(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 Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Our Summer Campaign is now underway, and there’s never been a more urgent time for Common Dreams to be as vigilant as possible. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 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.