Regardless of the smearing, negativity and even media-exaggerated scapegoating, most progressives will definitely vote for Hillary, even as a movement forms and anarchist dissenters slowly multiply (especially among the youth).
It's not surprising that Krugman has to go to such great lengths to discredit Bernie. Someone who has been in politics for 40 years and has no dirt on him -- this is a rare politician indeed, and not so easy to tarnish.
(Photo credit: Reuters/Mark Kauzlarich/Tim Shaffer/Photo montage by Salon) When NYT columnist Paul Krugman ...
The myth of the American Dream is the dominating factor in keeping people complacent in the United States. You know it -- work hard, and your life will improve. Well, maybe not your life, but your kids', or at least your grandkids'. If that doesn't work, it is the fault of immigrants, or the darn Chinese, or those welfare freeloaders.
People support presidential candidates for a variety of reasons, and instead of jumping to conclusions about the character of those who disagree with us, we should listen to those reasons and evaluate them on their merits. At the same time, ethics and evidence matter.
The second super-Tuesday primaries have come and gone. Five wins for Hillary including Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Illinois and Missouri have increased her pledged delegate lead to over 300. Realistically that signals the end of Bernie Sanders chance at the nomination.
Increasingly the campaigns are portrayed as a threat to basic American institutions and values. Meanwhile, these polarities are used to reinforce the notion that Hillary Clinton is the rational alternative to these extremists.
The Soviet Union seemed permanent and invincible, until it didn't. When it fell, far more suddenly than anyone thought it would or could, the festering rot of decades was exposed to the world. We're seeing this happen, in real time, with the Republican Party.
Bernie Sanders's problem with exports, "because they benefit large corporations," is more than somewhat astounding. Who does he thinks works in all the Boeing plants? Doesn't he realize that a large percent of Boeing shares are owned by various American retirement funds and individual American 401k plans?
Boom Bust Boom picks up on the notion that financial crashes like 2008 -- the result of an overheated housing market -- are nothing new and to prove it the film takes you on an excursion to 17th century Holland.
The very ferocity and coordinated nature of the attacks on Sanders makes clear that the Democratic establishment views Sanders not merely as an annoyance, but as an existential threat. And he may be, at that.
If you depend for your news on the New York Times you have been subjected to a drumbeat of article attacking Bernie Sanders -- and the conclusion of everyone "serious" that his economics are daft. In particular, you would "know" that four prior Chairs of the President's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) (the Gang of Four) have signed an open letter to Bernie that delivered a death blow to his proposals.
Good journalism and good economics requires an open debate about the key issue driving the Sanders revolt: runaway inequality.
The outcome of Bernie's economic vision is very dependent on the "broad-based" support of his policies by independent voters, as well as Democrats. The upcoming Nevada caucus and South Carolina primary should tell us if he has enough support to bring his vision closer to reality.
Paul Krugman, Team Hillary's ace New York Times columnist, simply cannot find a kind word for Bernie Sanders or his idealistic supporters.
Given that a lot of people think about electability, it's worth looking at some evidence. The numbers indicate that the Democrats' electoral prospects would be better under Bernie Sanders than under Hillary Clinton for two important reasons.