(Photo: Gage Skidmore/flickr/cc)
Feb 21, 2016
It's almost surreal to go back and watch Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign announcement today.
Last April, with a handful of reporters gathered outside the US Capitol, Sanders strode casually across the grass and unfolded a crinkled sheet of notes. As he spoke -- airing his now-familiar grievances with the ever-more-unequal American economy -- photographers snapped perfunctory pictures while journalists fiddled with their smartphones. It was all over in about ten minutes.
If little pomp attended Sanders's announcement, there appeared to be even less circumstance. An obscure Vermont socialist, polling 3 percent nationally, had joined the race against Hillary Clinton? This was practically the textbook definition of a protest candidate. "It's more important to you to get these ideas out," one reporter asked Sanders, "than to contest the Democratic nomination?"
The next day, media analysts sized up Sanders's candidacy with the same mix of mild amusement and polite condescension. The best possible outcome for a Sanders campaign, agreed the New York Times, NBC News, and Politico, was that his "liberal zeal" might "force Clinton to the left."
Nine months later, this verdict seems terribly wrong. Not only has Sanders emerged as a serious threat to capture the nomination -- his victory in New Hampshire was the largest in primary history -- but his impact on the shape of the campaign has been almost the opposite of what experts imagined.
Read the full article at Jacobin.
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
© 2023 Jacobin
Matt Karp
Matt Karp is an assistant professor of history at Princeton University and a Jacobin contributing editor.
It's almost surreal to go back and watch Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign announcement today.
Last April, with a handful of reporters gathered outside the US Capitol, Sanders strode casually across the grass and unfolded a crinkled sheet of notes. As he spoke -- airing his now-familiar grievances with the ever-more-unequal American economy -- photographers snapped perfunctory pictures while journalists fiddled with their smartphones. It was all over in about ten minutes.
If little pomp attended Sanders's announcement, there appeared to be even less circumstance. An obscure Vermont socialist, polling 3 percent nationally, had joined the race against Hillary Clinton? This was practically the textbook definition of a protest candidate. "It's more important to you to get these ideas out," one reporter asked Sanders, "than to contest the Democratic nomination?"
The next day, media analysts sized up Sanders's candidacy with the same mix of mild amusement and polite condescension. The best possible outcome for a Sanders campaign, agreed the New York Times, NBC News, and Politico, was that his "liberal zeal" might "force Clinton to the left."
Nine months later, this verdict seems terribly wrong. Not only has Sanders emerged as a serious threat to capture the nomination -- his victory in New Hampshire was the largest in primary history -- but his impact on the shape of the campaign has been almost the opposite of what experts imagined.
Read the full article at Jacobin.
Matt Karp
Matt Karp is an assistant professor of history at Princeton University and a Jacobin contributing editor.
It's almost surreal to go back and watch Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign announcement today.
Last April, with a handful of reporters gathered outside the US Capitol, Sanders strode casually across the grass and unfolded a crinkled sheet of notes. As he spoke -- airing his now-familiar grievances with the ever-more-unequal American economy -- photographers snapped perfunctory pictures while journalists fiddled with their smartphones. It was all over in about ten minutes.
If little pomp attended Sanders's announcement, there appeared to be even less circumstance. An obscure Vermont socialist, polling 3 percent nationally, had joined the race against Hillary Clinton? This was practically the textbook definition of a protest candidate. "It's more important to you to get these ideas out," one reporter asked Sanders, "than to contest the Democratic nomination?"
The next day, media analysts sized up Sanders's candidacy with the same mix of mild amusement and polite condescension. The best possible outcome for a Sanders campaign, agreed the New York Times, NBC News, and Politico, was that his "liberal zeal" might "force Clinton to the left."
Nine months later, this verdict seems terribly wrong. Not only has Sanders emerged as a serious threat to capture the nomination -- his victory in New Hampshire was the largest in primary history -- but his impact on the shape of the campaign has been almost the opposite of what experts imagined.
Read the full article at Jacobin.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.