COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY JONATHON FREEDLAND IN THE
GUARDIAN
And, Jonathan Freedland, you're no Seymour Hersh or I. F.
Stone or Carl Bernstein or Robert Fisk – a few of our finer journalists.
This piece is simply vacuous.
Essentially, it is just one more Guardian attack on Corbyn, and a rather cowardly one.
I truly think Guardian
readers should ask why this newspaper, once considered as representing the
interests of working people and progressives, gives such an inordinate amount
of space to attacking, week after week, a decent and thoughtful politician?
Why is he such a threat?
And Freedland is silly at his own game here.
The Guardian always dismisses Corbyn as
"unrealistic," which is just code for: outside the establishment which
the paper now so desperately works to support and do good works for.
Just look at the ridiculous article celebrating Rupert
Murdoch and his aging Lady Gaga which has run for two days, and with no
comments allowed. It is at least the third article on the dreary subject I can
remember. That somehow represents the interests of working people and
progressives?
Bernie's a refreshing voice, and I like him, but, as I've
said, he has the proverbial "snow ball's chance in hell" of being
elected.
A self-declared “democratic socialist” becoming leader of a
belligerent, plutocratic empire?
Unless you know America well, it is hard to describe how
absurd that notion is. I spent nearly half my life there and still study
aspects of it, and I can honestly say that its brutality, belligerence and its
plutocratic nature have only increased, become overwhelming, virtually
cancerous, as I could never have imagined many decades ago.
If Sanders were somehow to manage the double miracle of
getting the nomination and then winning the election, either he or the empire
would have to change.
Want to guess which one it would be?
_____________________
Footnote on how it works in America. Sanders won a landslide
victory in New Hampshire, yet he leaves the state with roughly the same number
of delegates as Hillary. And the party has an institution known as
super-delegates – there are many hundreds of them – who have no responsibility
to vote at the convention as the people voted in the primaries. I believe
something approaching half of these already are pledged to Hillary.
