(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.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
© 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.