Slanted coverage from the NY Times continues. Here is the first paragraph reporting Bernie Sanders' recent win over Hillary Clinton:
"Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont captured the West Virginia primary on Tuesday, forcing Hillary Clinton to continue a costly and distracting two-front battle: to lock down the Democratic nomination and to take on Donald J. Trump in the general election."
I am not for Sanders or Clinton, per se. The point missing here is that it is really time for the Democratic party (as well as the Republican Party, which is desperately attempting to out of necessity) to recalibrate.
The Dem party leaders are reluctant to because they have promised the primary to Clinton and the machine that got them where they are. The machine will be self perpetuating and tone deaf until the battery runs out.
Unfortunately, by the time they realize that the candidate they would presumptively crown could conceivably lose to Trump and the one they throw under the bus could (more conceivably) prevail––it will be too late.
Worst case scenario, you have four long years out of power to rethink things. And maybe that is a good thing––if democracy survives and social inequities do not expand to a point where anarchy and the end of a two-party system is nigh. Let's not even consider the global ramifications of intensifying competition and discord between nations that inhabit one sphere.
The real matter at hand in my mind is that 100 years from now the establishment will be completely flabbergasted at how we could have dithered on taking the necessary steps in combatting global warming, to the point where we are facing long term extinction of most life (quite conceivably our own species).
I do not believe that even electing Sanders will solve that, but it would reorient things to better include sustainability-focused voices among those in power.
There is one Hail Mary left and that is California.
#endurancewriter
"Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont captured the West Virginia primary on Tuesday, forcing Hillary Clinton to continue a costly and distracting two-front battle: to lock down the Democratic nomination and to take on Donald J. Trump in the general election."
I am not for Sanders or Clinton, per se. The point missing here is that it is really time for the Democratic party (as well as the Republican Party, which is desperately attempting to out of necessity) to recalibrate.
The Dem party leaders are reluctant to because they have promised the primary to Clinton and the machine that got them where they are. The machine will be self perpetuating and tone deaf until the battery runs out.
Unfortunately, by the time they realize that the candidate they would presumptively crown could conceivably lose to Trump and the one they throw under the bus could (more conceivably) prevail––it will be too late.
Worst case scenario, you have four long years out of power to rethink things. And maybe that is a good thing––if democracy survives and social inequities do not expand to a point where anarchy and the end of a two-party system is nigh. Let's not even consider the global ramifications of intensifying competition and discord between nations that inhabit one sphere.
The real matter at hand in my mind is that 100 years from now the establishment will be completely flabbergasted at how we could have dithered on taking the necessary steps in combatting global warming, to the point where we are facing long term extinction of most life (quite conceivably our own species).
I do not believe that even electing Sanders will solve that, but it would reorient things to better include sustainability-focused voices among those in power.
There is one Hail Mary left and that is California.
#endurancewriter
RSS Feed