The gaping holes in Bernie Sanders convention speech
By Peter Ewart
Some important things got left out of Bernie Sanders’ speech to the Democratic Convention on July 25th. In fact, they are gaping holes in his endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president.
For example, he went on about how a plank had been added into the party platform that would bring about a “21st Century Glass-Steagall Act” to regulate the big banks. But he didn’t mention that it was President Bill Clinton (with the support of Hillary) who actually revoked the original Glass-Steagall Act deregulating the banks and paving the way for the catastrophic financial and housing crisis of 2007-2008.
In his speech, Sanders claimed that Hillary Clinton “understands that millions of seniors, disabled vets and others are struggling with the outrageously high cost of prescription drugs.” What he did not mention is that the VP that Clinton has picked, Tim Kaine, has received huge donations from the Big Pharma corporations and is considered by some to be a shill for the industry (1).
Sanders also claimed that the party platform also calls for “strong opposition to job-killing free trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership [TPP].” But what he didn’t clarify is that the party platform committee, which is dominated by Clinton supporters, was successful in eliminating specific clauses opposing the TPP (2). Why would the Clintonites do this? Do they anticipate Hillary Clinton reversing her current anti-TPP position once she becomes president? Governor Terry McAuliffe, part of Clinton’s inner circle, appears to think this is likely, although he was forced to back down on July 26 after claiming in an interview that, contrary to what she has claimed, Clinton would support the TPP once elected as president (3).
Another gaping hole in Sanders’ speech is that he made no mention of the leaked emails revealing that the Clinton-controlled Democratic National Committee, which was supposed to be neutral in the state primary elections, actively worked against him and his campaign for the last year. Then, during the Convention proceedings, the Clintonites had the gall to insist that Sanders supporters be “respectful of the democratic process”. Yet Bernie said nothing about this hypocrisy and the rigging of the Clinton nomination at his campaign’s expense.
In the course of his speech, Sanders was, in effect, trying to square a circle and accomplish an impossible task. At the end of his comments, he said, with a straight face to the Convention delegates: “Hillary Clinton will make an outstanding president and I am proud to stand with her tonight.” How can such a statement be reconciled with his previous sharp criticisms of Clinton as a shill for Wall Street and the big banks, for the multinational corporations who push for predatory trade deals, and for a corrupt electoral financing process? It can’t be and it wasn’t. For Sanders’ supporters and many Americans, there is a serious trust issue with Clinton that won’t be overcome by an endorsement from Sanders or, for that matter, the fairy tale speech made by Bill Clinton about Hillary and their “love story” on the evening of July 26, which had its own glaring omissions.
But perhaps the biggest hole of all in Sanders’ comments was that he said nothing about the danger of US war preparations and the Bush / Obama push for “regime change” and aggression abroad. He talked about all sorts of things from poverty and income disparity, to health care, education and a broken criminal justice system. Nothing at all about the danger of an aggressive, out-of-control US foreign policy that has brought death, destruction and ruin to the Middle East and has ramped up tensions everywhere. Nothing at all about Clinton’s terrible and destructive record as advocate for the invasion of Iraq, destruction of Libya, overthrow of sovereign governments, and ramping up of hostilities with Russia and other countries.
Increasing numbers of Americans, whether they vote Democratic, Republican, Independent or some other party, are opposed to the endless wars and the trillions of dollars thrown into the bottomless pit of war spending in the U.S. Many of these are Sanders supporters. Why did Sanders not speak to and for them? Why did he leave them stranded?
Is there a long game being played here to line up progressives and others fed up with predatory wars behind the war hawk Clinton? There are a lot of signs showing that the dominant sectors of the US Establishment and the military-industrial complex want to bring in Clinton as president, and, if she is able to assemble broad support and pull off a convincing win, to use that to ramp up war tensions against Russia, China, Iran and possibly other countries that refuse to go along with US dictate. These are dangerous times, more dangerous than many might realize.
That being said, besides the opposition of a significant number of Convention delegates to the Hillary coronation, the one bright spot in the Convention was the nomination speech for Sanders delivered by Democratic Congresswoman and army veteran, Tulsi Gabbard, who at least had the principle and gumption to speak out against the US government policy of regime change and who, unlike other leading Democrats, did not endorse Clinton in her remarks.
Gabbard has been especially critical of Clinton’s foreign policy, and resigned previously as vice-chairperson for the Democratic National Committee over what she saw as its undemocratic practices and blatant bias towards Clinton.
Peter Ewart is a columnist and writer based in Prince George, British Columbia. He can reached at: peter.ewart@shaw.ca
- Johnson, Dave. “Democratic platform committee undermines Clinton on TPP”. Common Dreams. June 28, 2016.
- Lipton, Eric. “As pick for No. 2, Tim Kaine sees gifts come under scrutiny.” New York Times. July 24, 2016.
Comments
The fact he still endorsed that disgusting Clinton, after everything she has done to him and her own voters, proves what a spineless twit he really is.
Blah blah blah. Seriously? Give your head a shake.
Compared to Trump she is a brilliant person..
Trump lies his butt off everytime…. His **** reasons for not giving up his taxes is all lies/
He has yet to say how he will accomplish anything. He is a immigrant but hates all immigrants.. he is sexist and racist and just a ***.
He said in a interview in 1999 that the republican party is full of stupid voters and he could tell nothing but lies and they would still love him…. which he has proven.
He has no clue how the political game is played… things he has the ultimate power.. which he has virtually none.
He is now lying again about joking to Russia to find the “deleted” emails.. which where found already and proven not to be in violation of any law.
His wife lied about having a degree from university…. his son said all the Mexicans should be sent back home to their country in Asia..
etc etc etc
“Born and raised in New York City, Trump is a graduate of the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania with a Bachelor of Science in economics. While attending college, Trump worked in his father Fred Trump’s real estate and construction firm. He assumed control of the business in 1973, later renaming it The Trump Organization.”
Apparently Trump is NOT an immigrant, he does not want to kick out all immigrants, but he wants to force the illegal ones to go through the legal immigration process.
Apparently Trump does have Bachelor of Science Degree in economics.
I am not enchanted with the guy. He speaks for himself, no need to spread misinformation.
You are correct PG… was a typing error on my part..was in a rush to make a meeting.. it should have said..” He is married to a immigrant….etc.. he wants to put up a wall to keep all the Mexicans out because they are crooks and rapists… he wants to ban all muslims.. even though its radical muslims that are the problem…
It was his wife saying she had a degree in Architecture.. but I guess she doesn’t… so her website is gone… how interesting..
Trump is bluffing and taunting like a poker player. He knew ahead of time that the only way to be continuously in the news is to make one outrageous and controversial statement after the other. How much did he spent so far on the campaign? A quarter of what Hillary spent? Perhaps even less! His opponents never figured out how to handle him, how to deflate him and his ego!
Business people may use the same tactics when trying to get the best deal. Never let your opponent get the upper hand! There is the element of surprise, the setting of a trap, the psyching out of the one across the table!
The people crossing the Mexican border are not al Mexican. From other countries south of Mexico they come into Mexico but the use Mexico only as a stop over point. The real goal is the USA.
I heard the other day that as the Mexican economy is on a roll many Mexicans are going back home to their homeland. In fact they said that more are leaving than coming into the USA.
Trump is a shrewd calculator and negotiator. He knows that he can do the thing that far too many politicians do once elected: Not to keep promises, often even doing the exact opposite!
Wharton ? Caroline Channing went there too !
If he was still in the running to be the nominee, then sure you go and attack what you perceive as faults.
I would assume his goal for his speech was more to rally support and unity against someone whose ‘values’ are waaaay different and damaging to Sanders’ cause.
There’s a time and place now for Bernie’s critical voice in the Democratic party, though I’d guess it’s more behind-the-scenes from this point on.
He has shown their leadership that his movement was substantial enough with important demographics and as such his people were placed in number on Rules and Policy committees of the Democrats.
As a brief aside, not sure why you think the U.S. is the one escalating tensions with the likes of Russia who were the ones invading a foreign country.
The US constantly invades foreign countries they have been escalating world tensions for decades.
It does not matter who wins the election. Trump or Hillary. The United states is going to be on track to go down hill.
Alarming as it may be, I think Hillary will do more harm than Trump. Hillary is too sneaky and can not be trusted. Trump is a bit of a crook, but at least he knows something about business. That won’t hurt the Yankees.
Just because you constantly go bankrupt doesn’t mean it makes you a good president..
He is a bully..he won’t answer any question ..he just rants..
I have criticized Peter before but this time he has nailed it. Hillary is an evil dangerous person and is the epitome of conniving establishment.
Those that will disagree have no knowledge lof the issues or realize just how dangerous the Clintons are to the stability of the US and the world in their quest for power.
The states has to be embarrassed with what they’re left having to pick leading their country.
Thank Dog we live in Canada, eh?
If nothing else we should get an accurate count of how many Danny Dimwits there are in the USA by the number of people who vote for Trump.
So you are happy with criminal Hillary, amazing. Would be nice if there was an alternative to trump but the Danny dimwits will vote for Hillary without looking into the issues. Those are the dimwits.
hate to burst some peoples bubble about the Clinton crime family.
ht tps://vimeo.com/168098445
ht tp://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/the-genius-of-trump
Seamutt, you tried to pass this crackpot video off the other day as “fact”. You’re coming perilously close to reaching the other end of the spectrum from that poster who’s previous user name rhymed with “agnostic rage” & continually tried to pass off left wing rants & half truths as fact. Hillary has a lot to answer for but the half baked allegations of Mr. Schweizer aren’t among them.
Sea mutt..have you ever watched American politics? By your post I am guessing not.. The USA political scene is criminal in itself.. There are always back door deals though..super pacts, lobbyists, electoral votes etc.. It’s just a mess.
My real concern is the impact on Canada… Trump wants a wall and Clinton wants to own us.. We are on the losing end no matter which of these clowns get in….
Pval what is your point? Yes I watch and research and hillory and her perverted husband are scary, much more than Trump. Here is a hint quit watching CBC and the pretty heads on ctv and GLOBAL. Read my links and then give a mature comment.
Let me take a shot at this. Clinton will be more of the status quo. Trump is the loaded pistol. Trump wants to scrap trade deals and the U S to tighten its borders in all of ways. The US is still Canada’s largest trading partner. Donald Rump could be bad for Canada’s economy.
If Hillary wins then America will be run by a hidden cabal of corporations and bankers through things like the Clinton Foundation and TPP. The top 1% will get all the gains and the rest of America will have to harmonize their quality of life with their third world trading partners.
If Trump win the election there will be competition based on fair trade and rule of law. This atmosphere enables free enterprise equality of opportunity, and meritocracy, that allows for an upward mobile society. The elites will have to live by the same rules as the rest of society, and this will empower the middle class. A strong middle class in a democratic America makes for a strong America, and a strong America is good for Canada.
Clinton is where she is only because of corruption from within the DNC that tilted the rules in her favor…. Of extraordinarily interest for those that favor democracy over the bolshivism of the neo-cons that back Hillary is the inexplicable anomaly of the electronic vote counting machine results in her coronation.
The two largest vote counting machine manufactures in America were huge contributors the the Clinton campaign (a clear conflict of interest for democracy), and donated nothing to the Sanders or Trump campaigns.
Hillary won every primary that used the electronic vote counting machines; and lost every primary that used paper ballots that could be audited. Where vote counting machines with no backup paper ballots were used Clinton came out 9% better than her polling results… where paper ballots were used her primary results matched the polling results.
The coincidence of this one fact is beyond any mathematical reality. It says that it matters little what one says to get elected, but rather who counts the votes in a broken corrupt system.
Have you watched any of the series on CNN called “Race for the Whitehouse ? Even honest Abe had to steal his election. It’s , like, the ‘merican way. :-D
And you think that becoming part of the establishment of a party in a democratic country in order to gain the popular vote is not the way all over the world?
Even Switzerland works that way. Companies work that way; not for profit governance boards work that way; administration structures work that way.
An introvert who does not show him/herself and figure out where people stand and then get at the head of that group and start speaking for them because he/she thinks he/she knows what the group wants does not stand a chance.
The only time when that person otherwise stands a chance is if the group does not have anyone who is willing to step forward to take the lead. Not everyone is willing to do that. It can be a very demeaning experience. It takes a special person to persevere in an atmosphere where no one want to participate but are quick to judge.
If Trump win the election there will be competition based on fair trade and rule of law.
LOL…LOL…LOL
You really believe in fairy tales. A sucker borne every minute, as Trump knows so well.
As for TPP… the Obama plan is to ratify it during the lame duck session after the election in November, but before the new president and congress take their seats in January.
The people no matter how they vote in November will not have a say on the TPP corporation usurping new constitution for the American economy.
Tell me where you read that in the TPP agreement. Identify and quote the section and passage.
I read it in detail and cannot find anywhere where the trade agreement would usurp the USA constitution.
So then you read the part about the investor state resolution process?
In case a party to the agreement does not like what they got themselves into, there is a very simple withdrawal process:
Article 30.6: Withdrawal
1. Any Party may withdraw from this Agreement by providing written notice of withdrawal to the Depositary. A withdrawing Party shall simultaneously notify the other Parties of its withdrawal through the overall contact points designated under Article 27.5 (Contact Points).
2. A withdrawal shall take effect six months after a Party provides written notice to the Depositary under paragraph 1, unless the Parties agree on a different period. If a Party withdraws, this Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.
Here is the preamble to the TPP … tell me which ones would not be favourable to Canada, for instance. Which one brings fear that Canadian sovereignty will be usurped?
The Parties to this Agreement, resolving to:
1. ESTABLISH a comprehensive regional agreement that promotes economic integration to liberalise trade and investment, bring economic growth and social benefits, create new opportunities for workers and businesses, contribute to raising living standards, benefit consumers, reduce poverty and promote sustainable growth;
2. STRENGTHEN the bonds of friendship and cooperation between them and their peoples;
3. BUILD on their respective rights and obligations under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization;
4. RECOGNISE the differences in their levels of development and diversity of economies;
5. STRENGTHEN the competitiveness of their businesses in global markets and enhance the competitiveness of their economies by promoting opportunities for businesses, including promoting the development and strengthening of regional supply chains;
6. SUPPORT the growth and development of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises by enhancing their ability to participate in and benefit from the opportunities created by this Agreement;
7. ESTABLISH a predictable legal and commercial framework for trade and investment through mutually advantageous rules;
8. FACILITATE regional trade by promoting efficient and transparent customs procedures that reduce costs and ensure predictability for their importers and exporters;
9. RECOGNISE their inherent right to regulate and resolve to preserve the flexibility of the Parties to set legislative and regulatory priorities, safeguard public welfare, and protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety, the environment, the conservation of living or non-living exhaustible natural resources, the integrity and stability of the financial system and public morals;
10. RECOGNISE further their inherent right to adopt, maintain or modify health care systems;
11. AFFIRM that state-owned enterprises can play a legitimate role in the diverse economies of the Parties, while recognising that the provision of unfair advantages to state-owned enterprises undermines fair and open trade and investment, and resolve to establish rules for state-owned enterprises that promote a level playing field with privately owned businesses, transparency and sound business practices;
12. PROMOTE high levels of environmental protection, including through effective enforcement of environmental laws, and further the aims of sustainable development, including through mutually supportive trade and environmental policies and practices;
13. PROTECT and enforce labour rights, improve working conditions and living standards, strengthen cooperation and the Parties’ capacity on labour issues;
14. PROMOTE transparency, good governance and the rule of law, and eliminate bribery and corruption in trade and investment;
15. RECOGNISE the important work that their relevant authorities are doing to strengthen macroeconomic cooperation, including on exchange rate issues, in appropriate fora;
16. RECOGNISE the importance of cultural identity and diversity among and within the Parties, and that trade and investment can expand opportunities to enrich cultural identity and diversity at home and abroad;
17. CONTRIBUTE to the harmonious development and expansion of world trade and provide a catalyst to broader regional and international cooperation;
18. ESTABLISH an Agreement to address future trade and investment challenges and opportunities, and contribute to advancing their respective priorities over time; and
19. EXPAND their partnership by encouraging the accession of other States or separate customs territories in order to further enhance regional economic integration and create the foundation of a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific,
All I can say is that the choices for the Americans ie; Trump, or Clinton, are much like (but on a smaller scale) BC. Ie; the Liberals or the NDP.
Either way the people lose. Politicians, and Governments in Canada, and the USA are basically out of control. Its all about the money, friends, and associates, and to hell with the citizens of the Country.
You go do the job if you think you can do better.
Being in the public eye watching your every move and the public hitting you with the first mistake you would fail from the beginning. I suppose in doing your jobs in the past you never made a mistake.
The USA is the world’s superpower at the moment. Even Putin has said in a recent interview that he likes it that way.
I agree with one thing that Trump has said, the world countries that reap the benefits of the protection that the USA provides need to come to the monetary and service assistance in that effort.
“Some important things got left out of Bernie Sanders’ speech to the Democratic Convention on July 25th”
Peter, that is a very petty statement. The fact that they were left out shows the level of diplomacy Bernie Sanders is capable of. He knew very well the battle that he would get into when he decided to run for the nomination.
In fact, he probably also knew that primary time would be the way he would make a dent in the policies he wanted to bring forward. Neither you not I nor anyone else on this Canadian web site knew what his end game was going to be. In fact, there are many indicators that he was surprised with how far he got. He could not have had as much influence had he stayed out of the race and tried from his Senate seat and/or within the party structure.
He has the ear of the party now as well as the ear of Hillary.
What your bickering is about, Peter, I really do not understand.
Peter, I am trying to follow 3 of your references. Difficult to do when you have only included two.
So the reference (1) in the text actually refers to (2) in the list of referenced.
It is a very interesting read. People who have not read it, or heard about the issue from the Trump camp, would not know from your article that the NY Times article included such explanations as:
——————————————-
Under Virginia’s lax ethics rules at the time, the gifts, which had a total value of more than $160,000, were all legal as long as they were disclosed.
———————————–
Mr. Kaine, state records show, was meticulous at filing his gift disclosures, and even listed a set of cuff links — worth $75 — that he was given in 2006 by officials from Kent County, England, to help commemorate the 400th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, Va., the first permanent English-speaking settlement in America.
—————————————–
After he was elected to the Senate, Mr. Kaine publicly urged the Virginia legislature to tighten state ethics laws, saying he had concluded that the more stringent rules in Congress were appropriate.
“The new year presents a superb opportunity to fix a major Virginia weakness: our lax ethical laws,” he wrote in an op-ed article published on Dec. 31, 2013, in The Washington Post. “Gifts to elected officials can create a subconscious sense of gratitude in even the most upright public servants.”
————————————-
Peter, at least the NY Times seems to be practicing balanced journalism by presenting several of the issues surrounding the “gifts”, the most important being that as Governor of Virginia he was following the Commonwealth’s laws.
Not only that, but when Kaine got to the Senate he became familiar with their regulations surrounding gifts and urged the Commonwealth of Virginia to tighten their rules.
Comments for this article are closed.