Quote:Bernie Sanders' loss to a quintessential establishment candidate buoyed by near-universal support from superdelegates and Congress has for many confirmed a long-held belief: the Democratic Party, the argument goes, is inherently hostile to the left and a useless vehicle for transformational politics. First amongst those critics, of course, is Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, who last Wednesday spoke to a rapt crowd at the Socialist Convergence, a radical forum parallel to the Democratic National Convention.

"Bernie ran up against some limits for what you can do inside of a counterrevolutionary party, which is why we need a truly revolutionary party of the 99-percent," said Stein, urging Sanders supporters to vote Green in November.

But Stein is wrong: Sanders' experience shows the current limits of third-party presidential politics and the real possibility that the left can use the Democratic Party toward radical ends. If Sanders had run as a Green or independent, he would have traded in his revolution against the one-percent for the prospect of getting just one-percent of the votewhich is what Stein is currently on track to pick up. Instead, he won millions over to democratic socialism and into left politics.

The Sanders campaign began as a protest, was suddenly inundated with popular support, then shifted gears and rushed to duct tape together a campaign that would never quite catch up with the Clinton operation. The left almost took over the party by accident. If Hillary Clinton's victory represents the best that Democratic Party counterrevolutionaries have to offer, then that's really great news. History, full of spectacular electoral realignments, has made it clear that the two major parties aren't inherently anything at all.

"We are very close to building a majority coalition within the Democratic Party," said Lev Hirschhorn, who worked as a regional field director for the Sanders campaign in Philadelphia, at Wednesday's forum. "I have no interest in trying to reform the Democratic Party or pull the Democratic Party to the left…I think, however, that Bernie Sanders has demonstrated that we actually can take over the Democratic Party. That we have the ability. We are very close."

His comments elicited loud boos, and some cheers, from the crowd.

The establishment, awash in corporate money and snarky emails, is neither omnipotent nor cunning. It is feckless. Clinton won but Sanders forced her to seriously worry about losing. The emperor wears no clothes. Yet some on the left draw the opposite conclusion, preferring righteous marginality over actual power and substituting sappy moralism for clear-eyed strategy.

The system, dominated by big money and the two-party duopoly, is no doubt rigged. But not in the specific ways that some Sanders supporters think. Let's not give Debbie Wasserman Schultz more credit than she's due: the leaked DNC emails reflect sad griping more than coherent conspiracy. Though the debate schedule was stacked against Sanders, Clinton simply won more votes, which means the left, despite historic gains, still has more work to do to win majority support. But that work can be done. Demographic shifts and economic crisis are transforming politics in a way the party can't control.

Sanders' overwhelming support from young people, as Jacobin's Bhaskar Sunkara argued on Wednesday, is the centerpiece of a political coalition better positioned to shape the future than Donald Trump's. The bulk of that coalition is currently in the Democratic Party, and that's where the left must engage themthey cannot simply be relocated to a third party by leftist fiat. It's also, however, vitally important to maintain organizations independent of the Democratic Partyand to build the bases of more radical parties locally, from the ground up. No one understands this better than Sanders, who was positioned mount his historic primary challenge within the party only because he had spent his political lifetime outside of it.

Sanders activists have already remade the party, though only modestly so far. Clinton, after all, is the nominee. But the platform, to a significant if limited effect, is now a much better one, and Clinton chafes at new political constraints imposed by the left. Socialism is no longer a dirty word, and establishment figures must at least pretend to oppose corporate trade agreements. Last Monday, Sanders used his primetime speaking spot to warn Congress against passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership during a lame-duck session an incredible shot across the bow at a Democratic president during a Democratic Convention.

Sanders won just nine endorsements from Democratic colleagues in Congress while winning more than 13 million votes from rank-and-file Democratic voters. Trump's pseudo-populism has thrown the Republican Party, whose right-wing policies remain the greatest check on change, into chaos. There are across-the-board contradictions that the left can exploit.

This all matters not because I want to lecture Green Party supporters or fear-monger over Stein costing Clinton the election. She won't. The vast majority of Sanders supporters will vote for Clinton, most of those who won't would never have voted for her in the first place and almost never support Democrats at all, and it is healthy to maintain left organizations independent of the Democrats. What's at stake in this debate has nothing to do with November. It's a question of what happens next. The left now has a historic opportunity, and how it approaches the Democratic Party will help determine whether it can exploit it.

Cliff Varnell Wrote:

Magda Hassan Wrote:Hypothetical question. What happens if things go pear shaped with the Clinton campaign because she gets arrested or other such legal constraints mean she cannot hold office? Trump stays in the race but what happens for the Democrats or other candidates? Bernie has resigned from Democrats so presumable they wouldn't/couldn't use him not that they seemed to want to in the first place.

Magda, here's the thing about the Clintons.

They are probably the most investigated people on Earth.

As soon as the GOP took over Congress after the '94 mid-terms, they launched exhaustive investigations.

All they came up with is Bill lying about adultery in a deposition un-related to a settled civil suit.

What does that tell me?

That there is a "no fly zone" over the actual crimes Bill Clinton committed -- aiding and abetting drug/gun smuggling out of Mena Airport in Arkansas, while he was governor.

The Globalists and the Dominionists who form the American ruling elite have dirty hands when it comes to drug smuggling.

If the Clintons are so evil then why are they hated with such intensity by truly despicable folks like the Christian Right -- who in my opinion are the worst of the worst?

As far as Hillary being arrested because 3 State Department documents carried small "classified" markings by mistake and everyone in the loop missed it -- which FBI Direcor Comey admitted any reasonable person would understandably miss -- it's a dead issue.

It's a "gotcha," nothing more.

Magda Hassan Wrote:No, just a hypothetical musing. I know all of what you say there. I am just exploring the possibility if, despite a no fly zone over Bill's crimes, imagine Hilary is picked up and swept away by the giant condor and never seen again or if she goes duck hunting with Dick Cheney and he shoots her or gets hit by her campaign bus or any other possible tragedy and she is out of the running of president. What are the options? Would her running mate get picked? Would they go to Bernie? Would they go with Martin O'Malley? Go with no one? Call it off? Still trying to understand US political process for president. Corruption aside.

Magda Hassan Wrote:The same could be said for Trump if he is universally rejected by the GOP elites. Or encased in a brick box by Latino bricklayers in some unknown location and never seen again.

Drew Phipps Wrote:Sorry guys, Bernie missed the bus...

Jill Stein picks a running mate[SUB]
Grant Suneson
Aug 1st 2016 10:38PM

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/08/01/each-presidential-ticket-is-now-set-as-jill-stein-picks-a-runnin/21443101/

It may have seemed like convention season was over after the Democratic National Convention, but third-party candidates are still rounding their tickets into shape. Presumptive Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein announced Monday she selected Ajamu Baraka as her running mate. Stein's press release describes Baraka as an "activist, writer, intellectual and organizer with a powerful voice, vision, and lifelong commitment to building true political revolution."
[/SUB]

Cliff Varnell Wrote:Bernie's big lesson: Socialists should occupy the Democratic Party, not abandon it

Now that the trail has been blazed, the next step for Bernie supporters is to take over the Democratic Party

[URL="http://www.salon.com/writer/daniel_denvir/"]Daniel Denvir
[size=12]
[/URL]http://www.salon.com/2016/08/01/bernies_big_lesson_socialists_should_occupy_the_democratic_party_not_abandon_it/
[/SIZE]

Toward this end I intend to vote for Hill and donate $27 to Jill.

Peter Lemkin Wrote:It has it parallels in the late Roman period, when the Emperors were more and more corrupt and less and less popular as the Empire crumbled. Same in the US now.

David Guyatt Wrote:

Peter Lemkin Wrote:It has it parallels in the late Roman period, when the Emperors were more and more corrupt and less and less popular as the Empire crumbled. Same in the US now.

Ah, the collapse of Rome. Much needed in Washington and London - albeit that in London things have been shaken up badly thanks to Brexit already and the smell of real change is in the air.

It does seem to be a time of very big change.