for real and necessary change

... It is time that Hillary Clinton was cast aside by a real and necessary change Bernie Sanders imposed on Hillary Clinton in Wyoming Democratic candidate, Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders has won the Wyoming caucuses, beating rival Hillary Clinton, with 56 percent of the vote. Since Clinton now leads Sanders (1,280 delegates against 1,030 without superdelegates) victory in the caucuses in Wyoming reinforces momentum with which the senator from Vermont could earn in other states, publishes 'the Guardian' . Sanders has won seven races in a row nomination and victory in Wyoming gives strength to go ahead with more votes numerically important New York, Pennsylvania and Connecticut later this month. for a candidate to succeed at the Democratic convention (to be held between 25 and 28 July in Philadelphia) the guarantee of a total of 2,383 delegates is needed. RT the story told by the general and supposedly by the faithful of the American two - party system is that large differences policies are dominant among Republicans and Democrats. it is not said in the forums that might be important is that these differences have tended to migrate in tandem over the decades and are more style and grade type. the Republicans unite their willful ignorance with the belligerence of promoting destructive programs and self - interest of the empire while Democrats explain why the willful ignorance and belligerence produce bad results, but behind the scenes, follow the one - way 'market forces' to take out the same purposes. When the murderous war and tremendously misconceived by the US against Iraq began heading south in the 2000s early-mid national Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton, said the problem was that the war was being "mismanaged". that would have found this monster 'good governance' - more innocent killed or become refugees? more bombs dropped? and / or more destabilized regions? he never articulated any argument to the puzzle. The thesis of 'mismanagement' was to support one of the biggest humanitarian disasters with an unjust war for commercial and strategic reasons, while feigning opposition. No apology to Hillary, for his role in creating this mess, falling into the jail all lies created by the media to support it . what are all these lies that support? it is important to understand. they are "evil" class of imperial leadership that supports wars of aggression, corporate power without control, the prison state, a state of vigilance increasingly intrusive, disenfranchisement of voters, a "war on terror" permanent and privatization of education and health care. the Republicans deny the climate crisis while Democrats give credibility, as the years pass and trade agreements '' are signed without the ability to do anything about the companies that create the crisis. the frame-state corporate ensures that the policy serves Wall Street, the beneficiaries of the war, oil executives petrochemical company and gas and beneficiaries of inherited wealth to the detriment of the rest of us. the main point selling Hillary Clinton, it is who has the experience to navigate competently in the field of this kind of leadership, takes its existence as given and required in view of the disastrous consequences of his reign. was there a shortage of plutocrats and their servants in a few government argue that their absence detracted from the political vitality of the West. the Republican counterparts Clinton show the features of willful ignorance and belligerence, but few can claim his history of loyal service to the empire, Wall Street, to business class, with the prison state and the Democratic establishment. There is not a war of aggression, or a corporate privilege, not a privatization of public services or not an act against the common good that Mrs. Clinton has opposed in his years self-service public.the ex- secretary of Labor (Bill) Clinton, Robert Reich, he Tocco in recent decades the odious task of trying to sell the policies of the Democratic Party to the faithful of his party as good but they are each again disappointed.During a moment of clarity in the BBC documentary the century of the same Mr. Reich said one of the conundrums of Clintonism, the reigning philosophy of the Democratic establishment, in a return to Clinton advisor Dick Morris paraphrased here (see link to the exact language): Dick Morris: what is the point of running for election if it is not going to win? Robert Reich: what is the point of winning the election if it has a political agenda to enact the change was in response to Clinton program using surveys to craft micro-policies that appeal to white voters, underground trains hinge on the theory that they were the only voters at stake. This theory is that the Republicans had had a lock on the white, conservative and 'vote business' and Democrats had a lock on minority and labor voters. the irony here it is that the Clintons had a policy program that was to keep the Democratic establishment in power at all costs. the point was finally made ​​that survey results are paradoxical if people are asked if they want more services and lower taxes, policies los'impuestos mutually exclusive in spending federal funds' badly Clinton, say yes to both. in a move that illustrates the historical naivete, bordering on outright stupidity, Clinton survey program, the George W. Bush administration fed their talking to the captive national press to appear later as the concurrence of being self-generated with its policies. not that George W. Bush had discovered some brilliant theory of propaganda similar programs - to build support for war, racial repression and "freedom" for Western corporations to do whatever they wanted, because they had been used since the early twentieth century (link above). rather theory Clinton democracy "micro" through voting is neoliberal blather, a theory "consumer choice" policy that presents options for local products such as the realm of politics within the wider limits of an aggregation system (capitalism). the great conundrum for supporters of the Democratic Party at this point of the story is how change happens , like a modern governance technocratic exercise rather than a division of the spoils. "consumer choice" policy focuses on innovation "product "in incremental changes since the rejection of the neoliberal / neoconservative kingdom threatens relations of domination. the" compromise "faux-centrist behind programs Democratic establishment is the brokers that sell questionable and decreasing value captives 'marks'. in the care of global health insurance is more protection is education more student loans, is the provision of housing with more home loans, is transport policy more car loans, is the mortgage relief with more bank subsidies and national defense that the 'humanitarian' to which appeals for global resources. This view of governance, made ​​possible by establishment politicians of both parties, it is the buyers matching (electorate) with vendors (corporate benefactors uni-Party system), under the premise that the "markets" will force the privateers to deliver the promised goods. While the term 'neoliberalism' could well be appropriate in this case, the facts seem to point to something deeper, like Lenin's critique of the state as the creation of capitalism to serve only the interests of connected corporate capitalists. the neo-liberal vision is a unity of interests even for liberals, using its "model" Clinton has not even been taken to dismantle the aim of this policy symmetry necessary to force this to happen. what Hillary Clinton is offering a better relationship with the client, to help 'people' feel good again about the oil companies and multinational gas, on Wall Street, the imperial army, their local police departments and government of the corporate state. When Dow Chemical was criticized for its " contribution "of napalm and Agent Orange, the unpopular US war in Southeast Asia, began putting pictures of flowers, a symbol of anti-war movement in their ads. with Wall Street lobbyists company oil and gas and pharmaceutical companies that finance the campaign of Hillary Clinton multinational, who position themselves as custodians of mutual interests, when his salary depends only on meeting the needs of their corporate benefactors. the support of Mrs. Clinton by mass incarceration has found apologists who (correctly) they indicate that there were a lot of black (mis) leaders were also argue for a response from the police / prison to crack 'epidemic'. As author Dan Baum writes in Harper, the "war on drugs" was from the beginning a political weapon designed by the government to imprison Nixon, monitor, disrupt and otherwise impede the black communities and the anti-war left. Hearings end of 1980.The 'Iran-Contra' gave a testimony (again) that the importation of hard drugs for distribution in American cities was the official government policy. Possible explanations for this were that the Clintons are the "useful idiots' in the efforts of the right to crush the communities of color, their willing or opportunistic agents cynics who seek political gain demonizing citizens caught in a crisis of public health engineering. for those who have forgotten was Bill Clinton, who at the time was repeating the words of Ronald Reagan that "government is the problem, not the solution. " the phrase resonates in the context of one 's own 'war on drugs' of the Clinton because was the popular discontent over the US war in Southeast Asia and the continued harassment, arrest and imprisonment for possession of illegal drugs who supported the rhetoric against the Reagan administration which in turn was supported by his (and Clinton ) neocapitalist resurgence. the Clintons were just seeking to limit government intrusion live people by building out the prison been more intrusive in the history of the world. they were using government as an instrument of repression against the same targets chosen by Messrs. Nixon, Reagan and (George HW) Bush before them. the argument that Hillary Clinton is not responsible for the policies of her husband confuses his guilt by association with policies that actually has developed and promoted Bill Clinton when he was president . Clinton was an active promoter of mass incarceration in their own right. the modern incarnation of "humanitarian intervention" that Mrs. Clinton used with Barack Obama from the secretary of State to sell US war (NATO) against Libya it was developed by Clinton as cover for its humanitarian interventions in Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti and Iraq. in its own right, Hillary Clinton designed the destruction of Libya, sponsored by the US forehand in Ukraine, funding the forces of the "opposition" in Syria and hit more right in Honduras. At this point, the history of the aggressive policy of the neocons imperialist and capitalist economic policy resurgent neoliberals are the limits of possible policy in Western centers of power. Except when running for public office, Clinton has been an advocate unapologetic, the worst that can offer the neo-conservatism and neo - liberalism.She callously and unapologetic destroyed the lives of millions of people through mass incarceration and through the wars that started and supported. and it was instructive to see against her liberal apologists "hippie-punch 'younger voters, black activists and leftists aging push racial reconciliation, (real) universal health care, universal public education including college and graduate school, to Imperial wars and the actual resolution of the impending environmental catastrophe. Zero, nothing, nothing nothing, that is the possibility there that Mrs. Clinton really cast aside to make room for the youth movement that leans to the left, now powered by Bernie Sanders. the stakes in terms of tick politics, patronage and power to serve the deeply rooted western plutocracy are too high for the establishment of Democrats and Republicans) (never dispuestoa to give it in the public interest. not only Mrs. Clinton and his cohorts used the levers they have created to ensure she is the candidate of the Democratic Party, but the Democratic establishment will be the biggest obstacle to political and social resolution prevail for Mr. Sanders. the Party of FDR will do everything in his power to destroy the new deal programs revival that Mr. Sanders is promoting. If Bernie Sanders wins, the challenge would be an international, anti - imperialist, a coalition to move its political agenda to the left, the "pragmatic" option of Western political class and the ruling plutocracy. those who argue that Mr. Sanders will have the power to force the necessary contingencies in the Democratic establishment even if you lose are deceived. the choices are between fierce fight before, during and after the election of Mr. Sander if you win, you go ahead with an international but outside the political program, if he loses to the establishment and incapacitation and resignation. if Hillary Clinton wins to expect a more pleasant language around the neo-imperial same policies and the neo-capitalist Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would implement. counterpunch.org Posted by WEB PROMOTION ALTERNATIVE