Skullwise Cat

From Tom Frank, The Guardian:
"The woman we were constantly assured was the best-qualified candidate of all time has lost to
the least qualified candidate of all time. Yes, she has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard
on the campaign trail. But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment.
An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning
when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine ... [But] there was Bernie
Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. [He] would probably have beaten
Trump. And so Democratic leaders made Hillary their candidate even though they knew about
her closeness to the banks, her fondness for war, and her unique vulnerability on the trade issue."
Bernie Sanders galvanized millions by appealing to their sense of humanity. He refused corporate
contributions and rallied for the people by making genuinely progressive promises. Did he, in the
end, shill for Hillary, and not even appear to really mind that he was defrauded of the Democratic
nomination by the dastardly DNC? Why yes, yes he did, on both counts. And true, he isn't as
purely progressive as, say, The Green Party - he supports the evil entity that is the Israeli
government, for one. But for a while there, it seemed as though we were all about to Feel the
Bern, and it was looking hopeful that a Bernie/Trump match-up could not only make for
endlessly entertaining SNL mockery, but also that Bernie was The Guy to beat the fake-tanned
fascist. But the DNC made SURE that the war hawk, and Wall Street's beloved BFF - she who
differed the least from the Republicans - was the nominee. And they did this to their own
detriment, and to the detriment of most Americans.
From "Did Gary Johnson and Jill Stein Voters Cost Hillary Clinton The Election?":
“Now that Donald Trump is president-elect, despondent Hillary Clinton supporters need someone
to blame. Of course, they could blame the Democratic Party for willfully tipping the scales in
favor of ensuring the nomination of a candidate who is a deeply unpopular, extremely vulnerable,
scandal-plagued candidate... They could blame the fact that Clinton only won 65 percent of
Latino voters—despite running against a candidate who has threatened mass deportation of
undocumented immigrants whom he described as "rapists" and "criminals," and who promised to
build a Mexican-financed wall on our Southern border. At least 27 percent of Latinos voted
for...Trump! There were other voter problems Clinton ran into, which likely dwarf any effect
third party voters had on denying her the presidency (not least of which because it's ridiculous to
assume third party voters would automatically go to Clinton). But self-reflection is hard and
blaming the deliberately marginalized voices of third party voters by the Democratic and
Republican parties is easier.”
This article is perhaps the most solidly spot-on. The Democrats will continue to blame everyone
but themselves for their pathetic losses. The Democrats cannot even rally Latinos to their cause,
even in the face of being crassly slandered with untrue epithets and menacingly threatened with
deportation. Could this maybe POSSIBLY reflect the fact that the Democrats offered no concrete
reason to vote for them, given the Obama administration’s embrace of the shameful ICE
(Immigration and Customs Enforcement), which operates private prisons that treat undocumented
immigrants in the cruelest fashion?
The Democrats and their bullying minions will always find reason to blame the Green Party,
despite how the Green Party actually advocates for their rights (unlike the corporate, corrupt
Dems), and despite how a true democracy entails incubation and fostering of third, fourth, and
fifth parties. Look at European democracies for proof. I would say that the Democrats lack