WP Article: The end is coming: A top Sanders adviser hints at a quiet finish
Bullshit from the WP:
by Greg Sargent
HE MORNING PLUM:
There’s a whole lot of hand-wringing among Democrats right now over Bernie Sanders’s vow to keep on trying to flip super-delegates even if he continues to trail badly in the popular vote and pledged delegate count — a quest that, he says, could spill on to the convention floor in Philadelphia in July. Both Sanders himself and his campaign manager Jeff Weaver have rattled this saber.
But now senior Sanders adviser Tad Devine has telegraphed a much more likely endgame — one that would be a whole lot quieter and less contentious. In an interview with Rachel Maddow, Devine was asked whether this strategy is in sync with Sanders’s high-minded campaign, and he answered, in part:
“The key test is succeeding with voters. In 2008 I wrote a piece that they published in the New York Times right after Super Tuesday, and I argued that super-delegates should wait, should look and listen to what the voters do, and follow the will of the voters. And I can tell you, I got a lot of push-back from the Clinton campaign at the time, when I published that piece.
“But I believe that today — that our super-delegates, that our party leaders, should let the voters speak first. And I think if they do, all the way through the end of the voting, that will strengthen our party, and certainly strengthen our hand — if we succeed with voters between now and June.”
Note that “if.” In one sense, Devine is basically calling on Democrats to be patient and allow the voting to continue until the end. (I’ve argued that there are many good reasons for Sanders to keep going until all the votes have been counted.) But Devine is also clearly indicating that the super-delegates should not contradict the will of the voters, once they’ve all had a chance to speak.
---------------------
I didn't see the interview with Maddow, but it appears they are trying to parse Devine's words and then use them again him. Another fucking hit piece on Sanders. Why should we be surprised?
= new reply since forum marked as read
The potential of ending up with a president who does not take banking/corporate money is simply unimaginable for the powers that be who believed that their work was done, that the US government had been captured once and for all. What a horror for them to imagine Bernie Sanders in a position where he has unlimited access to the media to speak directly to the millions upon millions of disenfranchised people in this country (the "99%"
, who has the power of the veto, who has a long history of productively working with his colleagues in both parties, who has shown that candidates can mount successful campaigns without taking money from the big boys (what a horrific precedent!) No, that would not do at all and the attempts to make sure that does not happen will only become more numerous, more dishonest, and uglier as time goes on. The media is not reality even though it works overtime to create a virtual reality that we will all meekly accept as the real thing. The sprawling media leviathan, 90% of which is controlled by 6 corporations, is a menace to anything approximating democracy. Thanks for signing that Telecommunications Act of 1996, Bill!
