I don’t disagree with some of the sentiments here, but I guess it seems that an awful lot of the…
Jeff Allen
146

“I guess it seems that an awful lot of the conversation happening on the left (like this piece) is counterproductive. Like, for example, what is the purpose of this piece, at its root?”

The purpose is to let a crazed Clintonite rant and rave and further illustrate why they have such bad reputations as unlikable, irrational asshats — pretty much the same purpose as any Val Perry Rendel article.

The bullshit in this one alone would require an article twice as long to correct. A few examples:

— She calls Sanders’ record as the “Amendment King” — getting good legislation passed by adding amendments to other bills — as a “hustle he’s pulled in the Senate for 25 years.” Sanders has only been in the Senate 10 years. He was in the House much longer and that’s where he earned the “Amendment King” name (he didn’t give it to himself). He’s accomplished a lot of good things with those amendments:

If you’re a progressive, you support these things. If you’re a Clintonite like Rendel, you dismiss them as some sort of “hustle” and talk up Hillary Clinton, who, during her years in the Senate, sponsored a grand total of three bills that became law, one renaming a highway, one renaming a post-office and one designating a building in Troy, New York as an historic site.

— After peddling the laughable fantasy that Sanders is somehow in the pay of Wall Street and super PACs (citing redundant far-right “sources” as support and, as usual, relying on readers not to click on them), Rendel turns to Our Revoution, which was founded by veterans of the Sanders campaign;

“From some of my exchanges with Bernouts on Twitter, I’m not certain they understand that Our Revolution is, in fact. a PAC. But even if it is, it’s totally ok, because Bernie is raising money for a cause he believes in, while Clinton is motivated by greed and corruption!
“And remember how they threw dollar bills at Hillary Clinton, calling her awhore and a Wall Street shill? Now they are outraged, flummoxed, simply boiling over about Clinton launching her own 501(c)4.”

Our Revolution, which isn’t run by Sanders, is funded by ordinary people via small donations. While not legally required to disclose its donors — a fact that contributed to a staff revolt early on — its directors have committed to disclosing any large donors, the same as with a campaign. Their average contribution in 2016 was $21.94 and they list everyone who has given $250 or more:

Clinton’s Onward Together, on the other hand, is another example of Clinton’s here-today-gone-tomorrow “principles” and the latest manifestation of her utter tone-deafness, another dark-money org established in the shadow of Citizens United to raise undisclosed fortunes from millionaires, billionaires and corporate interests. Just what the world needed, right? Everyone who has ever paid any more than minimal attention to Clinton has noted she’s secrecy-obsessed, vengeful against political opponents and generous to loyalists; she’ll use all of that corrupt money to try to prop up rightist “Democrats,” reward buddies and ass-kissers and hinder progressives. Sarah Jones’ mockery of it is on point; Rendel’s effort to turn that on its head is exactly what it seems.

— Rendel tallies up losses by Our Revolution-backed candidates, “including Heath Mello in Nebraska, who lost what should have been a very winnable race after he made the ‘colossal mistake’ of having Sanders show up to endorse him for mayor of Omaha.” The words “colossal mistake” there aren’t, as Rendel would have you believe, Mello’s. They come from a former Democratic mayoral staffer with no connection to that campaign at all. Rendel’s reaction to that race is another example of her own utterly unhinged hatred of Sanders. Mello held anti-abortion views, a fact that surfaced right before Sanders was set to appear in Omaha to rally on the candidate’s behalf, and Sanders endured a lot of scorn from some Democratic quarters for sticking to his endorsement after that. Rendel also backed Mello and chided Democrats who backed away from him because of his anti-abortion views, portraying them as children. But even with Sanders on her side, she refused to say anything nice about him. Instead, after Mello was defeated, she wrote a piece called “Bernie Fucks It Up Again,” which blamed Sanders for the loss. She described Sanders’ activities on Mello’s behalf as “interference” and of his trip to Omaha, she wrote, “his visit was not warmly welcomed,” but that visit only happened because Jane Kleeb, the head of the state party, had lobbied for months to get Sanders’ endorsement and that DNC-sponsored rally. Here’s some video of his appearance: I’ll leave it to readers to decide if Omaha is giving the cold shoulder to someone it doesn’t welcome here:

— She repeats the dated 2016 Clintonite propaganda about Sanders’ appeal being primarily to white men, regurgitates the tired Russian conspiracy theories and sums up his present standing thusly:

“To win an election — or at least to get the most votes, as Hillary Clinton did — you need support from all kinds and colors of people. You don’t get these by dissing “identity politics” or women’s rights or gun control, or allowing your base to swallow Russian propaganda. There are a lot of working-class white Democrats who saw right through Sanders’s bullshit in 2016, and that number has increased. And ever since those 1,000 Russian bots disappeared immediately after election, A LOT of people who once supported him now see the old grifter for what he really is.”

Meanwhile, in the real world, Sanders is the most popular politician in the U.S. Per the big Harvard-Harris survey from last month, his overall approval stands at 57%, while Hillary Clinton, whom Rendel so adores, is down at 42% — below Donald Trump. Sanders’ approval among Democrats is at 80%, he has more support from women than men and has more support from minorities than from white folks.

For providing this sort of information to her readers, Rendel blocked me not long ago. Something to keep in mind.