Showing posts with label susan sarandon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label susan sarandon. Show all posts

Saturday, April 9, 2016

Desperation in Bernie-Land

photo George-Costanza-Facepalm.gif

Previous Related Posts:
Susan Sarandon Likes Trump Over Hillary
 Bernie Camp Blames Hillary for AZ Loss
Bernie Gives Hillary the Hand of Silence
Polls and Predictions for Hillary and Bernie on Super Tuesday
Hillary Landslide in South Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bernie Sanders has won the last seven consecutive primaries and caucuses, including a big win in Wisconsin last week, and is expected to win the mostly-white Wyoming Caucus today. But the front-runner, Hillary Clinton, will probably beat him in the New York Primary of April 19th in spite of the fact that Bernie being born and raised there.

Of course his rabid followers believe Bernie can win big in New York and pull out wins from now until June, but the reality is he still lags behind in delegates, and even tying or barely beating Hillary will not help. So there is a looming sense of do-or-die for his campaign, especially for his highly-paid team of Tad Devine and Jeff Weaver who need the Bernie fans to keep sending money.

From RealClearPolitics
“With our victory tonight in Wisconsin, we have won seven out of the last eight caucuses and primaries, and we have won almost all of them with overwhelming, landslide numbers,” Sanders said during a victory speech so familiar to his Wyoming supporters that they shouted out lines along with the candidate.
. . . In an email to admirers, Sanders described what remained of April as “the most important three-week stretch of the campaign.”
“We’re going to win this election,” he vowed, “if we can keep our momentum going.”
. . . Clinton’s campaign team predicts that after April 26, when voters in Connecticut, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., participate and 631 delegates are divvied up, the nominating drama may be mathematically finished for Sanders.

Yet Bernie is his own worst enemy, sounding woefully unprepared for obvious questions in his interviews, such as the methodology of how to "break up the banks" which he mentions in every speech:

From Bernie's Interview with the New York Daily News Board:
Daily News: Well, it does depend on how you do it, I believe. And, I'm a little bit confused because just a few minutes ago you said the U.S. President would have authority to order...

Sanders: No, I did not say we would order. I did not say that we would order. The President is not a dictator.

Daily News: Okay. You would then leave it to JPMorgan Chase or the others to figure out how to break it, themselves up. I'm not quite...

Sanders: You would determine is that, if a bank is too big to fail, it is too big to exist. And then you have the secretary of treasury and some people who know a lot about this, making that determination. If the determination is that Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan Chase is too big to fail, yes, they will be broken up.

Daily News: Okay. You saw, I guess, what happened with Metropolitan Life. There was an attempt to bring them under the financial regulatory scheme, and the court said no. And what does that presage for your program?

Sanders: It's something I have not studied, honestly, the legal implications of that.

Some of Sanders high-profile surrogates are not helping either. Actor Tim Robbins, long-time partner of Bernie supporter Susan Sarandon, introduced the candidate in Wisconsin by weirdly slamming both the island of Guam, which hasn't voted yet, and the state of South Carolina, an early Southern state who went for Hillary. This continues the Sanders pattern of looking at the Southern states who went mostly for Hillary Clinton as some type of "rigged" election that "stacked the deck" against them. Bernie and company don't seem to understand that for Dems in red states, the primary season is the one chance to make their voices heard to the national party. But forget that - Bernie must win! To hell with the Democratic Party base!

Via Washington Post
"After the Southern primaries," he said, "you had called the election" -- apparently referring to the media. "And who's fooling who? Winning South Carolina in the Democratic primary is about as significant as winning Guam. No Democrat is going to win in the general election. Why do these victories have so much significance?"
This is a not-uncommon argument among supporters of Sanders. Yes, Hillary Clinton is winning. But she's winning largely because she ran up big margins in Southern states. That, the argument goes, bodes poorly for the general, since those Southern states usually vote Republican.
This is a bad argument that borders on insulting.









Surrogate Nina Turner, a former state senator from Ohio and one-time Hillary supporter, made a bizarre reference to slavery while debating ex-Senator Barney Frank on the tv machine:

MSNBC's Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell Transcript:
NINA TURNER: There may be many people standing that are part of the elected ministry in the establishment, standing on the side of Secretary Clinton. Some of those folks I have worked with, but the bottom line is this. There are millions of Americans in this country who believe that change needs to come, that the status quo cannot continue, that people are suffering in this country.

And, Senator Bernie Sanders has a proven track record of having the good judgment and standing up for the least of these when it is not convenient. So, it is unfair. And, congress people like Keith Ellison. I would take his endorsement any day. And, he has endorsed senator Bernie Sanders and that is a big deal. There was a time in this country where the majority of folks thought slavery was OK too.

 O`DONNELL: Barney, go ahead.

 FRANK: That last comment just baffles me. It is going to take me about a
week to figure out what that was supposed to mean. But as far as Keith Ellison is concerned, I admire Keith. I just signed an e-mail for him. But, he is one of 45 members of the congressional black caucus and every other one is for Hillary Clinton.

So, you are talking about the establishment. No, I do not think John Lewis, one of the great moral leaders of my generation who is a strong Hillary Clinton supporter, is the establishment, not in a bad way – Or Luis Gutierrez who is led the fight for immigration. I understand, and
maybe this highlights in.



And things have gone downhill from there, with the Bernie camp desperately throwing everything and the kitchen sink at Hillary and hoping it will keep their momentum going, calling her "unqualified" and so "ambitious" that she is going to "destroy the party." Yeah, right. Women aren't allowed to be ambitious!















~~~~~~~~~~~
















Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, March 30, 2016

Susan Sarandon Likes Trump Over Hillary

photo Thelma and Louise Car Gif.gif

Previous Related Posts:
Bernie Camp Blames Hillary for AZ Loss
Bernie Gives Hillary the Hand of Silence
Polls and Predictions for Hillary and Bernie on Super Tuesday
Hillary Landslide in South Carolina
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Many supporters of Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders have taken the hashtag #BernieOrBust literally and absolutely refuse to consider Hillary Clinton as a viable alternative, even if she wins the Democratic nomination. At least that is what they are vowing in numerous tweets and multiple diaries a day on Daily Kos.









Some have labeled Hillary a criminal, a warmonger, a kiss-up to Wall Street and other things too horrible to mention here. Some even attack her for being a woman, and her supporters as "Hill-bots in love with vaginas," as if women aware of their gender are not allowed in the Democratic Party anymore. We can't possibly be allowed to enjoy the idea of the first woman President, because that is putting lady-parts ahead of the Revolution.

Here are some anti-Hillary tweets from earlier this year by Bernie surrogate Susan Sarandon, actress famous for supposedly feminist cult film, "Thelma and Louise."







More on Sarandon in a minute . . . but recall that in 2000 she was also attached to the third-party campaign for Ralph Nader, who skewed the race away from Al Gore and gave George W. Bush the Presidency.

Hillary's main problems, according to Sarandon and others, are that she isn't a man and she isn't a revolutionary, and especially that she isn't a revolutionary man identical to the cranky but "pure" Bernie Sanders. And now that he seems to be losing to Hillary as the Democratic nominee, some rabid followers are dogmatically refusing to shift positions for the general election. Of course, many of those saying that are not Democrats but Independents crossing lines in open caucuses and primaries for a candidate they believe in. That is their perogative, but their goals may not be identical to that of most Dems, who wish to protect President Obama's legacy of Obamacare, social and environmental programs, and especially to insure a liberal majority on the Supreme Court into the future.

If the revolutionary Bernies reject Hillary, then who will get their votes in November? One theory was that Bernie might make a run as a 3rd Party candidate, reminiscent of Ralph Nader, but there has been no mention of that for some time, and Bernie will probably just go back to being the Senator from Vermont. Some have put forth Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, but many will surely stay home and say to hell with the country. In the worst case scenario, the Bernie-bros-and-gals will switch over and vote for Trump, perhaps hoping he will beat Hillary as some kind of revenge.

And that brings us back to Susan Sarandon. In an interview with Chris Hayes the other night on MSNBC, Sarandon stated once again that if Bernie loses the nomination, she will never ever EVER vote for Hillary, and in fact . . . well, a quote is best or you won't believe it:

CHRIS HAYES: . . . I think a lot of people think to themselves well if it’s Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and I think Bernie Sanders probably would think this…

SARANDON: I think Bernie probably would encourage people because he doesn’t have any ego. I think a lot of people are sorry, I can’t bring myself to do that.

HAYES: How about you personally?

SARANDON: I don’t know. I’m going to see what happens.

HAYES: Really?

SARANDON: Really.

HAYES: I cannot believe as you’re watching the, if Donald Trump…

 SARANDON: Some people feel Donald Trump will bring the revolution immediately if he gets in then things will really, you know explode.


HAYES: Don’t you think that’s dangerous?

SARANDON: I think that what’s going on now — if you think it’s pragmatic to shore up the status quo right now, then you’re not in touch with the status quo. The status quo is not working, and I think it’s dangerous to think that we can continue the way we are, with the militarized police force, with privatized prisons, with the death penalty, with the low minimum wage, threats to women’s rights, and think that you can’t do something huge to turn that around, because the country is not in good shape. If you’re in the middle class, it’s disappearing.

Later on Twitter in response to fellow-actress Jamie Lee Curtis,
Sarandon tried to walk back her remarks and support for Trump.
Lots of people called her out on the flip-flop.





























~~~~~~~~~~~~

Appearing just after Sarandon on Inners, LGTB activist Dan Savage spoke for many Dems watching when he said::

Can I just say I’m for Bernie, or Hillary, or both. Come November I plan to vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it is, because the lesser of two evils is less evil, and I don’t think Donald will bring the revolution,” Via Washington Blade



Let’s be grateful to Susan Sarandon for exposing just how vapid and callous the left-wing #NeverHillary argument is.
It’s unclear how many people Sarandon speaks for. There are lots of posturing radicals on social media who pretend Clinton would be no better than Trump, but my guess is that they are a tiny fraction of Sanders supporters. Sanders himself certainly doesn’t encourage such political nihilism and will surely rally to Clinton’s side if she beats him in the primary. Inasmuch as #NeverHillary is a phenomenon, however, Sarandon, a rich white celebrity with nothing on the line, is a perfect spokeswoman for it.
~ Michelle Goldberg, Slate

Sanders has already said that he would support Clinton if she won the nomination.
Now this statement from Sarandon displays a disturbing flaw that may be at the heart of the thinking of many Sanders supporters. Sanders may be campaigning as a true socialist on an egoless mission to create a better, more equitable America, but many of his supporters, including Sarandon, appear fully committed to allowing their egos to play a vital role in this election.
~ Barrett Holmes Pitner

Sarandon is a public figure with considerable influence. Therefore offering a get-out-of-jail-free card to Bernie supporters who think it’s wise to allow a Republican to become president in lieu of Hillary Clinton is, putting it mildly, irresponsible. Like her or not, Sarandon is a woman with political clout, and Bernie supporters who might be feeling the slow onset of heartbreak as Bernie’s window to the nomination closes are very likely to take her seriously and let the general election chips fall where they may.
. . . Sarandon has millions of dollars between her and poverty. She’s the one percent, and perhaps that’s why she’s not troubled by the idea of using poor and middle class workers as human shields in her plan to get to achieve a revolution.
. . . Today, allowing a Republican extremist like Trump or Cruz to win the presidency by refusing to vote or by casting a protest vote is objectively reckless. It shows a total disregard for the millions of Americans who would be literally destroyed by a GOP president. Your personal political agenda is not nearly as crucial as helping to maintain an electoral bulwark against an apocalyptic Republican victory, and the only way to achieve this is by voting for the Democratic nominee.
~ Bob Cesca on Salon.com

. . . you don’t have to go very far back to remember something akin to what Sarandon is describing in the Democratic Party—but last time around, it was in support of Clinton, not against her. The PUMAs (“People United Means Action” or, by some accounts, “Party Unity My Ass”) were such diehard Clinton supporters that they flatly refused to support the upstart Barack Obama eight years ago. So how did that turn out in 2008? Obama cruised to victory with the highest popular vote total in U.S. history, and a nearly 10 million vote lead over Senator John McCain. Sarandon is feeling the Bern, but perhaps there’s more heat than light to her claims about Sandersistas sitting 2016 out.
~ David A. Graham on The Atlantic







Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Obama's Critics of Color ~ Smiley, West and Malco

photo c6519968-5999-46de-93ba-1cc550dc9e2a.jpg

Previous Posts:
The President's Amazing Impromptu Speech About Race and Trayvon Martin
Obama Speech Brings Out Haters, Concern Trolls and Emotopians

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


AMY GOODMAN: But President Obama, speaking about his own life experience, going from saying, "Trayvon Martin could have been my child," to "Trayvon Martin could have been me"?

CORNEL WEST: Well, no, that’s beautiful. That’s an identification. The question is: Will that identification hide and conceal the fact there’s a criminal justice system in place that has nearly destroyed two generations of very precious, poor black and brown brothers? He hasn’t said a mumbling word until now. Five years in office and can’t say a word about the new Jim Crow.
And at the same time, I think we have to recognize that he has been able to hide and conceal that criminalizing of the black poor as what I call the re-niggerizing of the black professional class. You’ve got these black leaders on the Obama plantation, won’t say a criminal word about the master in the big house, will only try to tame the field folk so that they’re not critical of the master in the big house. That’s why I think even Brother Sharpton is going to be in trouble. Why? Because he has unleashed—and I agree with him—the rage. And the rage is always on the road to self-determination. But the rage is going to hit up against a stone wall. Why? Because Obama and Holder, will they come through at the federal level for Trayvon Martin? We hope so. Don’t hold your breath. And when they don’t, they’re going to have to somehow contain that rage. And in containing that rage, there’s going to be many people who say, "No, we see, this president is not serious about the criminalizing of poor people."
We’ve got a black leadership that is deferential to Obama, that is subservient to Obama, and that’s what niggerizing is. You keep folks so scared. You keep folks so intimidated. You can give them money, access, but they’re still scared. And as long as you’re scared, you’re on the plantation.
~ Dr. Cornel West in an interview with Democracy Now


. . . we must never kill innocent people in the name of self-defense. But then I thought about our drone policy, which makes us the George Zimmerman of the world in terms of killing innocent folk in the name of self-defense.
. . . I applaud his words, but I'm still waiting for action.
~ Cornel West on CNN






TAVIS SMILEY (21 July 2013): What's your sense of how the media and not just Fox News, but beyond that your read as you've been watching this, how the media handled this case?

 CORNEL WEST: I think that it's been decrepit though brother. You get a focus on some of the upper middle class folks or what I call the Rent-a-Negro phenomenon on MSNBC.

 TAVIS SMILEY: Ha ha ha ha ha!

 CORNEL WEST: And how this affects them personally and what they can say to their kids and they feeling distant and alienated from the state. Well many of us have been feeling alienated an over against the state for forty something years.


























TAVIS SMILEY: I appreciate and applaud the fact that the president did finally show up. But this town has been spinning a story that's not altogether true. He did not walk to the podium for an impromptu address to the nation; he was pushed to that podium. A week of protest outside the White House, pressure building on him inside the White House pushed him to that podium. So I'm glad he finally arrived.
But when he left the podium, he still had not answered the most important question, that Keynesian question, where do we go from here? That question this morning remains unanswered, at least from the perspective of the president. And the bottom line is this is not Libya, this is America. On this issue, you cannot lead from behind.
What's lacking in this moment is moral leadership. The country is begging for it, they are craving it. And I disagree with the president respectfully that politicians, elected officials, can't occupy this space on race. Lincoln did, Truman did, Johnson did; President Obama did. He's the right person in the right place, at the right time. But he has to step into his moment. I don't want him to be like Bill Clinton, when he's out of office, regretting that he didn't move on Rwanda. I don't the president to look back, David, and realize that he didn't do as much as he could have in this critical moment.
~ Tavis Smiley on Meet the Press, July 21, 2013
















photo 8deb11f0-8311-4742-9e72-9a89788e524b.jpg

To be brutally honest, the only reason people are even aware of Trayvon Martin is because it became a topic within mainstream news and pop culture. Meaning: News directors saw it as a profitable, sensational story. Hundreds of blacks die annually in South Side Chicago without even a blurb. Trayvon isn't in the mainstream news for any reason other than ratings and profit. The news coverage on the Zimmerman case almost implies that the killing of this young black man is somehow an anomaly and I resent that.
In this country, if it isn't streamlined through mainstream media and pop culture, it doesn't seem to warrant national debate. Our "government" continues to wreak havoc on our civil liberties and there is little to no protest from the black community because of media diversion tactics that keep such pertinent issues out of mainstream media. But if Jay-Z or Rihanna were to make mention of it, we'd suddenly be jolted out of our sugar comas and protesting on freeways.
. . . If we really wanted to ensure Trayvon Martin's killing was not in vain, we'd stop perpetuating negative images that are now synonymous with black men in America. We'd stop rapping about selling drugs and killing niggas.
. . . So before going back to popping molly and getting Turnt Up, I urge you to consider the implications of your actions. Your child's life may depend on it.
~ Romany Malco on Huffington Post















photo susan_1.jpg











Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)