Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. (Courtesy: Mother Jones)

Responding To The Mainstream Media, Hillary Supporters Demand That Bernie Sanders Should Shut Up

…especially if Hillary has to, because they say “she has a story to tell.”

On the Democratic hack website, The Daily Banter, author Justin Rosario argues in his whiny article that Hillary is being treated more unfairly than Bernie, because people are asking her to get out of the spotlight, but not doing it with him, which is a double standard, apparently. Also, since Bernie lost to Hillary in the (rigged) primary by 3–4 million votes, there is no reason for Bernie to even be taken seriously. They claim if he couldn’t beat Hillary, how could he beat Trump? All of this bullshit, among other things, is put forth without batting an eye.

Let me easily unpack the logic in this tripe, as long as it takes me, because it deserves that much.

To kick things off, the claim that he lost to Hillary by more than 3 million votes in a primary election, when nobody knew we who the fuck he was, doesn’t mean he wouldn’t win in a general against the most unpopular candidate in the country. Bernie was already popular to the people that knew him in Vermont and his ideas were all popular, according to polls.

Also, Bernie was beating Trump by up to 15 points in, at least, one head-to-head poll:

…while Hillary was just a few points ahead:

If that wasn’t enough, the author even attacks Bernie for writing his own book during the primary, instead of focusing on beating Trump. Of course, anybody that was following the general election saw that Bernie was campaigning for Hillary AFTER the Democratic National Convention, while BEFORE that he was trying to get the party to embrace a more populist agenda, since polls were showing Hillary only beating Trump within the margin of error. So, to act like Bernie was totally absent is exaggeration, at best.

But yes, Bernie should have totally faded into the background, because he lost to Hillary, even though his policies were the ones people loved (if you asked them specifically what they want), while nobody even knew what the fuck Hillary stood for, other than being anti-Trump and being a woman.

Then the author picks out an excerpt from Bernie’s book “Our Revolution,” where it shows that he “attacked” Hillary. Of course, it was far from an attack, as it showed Bernie pointing out that the primary was rigged in favor of her, because of how she already had a big chunk of the super delegates locked up and got all the endorsements she needed, while he was completely unknown and had to come from behind to even be recognized.

These are facts. Period. There is no attack on Hillary, smearing her in any way, or even calling her out on the issues they went at it over during the primary. Just reality.

Unsurprisingly, the author doesn’t acknowledge any of the things from the excerpt being true, but easily transitions into talking about how the attacks Hillary lobbed at Bernie in her book is “verifiably true,” from calling him and his supporters sexist, claiming that his ACCURATE criticisms of her led her to being called “Crooked Hillary,” which is all trivial, at best. She also said that he didn’t care if she was portrayed in a negative light, and if it affected her during the general, basically suggesting that he didn’t care if Trump won.

In classic establishment, neoliberal, Democratic Party fashion, it’s not a Hillarybot whine fest, if you don’t bring up “Russian hacking,” and put forth the “evidence” that Russia was the reason Hillary lost, because they rigged the election. Meanwhile, the irony of how the Democratic primary was rigged is completely lost on the author, which there is MUCH more evidence of, while the rigging of the General is complete bullshit, and boils down to, at worst, Russia leaking FACTS, like John Podesta’s emails, where it shows her team exposing Hillary for exactly what she is: a faux-Democrat, corporatist, corrupt tool of the establishment, whose campaign elevated Trump as a “Pied Piper,” because they assumed he was the easiest candidate to beat.

That’s the best evidence they have of “Russian hacking”… showing emails that expose trickery behind the scenes. How dare they??? And there isn’t even any evidence that Russia released the Wikileaks documents, because its founder, Julian Assange, confirms it was Wikileaks itself that did it… and Assange is a pretty reliable source, since he has never been shown to be a liar, of some sort, or exposed for making anything up. He has a 100% accuracy rate.

The author goes on to talk about how Hillary “ran a good campaign,” and since she won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, that means everyone must have loved her and her campaign so much, so obviously, that’s why they voted for her. What appears to escape the logic of the author is that there were, essentially, two formidable options in this election: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Since Trump was terribly unpopular and extremely unlikable, many people had no other choice, but to cast their vote for the “lesser of two evils,” just to avoid a reality TV host, who’s an unhinged monster. So, for a lot of people, it was a vote AGAINST Trump, not a vote FOR Hillary. I’m not sure how that’s hard to understand, but it is… the author just needs to set a narrative to make Hillary out to be this bastion of excellence.

By the way, as far as the claim that Hillary “ran a good campaign” goes, that’s setting an extremely low bar for what the definition of “good” is, since majority of Hillary’s campaign involved attacking Trump, and talking about how everybody hates him, while not even bothering to focus on policy substance. That’s why only 25% of her ads focused on policy, while everything else was “look how crazy Trump is!” She never bothered to say why people should know that she’s the better choice, because she knew her approval rating was so bad, and she thought his could go lower, which would eke out a win in her favor. So since she never bothered to put out a substantive message of how she’s such a great candidate, she basically portrayed herself as the anti-Trump, and the “lesser of two evils,” which is exactly how so many people decided to cast their votes. Not FOR her, but AGAINST him.

After some more whining about how the media sucks, and how the media never talked about the Trump-Russia scandal (they did constantly during the General), the author brushes off her email server scandal as a “nothingburger” (because that’s what the cool kids like to say), even though it was far from nothing. As we all know, it was a very legitimate scandal involving then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton using a private server to exchange information between her aides and advisers via email, which nobody in the government could read or keep receipts of. People who call it an “email scandal” act like she was just using a random Gmail account without telling people. No, it was a secret, private server, which was put together illegally, and without the knowledge of the government. Hillary, herself, even acknowledges that it was a stupid mistake. If so, then why is it a “nothingburger?” And why would Hillary delete 33,000 emails she sent and received if it’s a “nothingburger?” The author doesn’t tell us.

So that brings us full circle, back to whether or not Hilary Clinton should shut up and get out of the way to let Bernie take over the reigns. Following their typical pattern, the author just flat out declares that “her vision was by the majority of Democratic voters.” Okay, a) According to who? Was this from a poll you read? Did specific voters tell you that Hillary’s vision was the best? Did they explain exactly what policies they loved that she articulated? And b)what was her vision? Hillary never stated a vision, other than simplistic cliches and platitudes, while talking about how Trump is a terrible person. Her ads almost never focused on policy. That’s been proven. So that claim is just complete bullshit.

Then the author proclaims that the race between Hillary and Bernie was never close, ignoring the fact that Bernie won no less than 43% of the vote, winning 23 states (far exceeding expectations), which is the same number Hillary won in 2008 against Obama, by the way. So does that mean the race in 2008 was a blowout, too? The author also claims that Hillary “graciously acceded” everything Bernie was demanding, which is questionable, at best, since she smeared his popular ideas as “pie in the sky.” The author says we should acknowledge this. Why should we acknowledge that your side put something on a piece of paper, when you all claimed the ideas were bullshit?

After saying that Hillary shouldn’t necessarily lead the party, the author says neither should Bernie, because he didn’t win the primary, so he doesn’t speak for the majority of Democratic voters. Of course, they ignore the fact that Bernie is the most popular politician in the country right now, he is loved by majority of Democrats (regardless of white or minority voters), and his ideas are all popular among and Democrats, and even Independents, as well as Republicans (yes, you need ALL three of them). The author says as much as Bernie supporters want to point out that the primary being rigged doesn’t mean Bernie speaks for the party. Actually, the rigging of the primary has nothing to do with how much Democrats support him, and if he speaks for them, so that point doesn’t make any sense.

Then the author says it “begs the question” that if Hillary represents a bigger majority of the party, why should Bernie’s supporters be more represented, when their smaller. Well, maybe because they’re NOT smaller. The Bernie supporters in the Democratic Party are the base, and are bigger, which Democrats in Congress know. That’s why they put Bernie in charge of outreach for the party. He’s the one bringing people in, and encouraging them to support Democrats, but only REAL Progressives, who aren’t corporate sellouts. Also, every policy that Hillary supports, Bernie supports them, and wants to go even further. That’s why he’s so well-liked.

But no, the author claims the Bernie wing shouldn’t be able to have more of a say than Hillary supporters, because Bernie’s people “hate” her. Um, no… there might be some people, who actually hate her (as many Hillary supporters hate Bernie), others might tolerate her, though. However, the ones who do hate her feel that way, because her policies and ideas are terrible. They hate her for voting for the Iraq war (and being a puppet to countries, like Saudi Arabia), the patriot act, opposing $15 dollar minimum wage, universal healthcare, universal college, opposing gay marriage until coming around in 2013, deregulating of Wall Street, pushing a crime bill that lead to the further incarceration of black men, etc. I could go on forever.

Near the end of the piece, the author begrudges Bernie, and his supporters, for wanting total control of the party, claiming they don’t want to “put in the sweat and tears to earn it,” claiming they ignore the demands of the “far more reliable base,” as if Bernie supporters who believe in actual Progressive policies are totally irrational simpletons, who don’t know how to actually formulate cohesive political policies, which they can convince politicians to support.

To finish off, the author says it’s perfectly okay for Hillary, the person who is actually MORE unpopular than President Donald Trump, to have as much of a say as Bernie, who’s the most popular politician in the country. Apparently, Hillary shouldn’t go away, because she “doesn’t owe her critics a damn thing” (how judicious of you and her), not even an apology, for all of the terrible aforementioned policies she supported and legislation she pushed.

No, far from it, because, as the author claims right at the end, “She’s spent decades making the world a better place and no one puts baby in the corner.”

What a hilariously fawning way to conclude an absurd piece, which is filled with rank propaganda and just loads of misinformation.