and millions of billionaires’ children! What are we, czarist Russia?
You keep looking for a politics rooted in justice or history or, at the very least, empathy, but everywhere you find nothing besides a kind of idealistic pragmatism, if that’s a thing: a belief that if we only talk about nice things, only nice things will happen. If we only acknowledge our strengths, our faults will fade away. If we trust smart people to do smart things, nothing dumb will happen. Hey, José loved it when Pete answered him in Spanish, right? Education has brought us closer together!
All this makes Mary Pete different from every other left-leaning neoliberal in exactly zero ways. Because let’s face it. The only thing that distinguishes the mayor of South Bend from all those other well-educated reasonably intelligent white dudes who wanna be president is what he does with his dick (and possibly his ass, although I get a definite top-by-default vibe from him, which is to say that I bet he thinks about getting fucked but he’s too uptight to do it). So let’s dish the dish, homos. You know and I know that Mary Pete is a gay teenager. He’s a fifteen-year-old boy in a Chicago bus station wondering if it’s a good idea to go home with a fifty-year-old man so that he’ll finally understand what he is. He’s been out for, what, all of four years, and if I understand the narrative, he married the first guy he dated. And we all know what happens when gay people don’t get a real adolescence because they spent theirs in the closet: they go through it after they come out. And because they’re adults with their own incomes and no parents to rein them in they do it on steroids (often literally). If Shortest Way Home (I mean really, can you think of a more treacly title?) makes one thing clear, Mary Pete was never a teenager. But you can’t run away from that forever. Either it comes out or it eats you up inside. It can be fun, it can be messy, it can be tragic, it can be progenitive, transformative, ecstatic, or banal, but the last thing I want in the White House is a gay man staring down 40 who suddenly realizes he didn’t get to have all the fun his straight peers did when they were teenagers. I’m not saying I don’t want him to shave his chest or do Molly or try being the lucky Pierre (the timing’s trickier than it looks, but it can be fun when you work it out). These are rites of passage for a lot of gay men, and it fuels many aspects of gay culture. But like I said, I don’t want it in the White House. I want a man whose mind is on his job, not what could have been—or what he thinks he can still get away with.
So yeah. Unlike my experience with Gar, I actually want to tell Mary Pete to take a good hard look at his world, at his experiences and his view of the public good as somehow synonymous with his own success, and I want him to reject it. I want to do this not because I have any particular desire to hurt his feelings, but because I made a similar journey, or at least started out from a similar place, and I was lucky enough to realize (thank you, feminism; thank you, ACT UP) that the only place that path leads is a gay parody of heteronormative bourgeois domesticity: the “historic” home, the “tasteful” decor (no more than one nude photograph of a muscular torso per room; statuary only if they’re fair copies of Greek or Roman originals), the two- or four- or six-pack depending on how often you can get to the gym and how much you hate yourself, the theatre (always spelled with an -re) subscription, the opera subscription, the ballet subscription, the book club, the AKC-certified toy dog with at least one charming neurosis and/or dietary tic, the winter vacation to someplace “tropical,” the summer vacation to someplace “cultural,” the specialty kitchen appliances—you just have to get a sous vide machine, it changed our life! Sorry, boys, that’s not a life, it’s something you buy from a catalog. It’s a stage set you build so you can convince everyone else (or maybe just yourself) that you’re as normal as they are. Call me a hick from the sticks, but I don’t want someone who fills out his life like he fills out an AP exam serving as the country’s moral compass. And no, I wouldn’t kick him out of bed.
_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."
Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
- Posts : 1033
Join date : 2015-01-09
^ nije ni čudo da su ga skinuli, glupo do bola. posebno su prvih nekoliko pasusa naporni za čitanje - stil k'o u nekog napaljenog klinca bez ikakvog dara za pisanje.
- Guest
This former federal prosecutor and MSNBC “legal analyst” says Bernie makes her “skin crawl” for reasons she can’t articulate, and furthermore she asserts that he’s not “pro-woman,” whatever the hell that means. Definitely a sound legal mind at work https://t.co/jJimcdhJfN
— Michael Tracey (@mtracey) July 21, 2019
- Posts : 11623
Join date : 2018-03-03
Age : 36
Location : Hotline Rakovica
_____
Sve čega ima na filmu, rekao sam, ima i na Zlatiboru.
~~~~~
Ne dajte da vas prevare! Sačuvajte svoje pojene!
- Guest
preds. Sanders 30. jula u debati protiv Liz Uoren, Betoa, mejora Pita i M. Williamson. biće još i Klobučar, Hikenluper i slična boranija 
dan kasnije revanš Bajden-Kamala, brat Buker se oštri da i on napadne starog Džoa, a nadam se da će i Tulsi da ga šiba za Irak 
dan kasnije revanš Bajden-Kamala
, brat Buker se oštri da i on napadne starog Džoa, a nadam se da će i Tulsi da ga šiba za Irak - Guest
[size=30]Why They Hate Bernie[/size]
BY BRANKO MARCETIC
Remember the frenzied, paranoid style of right-wing anti-Clintonism? The lies, the conspiracy theories, the deeply personal disgust? Well, it’s back — only this time it’s migrated to the Democratic Party and its unhinged attacks on Bernie Sanders.
There’s shocking news out of MSNBC: its ever-more-conservative team of analysts aren’t fans of Bernie Sanders.
“Just as a woman, probably considered a somewhat moderate Democrat, I — Bernie Sanders makes my skin crawl,” former New York prosecutor and MSNBC legal analyst Mimi Rocah told the panelists of last weekend’s Up with David Gura. “I can’t even identify for you what exactly it is, but I see him as sort of a not pro-woman candidate . . . I don’t understand young women who support him.”
Cue smiling and nodding from fellow panelist Zerlina Maxwell.
“We’ll leave it there,” concluded host Gura.
The fact that MSNBC — a network, owned by union-buster and habitual labor rights violator Comcast, that one of its own journalists has criticized for turning into a propaganda arm of the national security state — is hostile to Sanders is not a surprise. If you’d tuned in to the second Democratic debate in June, you would’ve been treated to a pre-show featuring Claire McCaskill (fresh off losing her Senate seat by turning sharply right and alienating and ignoring traditional Democratic voters) running Sanders down and, together with Chris Matthews, making excuses in advance for why Joe Biden would perform poorly (credit where credit’s due: Biden did indeed do horribly). And, if you watched it to the end, you would’ve seen someone at the network audibly scoffing as Sanders made his closing statement.
So MSNBC’s dislike of Sanders is nothing new. What’s significant about Rocah’s statement is that it perfectly sums up the attitude of much of the centrist Democratic establishment when it comes to Sanders.
While in the real world, Bernie Sanders — a politician with a 100-percent Planned Parenthood lifetime rating who’s spent a career speaking out and fighting for the rights of women and other working people — has been preparing this presidential run since 2016, shadowing him has been another Bernie Sanders. Unlike the real Sanders, who was once dubbed an “honorary woman” by feminist Gloria Steinem, this shadow Sanders is an unreconstructed misogynist, and an egomaniac to boot. He’s also a dangerous, authoritarian demagogue, the mirror image of Trump, and just as beholden to Vladimir Putin. Oh, and he’s deeply racist, too.
For the most part, this alternate reality exists solely on Twitter, where self-identified Democrat, liberal, and centrist users routinely vent their rage at the antics of the sinister, online-only Sanders they’ve willed into existence like a cyber Candyman. From time to time, however, it bleeds into the real world.
Just consider some of the idiotic Sanders-related “controversies” we’ve already had to sit through during this election cycle. In February, online outraged erupted because Sanders, for the third year in a row, delivered a rebuttal to Trump’s State of the Union address, this time after the official Democratic rebuttal by Stacey Abrams. This was construed by the anti-Sanders online space as a way for him to “upstage” and silence a black woman.
That outrage was fanned by former Clinton campaign alum Zerlina Maxwell — the same Zerlina Maxwell smiling and nodding as a former prosecutor declared her evidence-free claim that Sanders didn’t care about women. When Kamala Harris — whose actually unsavory record as a prosecutor Maxwell, speaking on MSNBC in 2017, declared off-limits for criticism because “we need to give her a chance to shine or not shine” — turned out to be doing her State of the Union rebuttal beforeAbrams, Maxwell helpfully clarified: “Pre speech is fine. Post speech or after Abrams is not.” Maxwell would later issue a drearily predictable criticism of Sanders’s announcement, claiming he didn’t mention race or gender until twenty-three minutes into his speech, which turned out to be an easily disprovable lie. She later clarified that “talking about criminal justice is not the same thing as talking about race and gender.” (In fact, Sanders did both).
This was just one element of a constant parade of dishonest, sometimes mutually contradictory attacks on Sanders. Former Clinton campaign staffers complained to Politico about “his Royal Majesty King Bernie Sanders” using a private jet during 2016 . . . to campaign in as many places as possible for their candidate. Others complained he didn’t campaign for Clinton enough — a widespread belief in online anti-Sanders fantasyland.
When a woman accused Joe Biden of inappropriate touching, some speculated the accusation was orchestrated by Sanders. Commentators would habitually parse his words in the most uncharitable way possible to suggest he was a bigot. He was said to have hired an “attack dog” and a “bully” — aka an award-winning journalist — as his speechwriter, with one Atlantic piece suggesting a secret arrangement blending campaign work and reporting that had gone on for months, a story that quickly fell apart. The list could go on and on. All the while, Democrats and their boosters demanded party unity and ferociously objected to even the softest critiques of other candidates’ actual voting records.
“I’m not necessarily an anti-Bernie guy, especially not when it comes to his policies,” one ex–Clinton staffer told Vox. “But he has this self-righteous attitude to himself.”
These have been only marginally less desperate than the bog of innuendo, half-truths, and lies anti-Sanders zealots wallow in in extremely online spaces like Twitter. One user edited a video of Sanders telling schoolkids about the history of bigotry in the United States to make it seem like he was uncritically feeding them racist stereotypes. His quoting abolitionist Frederick Douglass was “cultural appropriation,” and offensive because he (i.e., Douglass) didn’t explicitly mention race. And did you know Sanders once used the word “niggardly,” a Middle English word that has nothing to do with the racial slur? Let’s not forget, he’s also a Russian agent.
Something curious has happened here. In their visceral dislike of Sanders, whose record and words they cherry-pick and distort, whom they imbue with sinister motives and conspiracies, and whom some can’t even fully explain what it is about him that sets them off, liberals and centrists are, ironically, aping the very same hatred the Right has long held for a different set of politicians: the Clintons.
Throughout the Clinton years and beyond, conservatives were driven into a frenzy by the occupants of the White House. The Right associated them with all manner of outlandish conspiracies, such as the supposed “murder” of Vince Foster. Just as Sanders’s “honeymoon” in the Soviet Union — actually an official mayoral trip as part of a sister city program Sanders had set up with a Russian city — is constantly trotted out today to attack him, the Right tried to make hay of the fact that Clinton once traveled to the country in the 1960s. Right-wing columnist George Will [url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dU6NBwAAQBAJ&lpg=PA292&ots=38l-kLx8vT&dq=george will clinton "not the worst president we ever had, just the worst person who was ever]opined[/url] that Clinton wasn’t “the worst president we ever had, just the worst person who was ever president.”
“I openly admit that I just don’t like the man, and my disgust is both personal and political,” wrote Trent Lott, one of Clinton’s congressional nemeses.
This rage and delusion was particularly aimed at Clinton’s first lady, later senator from New York. Conservatives distorted and took out of context her academic writing to claim she wanted kids to be able to sue their parents and that she hated the American family. They projected a variety of negative traits onto her personality: that she was angry, aggressive, a Lady Macbeth figure. Her comments that she “could have stayed home and baked cookies” were construed as anti-homemaker, even as Barbara Bush got a pass for saying pretty much the same thing. One right-wing columnist [url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OYsnqkmhZ2EC&lpg=PA243&ots=Q5I09IER0F&dq=Ben J. Wattenberg "values matter most" clinton mikhail]called her[/url] the Democratic equivalent of Mikhail Suslov, the Soviet Communist Party’s secretary of ideology. A New Republic writer who later became a Trump supporter declared her a “false feminist.” It was all part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” Clinton complained was out to get her and her husband.
It’s hard not to read evaluations from the first lady’s 1990s detractors without getting a hint of déjà vu.
“A lot of Americans are uncomfortable with her self-righteousness,” complained Arianna Huffington, then a fervent Clinton administration critic.
“There’s just something about her that pisses people off,” said Sally Quinn, another longtime critic. “You don’t even know why you hate her.”
“People can’t really articulate what it is that they can’t trust,” Clinton-enemy-turned-ally David Brock complained in 2016. “Unfortunately, it’s a mythology that’s part of the culture now.”
The Right’s hatred for the Clintons was rooted, sometimes consciously but often not, in their perception of the couple as the embodiment of 1960s counterculture liberalism — the decade, in the eyes of conservatives, where everything went wrong. Of course, in reality, the Clintons were anything but: Hillary had been a Goldwater girl, they crossed a picket line on their first date, and, as president, Bill was a “wild, drunken Republican dream,” as Time magazine memorably put it. Clinton desired many of the same things the Right did, but they felt a deep, internalized hatred for him and his wife anyway, which they sometimes openly acknowledged they couldn’t explain. It’s a striking parallel with Sanders, who has fought and continues to fight lonely battles for virtually everything Democrats and liberals say they want, yet is now the target of never-ending hatred from those same quarters.
It wasn’t always like this. Sanders used to be beloved by many liberals and Democrats, even establishment ones. MSNBC’s Joy Reid was once a [url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110916155945/http:/blog.reidreport.com/labels/the Bush bailout.html]fan[/url] of Sanders, calling him “the great clarion voice in the Democratic Party,” before transitioning to attacking him full time, even claiming in 2017 that he mistreated his wife. In fact, the network loved having him on during the Obama years to serve as the voice of ordinary progressives, offering him unqualified praise as late as 2014 for being a “bipartisan dealmaker” and securing “genuine progressive victories” as a senator.
What happened? One answer is that many prominent Democrats and liberals don’t actually want the things they say they want — whether it’s because it might alienate their donors, hamper their future money-making prospects, or both. Another answer is that, until 2016, Sanders wasn’t considered a threat to Democratic politics as usual.
The Democratic establishment was fine with Sanders when he was just a lonely voice fighting for progressive values, as long as the gravy train for consultants, lobbyists, donors, and former politicians kept on running. But once he went from just a voice in the wilderness to the head of a movement that threatened to upend this arrangement, something had to be done. This was why the prevailing media narrative around Sanders swiftly changed as his chances increased over the course of 2016. Where he was at first a rumpled wonk whose support consisted of “aging Grateful Dead hipsters, environmentalists and professors,” he quickly became a charismatic yet empty demagogue who lacks understanding of policy and is backed by an army of naive, misguided youth.
It seems that Democrats in the age of Trump haven’t just adopted the playbook of the Right to attack the Left. They’ve also taken on the conspiratorial, frenzied style of antagonism that drove conservative hatred of the Clintons, too. Establishment Democrats may not be able to put their finger on what they don’t like about Sanders, but it’s pretty clear to the rest of us.
https://jacobinmag.com/2019/07/bernie-sanders-msnbc-clintons-vast-right-wing-conspiracy
- Posts : 1033
Join date : 2015-01-09
kao član Kongresa, Sanders je bio i ostao timski igrač.Gargantua wrote:The Democratic establishment was fine with Sanders when he was just a lonely voice fighting for progressive values, as long as the gravy train for consultants, lobbyists, donors, and former politicians kept on running. But once he went from just a voice in the wilderness to the head of a movement that threatened to upend this arrangement, something had to be done.
...
Establishment Democrats may not be able to put their finger on what they don’t like about Sanders, but it’s pretty clear to the rest of us.
kao predsednički kandidat, to baš i nije slučaj. pogotovo ne u ovoj kampanji - njegova retorika se nije mnogo promenila u odnosu na 2016-u, ali su mu osoblje u kampanji ljudi koji su 2016-e glasali za Džil Stajn. pa je reakcija demokrata u skladu sa tim.
- Guest
taj argument o osoblju kao uzroku bi bio preslab i da je tačan, a nije.
Sanders staffs up 2020 campaign
By Ellie French and Elizabeth Hewitt
Mar 22 2019 |
This week Bernie Sanders announced 15 staff members on his national campaign team. Ten of the top staffers are women, including deputy campaign manager Rene Spellman, a veteran of Sanders’ 2016 run.
The organization includes women in every branch of the campaign. It also includes many people of color. Increasing diversity was a priority, said campaign manager Faiz Shakir.
Sanders has said publicly that his campaign was “too white” and “too male” in 2016.
“I think it’s fair to say that he wanted to do things differently this time,” Shakir said.
Issues of sexism and gender discrimination were also raised by former campaign staffers last year. Sanders apologized early this year in the wake of the reports.
Following the announcement of Sanders’ new team, controversy emerged over David Sirota, who previously worked as a journalist for Capital & Main and a columnist for the Guardian. The Atlantic reported Sirota was advising the campaign — and attacking other candidates on Twitter — before he officially came on board as a speechwriter and senior communications adviser.
Shakir said the campaign feels Sirota was “above board” in the transition, noting he was transparent with his previous employers.
“We feel confident in the way in which he conducted himself during the course of those conversations,” Shakir said. “It feels like there’s an effort to try to make that a much bigger deal than it actually is.”
Shakir was untroubled by the movement of several Sanders 2016 veterans to Beto O’Rourke’s campaign, as Seven Days reported this week.
“The fluctuation of staffing is normal for the course of business in these campaigns,” Shakir said.
Here are the members of Sanders’ campaign team:
• Faiz Shakir, Campaign Manager
Shakir previously worked as the ACLU’s national political director, overseeing the organization’s Washington office and state advocacy and policy departments. Shakir has a reputation for being well-connected in liberal circles. He has limited campaign experience, but has worked as a senior adviser to former Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Shakir also founded the blog ThinkProgress.org, a news site from the progressive Center for American Progress Action Fund. He is the first Muslim campaign manager for a major presidential campaign.
• Rene Spellman, Deputy Campaign Manager
Spellman is returning to Sanders’ presidential campaign team — in 2016, she was the Sanders’ team’s national director of traveling press and media logistics, where she was said to “run a tight ship.” She got her start in politics as a youth vote director on Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, and then as a senior adviser in Florida during his 2012 re-election campaign. She was the campaign manager on Georgia businessman Jim Barksdale’s failed 2016 U.S. Senate campaign. Most recently, Spellman worked for the Creative Artists Agency, an L.A.-based talent agency, where she connected clients with advocacy and philanthropic work.
• Ari Rabin-Havt, Chief of Staff
Rabin-Havt is an in-house hire for the Sanders’ campaign; he was deputy chief of staff in Sanders’ Senate office. Rabin-Havt has a background in media: He worked for The Agenda on SiriusXM and at Media Matters for America. He also served as an adviser to former Vice President Al Gore and former U.S. Sen. Harry Reid.
• Analilia Mejia, Political Director
Mejia comes to the campaign from the New Jersey Working Families Alliance, where she served as executive director, defecting from home state loyalties to Sen. Cory Booker. Her background is largely grassroots and labor organizing in New Jersey and the Midwest, and she’s worked on issues like $15 minimum wage and automatic voter registration. She has worked for organizations like the Service Employees International Union, Unite Here, Workers United and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, among others.
• Sarah Badawi, Deputy Political Director
Badawi worked as a senior adviser on Sanders’ 2018 Senate campaign. Previously, she served as legislative affairs director for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee.
• Claire Sandberg, National Organizing Director
Sandberg worked as distributed organizing director on Sanders’ 2016 campaign, and has a background in a Michigan gubernatorial race and in health care reform. Recently, she has repeatedly defended Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., on Twitter, saying Omar was “unfairly vilified” for the calling-out of AIPAC, a controversial move that some said was anti-Semitic.
• Josh Orton, Policy Director
Orton is another transfer from Sanders’ Senate office, where he worked as a senior adviser. Orton previously worked for Sens. Russ Feingold and Harry Reid, as well as for the nonprofit NARAL Pro-Choice America.
• Heather Gautney, Senior Policy Adviser
A sociology professor at Fordham University, Gautney served as a senior policy adviser on the Senate Budget Committee when Sanders was the committee’s ranking member. She worked as a senior researcher for Bernie 2016, and as a legislative fellow in Sanders’ office from 2012-13.
• Arianna Jones, Communications Director
Jones is a veteran on Sanders’ communication team. She served as deputy communications director on the 2016 campaign, and as the senior communications adviser for Friends of Bernie Sanders, Sanders’ Senate campaign committee. She has also worked as a senior vice president at Revolution Messaging, a progressive public relations agency, and as a producer for MSNBC.
• Sarah Ford, Deputy Communications Director
Since working as national deputy press secretary on Bernie 2016, Ford worked on Cynthia Nixon’s unsuccessful New York gubernatorial bid, did public relations for labor unions, and was a communications adviser for Friends of Bernie Sanders.
• Briahna Joy Gray, National Press Secretary
Coming to the campaign from The Intercept, where she worked as a columnist and senior politics editor, Gray is one of the bigger names on Sanders’ team. A recent New York Magazine article called Gray out for left-wing factionalism, noting that she dismissed reports of Russia hacking Democratic emails in 2016, to the dismay of Sanders supporters who said it distracted from the content of the emails. A strong supporter of ranked-choice voting, she ultimately cast her ballot for Jill Stein. Previously, Gray worked as a lawyer at a boutique New York litigation firm.
• David Sirota, Senior Communications Adviser & Speechwriter
Sirota comes from a career in journalism, as an investigative reporter at Newsweek/IBT and Capital & Main, a columnist at The Guardian, and a radio host in Denver. He has also had a few political gigs, including working as Sanders’ House press secretary in the early 2000s. Sirota came under fire for allegedly presenting as an independent journalist while already advising Sanders.
• Georgia Parke, Senior Social Media Strategist
Parke has served in Sanders’ Senate office since 2016 as digital director, managing the senator’s social media pages.
• Tim Tagaris, Senior Adviser
Tagaris worked as digital fundraising director during Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign. Tagaris has led small-dollar fundraising for organizations like Giffords: Courage to Fight Gun Violence, VoteVets, Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy and Stacey Abrams’ Georgia gubernatorial campaign.
• Robin Curran, Digital Fundraising Director
Curran did fundraising work during the 2018 election cycle as email director for the Democratic National Committee. She has also worked on several progressive campaigns, including Bernie 2016. She faces high expectations in the role after the 2020 campaign’s $6 million first day, a figure that far outpaced that of the competition.
- Posts : 1033
Join date : 2015-01-09
najglasniji su Nina Tarner, Briana Grej Džoj, i Dejvid Sirota. Tarner i Grej Džoj su podržali Džil Stajn. prilepak je Kornel Vest, koji je takođe podržao Džil Stajn. to su oni koji nešto znače u PR-u.
pozadinsko osoblje je manje bitno.
edit: navodno, Sanders je ovaj put imao znatno više problema da nađe kvalitetno osoblje. mnogo veća konkurencija, pun qrac kandidata.
pozadinsko osoblje je manje bitno.
edit: navodno, Sanders je ovaj put imao znatno više problema da nađe kvalitetno osoblje. mnogo veća konkurencija, pun qrac kandidata.
- Guest
da je angažovao dvoje drugih ljudi umesto Tarner i briebriejoy, demokrate bi imale bitno bolji odnos prema njemu? u to niko ne može iskreno da veruje.
- Posts : 7341
Join date : 2014-11-07
da je angazovo nekog drugog mesto sirote, dejvid bi ga sajmon, autor najbolje serije svih vremena zice, podrzo. napiso onoliko tvitova o tome. ovako mu je elizabet voren prvi izbor.
mnogo strasno sto berni gubi ovakve ljude.
Bernie is my second choice behind Warren. His embrace of Sirota and that ilk, and the tone of missives like this one -- while Warren delivers her agenda without a rush of sideswipes -- make him so.
— David Simon (@AoDespair) June 19, 2019
mnogo strasno sto berni gubi ovakve ljude.
Last edited by zvezda je zivot on Thu Jul 25, 2019 6:30 pm; edited 3 times in total
_____
ova zemlja to je to
- Posts : 1033
Join date : 2015-01-09
čitati sve što sam napisao. on je u predsedničkim kampanjama bio i ostao manje timski igrač od ostalih, pri čemu je to znatno izraženije u ovoj kampanji.Djamolidine Abdoujaparov wrote:da je angažovao dvoje drugih ljudi umesto Tarner i briebriejoy, demokrate bi imale bitno bolji odnos prema njemu? u to niko ne može iskreno da veruje.
sa drugačijim osobljem bi imao znatno manje negativnog publiciteta, to je sigurno. možda mu se to na kraju i isplati, ko će ga znati.
kao predsednički kandidat, to baš i nije slučaj. pogotovo ne u ovoj kampanji.
- Guest
čitam baš sve što si napisao, nego ovo za osoblje kao uzrok odnosa establišmenta ima više smisla nego ta tvrdnja o "timskoj igri".Gargamel wrote:čitati sve što sam napisao. on je u predsedničkim kampanjama bio i ostao manje timski igrač od ostalih, pri čemu je to znatno izraženije u ovoj kampanji.Djamolidine Abdoujaparov wrote:da je angažovao dvoje drugih ljudi umesto Tarner i briebriejoy, demokrate bi imale bitno bolji odnos prema njemu? u to niko ne može iskreno da veruje.
sa drugačijim osobljem bi imao znatno manje negativnog publiciteta, to je sigurno. možda mu se to na kraju i isplati, ko će ga znati.
kao predsednički kandidat, to baš i nije slučaj. pogotovo ne u ovoj kampanji.
kako se meri to koliki je neko timski igrač? verovatno istom spravom kojom se meri i electability. mislim, to je u stvari samo ono što je ekipa kojoj Berni ideološki ne odgovara rešila da danas stavi na placeholder za razloge zbog kojih Berni nije košer. sutra će biti nešto drugo, šta god već može da posluži da se Berni predstavi kao neko ko radi u korist Tranparinog drugog mandata.
kako se 2016. manifestovalo to što je bio manje timski igrač od ostalih? tako što nije išao u kampanju za HRC? tako što je napadao zbog mejlova i govora na Wall Streetu? oh, wait...
HRC je bila bitno gora u prajmarijima 2008 prema Obami nego što je Berni ikada bio prema njoj u 2016.
procentualno je više njenih glasača otišlo Mekejnu nego što je Bernijevih otišlo Trampu. i onda je Berni manje timski igrač nego ona
jedino ima smisla reći da "nije timski igrač" jer ne fura ideološku liniju rukovodstva partije (a to samo po sebi nije ništa loše)--ali onda tek nema smisla reći da mu u ovoj kampanji to posebno nedostaje, jer je u ovoj kampanji njegova ideologija ista kao u prethodnoj, ali i mnogo više mejnstrim nego pre 4 godine.
- Guest
Берни им љуља чамац, is all. And it has been such a comfortable boat, for some.
- Guest
+1
to je sve isto kao ono kad se neko usudio da kritikuje Šumeru Čaka što nije uterao glas Džoa Menčina protiv nominacije Kavanoa. kaže na tu kritikuGargamel Nira Tanden: nećemo valjda da jedemo svoje ljude!
nikad nije dobar trenutak da se kritikuje partija, partijska ideologija i partijsko rukovodstvo. ima faš cheerio u beloj kući, nećemo valjda da ne budemo timski igrači... a u nikad boljoj demografskoj situaciji od Obamine pobede do danas skoro isključivo gube izbore. ali nećemo valjda baš sad da kritikujemo i da pokušavamo neku drugu politiku!
to je sve isto kao ono kad se neko usudio da kritikuje Šumeru Čaka što nije uterao glas Džoa Menčina protiv nominacije Kavanoa. kaže na tu kritiku
nikad nije dobar trenutak da se kritikuje partija, partijska ideologija i partijsko rukovodstvo. ima faš cheerio u beloj kući, nećemo valjda da ne budemo timski igrači... a u nikad boljoj demografskoj situaciji od Obamine pobede do danas skoro isključivo gube izbore. ali nećemo valjda baš sad da kritikujemo i da pokušavamo neku drugu politiku!
- Posts : 1033
Join date : 2015-01-09
sve je pod lupom, pa i osoblje koje se angažuje. timska igra se meri time koliko pokušavaš da ostaneš u dobrim odnosima sa svima, pomogneš kada treba, podržiš koga treba čak i kada radije to ne bi radio, prećutiš ponešto... timska igra definitivno nije kada uporno insistiraš da u stvari i nisi deo partije, a partijske aparatčike i kolege tretiraš kao prezira vredne i korumpirane.Djamolidine Abdoujaparov wrote:nego ovo za osoblje kao uzrok odnosa establišmenta ima više smisla nego ta tvrdnja o "timskoj igri".
Sandersov najgori trenutak 2016-e je bio kada je krajem maja (ili početkom juna) tvrdio kako bi superdelegati trebalo da glasaju za njega ako izgubi malom razlikom. pa su njegovi napravili i šou na konvenciji.
Klintonka je 2008-e bacila peškir početkom juna, jer je već tada planirala da pokuša ponovo. pa se i ponašala u skladu sa tim.
edit: Vorenka ne gura liniju rukovodstva, ali je timski igrač. pa je tako i tretiraju.
- Guest
uporno pomeraš stative. potpuno su nejasni ti kriterijumi timske igre, zato izgledaju kao nešto što se po potrebi šteluje da bi određeni kandidat bio diskvalifikovan.Gargamel wrote:sve je pod lupom, pa i osoblje koje se angažuje. timska igra se meri time koliko pokušavaš da ostaneš u dobrim odnosima sa svima, pomogneš kada treba, podržiš koga treba čak i kada radije to ne bi radio, prećutiš ponešto... timska igra definitivno nije kada uporno insistiraš da u stvari i nisi deo partije, a partijske aparatčike i kolege tretiraš kao prezira vredne i korumpirane.Djamolidine Abdoujaparov wrote:nego ovo za osoblje kao uzrok odnosa establišmenta ima više smisla nego ta tvrdnja o "timskoj igri".
Sandersov najgori trenutak 2016-e je bio kada je krajem maja (ili početkom juna) tvrdio kako bi superdelegati trebalo da glasaju za njega ako izgubi malom razlikom. pa su njegovi napravili i šou na konvenciji.
Klintonka je 2008-e bacila peškir početkom juna, jer je već tada planirala da pokuša ponovo. pa se i ponašala u skladu sa tim.
edit: Vorenka ne gura liniju rukovodstva, ali je timski igrač. pa je tako i tretiraju.
1. kako može "uporno da insistira da u stvari nije deo partije" a da istovremeno
znači Berni "uporno insistira da u stvari nije deo partije" samo kad učestvuje u prajmarijima te partije? gde se vidi to uporno insistiranje?Gargamel wrote:kao član Kongresa, Sanders je bio i ostao timski igrač.
2. koje partijske aparatčike tretira kao prezira vredne i korumpirane? Debbie Wasserman Schultz? pa to je potpuno opravdano, kako bi trebalo da je tretira nakon što su se pojavili oni mejlovi?
ako je ovo jedan od kriterijuma za utvrđivanje timske igre, kako je onda njegovo ne-timsko igranje
koje je to aparatčike gore tretirao u ovoj kampanji nego u prethodnoj? šta su konkretni primeri toga? drugo, s obzirom na iskustvo sa DWS, na osnovu čega bi mu iko mogao zameriti nepoverenje prema partijskim strukturama koje mu očigledno nisu bile naklonjene prošli put?Gargamel wrote:znatno izraženije u ovoj kampanji
3. "pokušavaš da ostaneš u dobrim odnosima sa svima": kako bi Berni mogao da bude timski igrač u kongresu i da tamo uspeva da progura stvari do kojih mu je stalo a da ne pokušava (i da mu ne uspeva) upravo ovo, ili nešto vrlo blizu tome? on i sa Bajdenom ima okej odnos, i sa Voren, ne vidim da sa bilo kime ima loš odnos osim sa HRC i I'm with her ekipom. ako je to merilo ne-timske igre, onda je jasno da je to fabrikovan kriterijum koji služi da se tačno on diskredituje kao kandidat.
"pomogneš kada treba, podržiš koga treba čak i kada radije to ne bi radio, prećutiš ponešto": za sve ovo postoje jasni primeri, i to baš u predsedničkoj kampanji, kad je Berni supposedly ne-timski igrač. podržao HRC, veoma se angažovao u njenoj kampanji, prećutao u prajmarijima teme kao što su mejlovi i govori na Wall Streetu koje je mogao da potegne kad god je hteo.
4. u stvari, od svih kriterijuma koje navodiš, jedino za šta bi moglo da se kaže da je
je to što je ovog puta angažovao dve crnkinje koje su podržale Džil Stajn. a onda stvarno ispada da je to razlog za nenaklonost establišmenta. a to je, da izvineš, potpuni bullshit.Gargamel wrote:znatno izraženije u ovoj kampanji
evo lepo ne znam, možda nisam dovoljno pratio, iskreno me zanima gde se još vidi taj ne-timski pristup. ali konkretno, a ne u nekom it goes without saying smislu u kojem se to među centristima tretira.
- Posts : 37657
Join date : 2014-10-27
sandersov najveci plus u nekim eventualnim predsednickim izborima ce biti to sto ga ne percipiraju kao demokratskog timskog igraca. bas kao i tramparu.
razlika je ta sto ce GOPeri uvek na kraju da legnu na rudu zato sto je njihova ideologija pork barrel na koji ce sesti njihov kandidat uz neki mizerni dodatak podilazenja hriscanskoj desnici sto ne kosta nista.
razlika je ta sto ce GOPeri uvek na kraju da legnu na rudu zato sto je njihova ideologija pork barrel na koji ce sesti njihov kandidat uz neki mizerni dodatak podilazenja hriscanskoj desnici sto ne kosta nista.
_____
And Will's father stood up, stuffed his pipe with tobacco, rummaged his pockets for matches, brought out a battered harmonica, a penknife, a cigarette lighter that wouldn't work, and a memo pad he had always meant to write some great thoughts down on but never got around to, and lined up these weapons for a pygmy war that could be lost before it even started
- Guest
ne baš zato što ga ne percipiraju kao timskog igrača, nego zato što se prvi posle dugog vremena iskreno obraća glasačima na način različit od Atari demokrata. to je jedini način da se značajnije proširi elektorat demokratske stranke, da širi krug potencijalnih glasača izađe na izbore jer će imati razlog za to bolje usklađen sa sopstvenim interesima od prostog plašenja Trampom. partijski establišment će to da naziva ne-timskom igrom, ali ne mislim da će percepcija Bernija kao ne-timskog demokrate da bude ono što motiviše ljude da za njega glasaju (možda neki veoma mali broj glasača).bruno sulak wrote:sandersov najveci plus u nekim eventualnim predsednickim izborima ce biti to sto ga ne percipiraju kao demokratskog timskog igraca. bas kao i tramparu.
razlika je ta sto ce GOPeri uvek na kraju da legnu na rudu zato sto je njihova ideologija pork barrel na koji ce sesti njihov kandidat uz neki mizerni dodatak podilazenja hriscanskoj desnici sto ne kosta nista.
- Posts : 37657
Join date : 2014-10-27
Djamolidine Abdoujaparov wrote:ne baš zato što ga ne percipiraju kao timskog igrača, nego zato što se prvi posle dugog vremena iskreno obraća glasačima na način različit od Atari demokrata. to je jedini način da se značajnije proširi elektorat demokratske stranke, da širi krug potencijalnih glasača izađe na izbore jer će imati razlog za to bolje usklađen sa sopstvenim interesima od prostog plašenja Trampom. partijski establišment će to da naziva ne-timskom igrom, ali ne mislim da će percepcija Bernija kao ne-timskog demokrate da bude ono što motiviše ljude da za njega glasaju (možda neki veoma mali broj glasača).bruno sulak wrote:sandersov najveci plus u nekim eventualnim predsednickim izborima ce biti to sto ga ne percipiraju kao demokratskog timskog igraca. bas kao i tramparu.
razlika je ta sto ce GOPeri uvek na kraju da legnu na rudu zato sto je njihova ideologija pork barrel na koji ce sesti njihov kandidat uz neki mizerni dodatak podilazenja hriscanskoj desnici sto ne kosta nista.
ne-timski = nije deo establismenta.
_____
And Will's father stood up, stuffed his pipe with tobacco, rummaged his pockets for matches, brought out a battered harmonica, a penknife, a cigarette lighter that wouldn't work, and a memo pad he had always meant to write some great thoughts down on but never got around to, and lined up these weapons for a pygmy war that could be lost before it even started
- Guest
da da, kapiram, samo nisam ubeđen da je to nešto što može da motiviše bitan broj birača. njemu trebaju radništvo i sirotilja, otprilike, koji slabo izlaze na izbore i kojima, pretpostavljam, taj status anti-establišment kandidata nije posebno bitan faktor kad se odlučuju da li da izađu. tačno obrnut proces, mutatis mutandis, od onog Šumerovog “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”
mislim da za uspeh u tome nije presudno da li ga birači percipiraju kao run of the mill demokratu ili nekog anti-establišment maverika. ne može da škodi, doduše.
mislim da za uspeh u tome nije presudno da li ga birači percipiraju kao run of the mill demokratu ili nekog anti-establišment maverika. ne može da škodi, doduše.
- Posts : 1033
Join date : 2015-01-09
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/03/08/bernie-sanders-democrat-complicated/EqijixWUCUXz4dOxcMgF1N/story.htmlDjamolidine Abdoujaparov wrote:znači Berni "uporno insistira da u stvari nije deo partije" samo kad učestvuje u prajmarijima te partije? gde se vidi to uporno insistiranje?
“I am a Democrat now,” Sanders proclaimed to reporters at the State House in November 2015.
...
Last year, when it came time for Sanders to stand for reelection to the Senate in Vermont, he did what he has done since he sought the Burlington mayor’s office in 1980: He ran as an independent.
https://www.npr.org/2019/03/04/700121429/bernie-sanders-files-to-run-as-a-democrat-and-an-independent
Bernie Sanders filed Monday to be a candidate for the Senate in 2024 — as an independent. But last month, Sanders filed as a Democrat for president.
kleti establišment su oni koji ga ne podržavaju, što je u njegovoj retorici jednako korupcija. Planned Parenthood (prošli put) i ThinkProgress (ovaj put), do otvorenih optužbi za nameštanje ovaj put. posebno je glup ovaj deo o tome "kako neki ljudi kažu", tako i Tramp voli da sere.koje je to aparatčike gore tretirao u ovoj kampanji nego u prethodnoj? šta su konkretni primeri toga?
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jun/27/bernie-sanders-some-people-say-i-would-have-been-n/
Sen. Bernard Sanders reopened old wounds for Democrats this week, saying “some people say” he would have defeated President Trump in 2016 if the party’s nominating system wasn’t “rigged” against him.
“Some people say that if maybe that system was not rigged against me, I would have won the nomination and defeated Donald Trump — that’s what some people say,” he said.
tako je. ali to ide u oba smera... na osnovu čega bi ljudi koji su ceo život proveli kao partijski aktivisti bili naklonjeni tipu koji i nije deo partije, i očito ima nameru da im svima redom hebe milu majku?Gargamel wrote:na osnovu čega bi mu iko mogao zameriti nepoverenje prema partijskim strukturama koje mu očigledno nisu bile naklonjene prošli put?
mislim... Sandersova retorika + retorika osoblja je u dobroj meri to da bi oni najradije pregazili demokratsku stranku, i umesto postojećih struktura stvorili nove i starije.
Similar topics
