Far From Unrealistic, Sanders Has the Experience to Work Toward his Vision
| February 7, 2016 | 9:42 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, political struggle | No comments

By on

Source: Politicus

It has been claimed Sanders is unelectable and unrealistic, but his years as senator suggest his ability to hold onto his ideals while he works the daily grind of the political process

Far From Unrealistic, Sanders Has the Experience to Work Toward his Vision

Sanders’ plan of political revolution is absolutely pragmatic. The dismissing of it by pundits is shameful. What is his revolutionary vision? Getting people engaged in democracy and voting. It’s not the ballot or the bullet. It’s just the ballot.dream

Gandhi famously outlined the stages of reactionary response to revolutionaries, explaining, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”  Bernie Sanders has experienced something similar.

They tried ignoring him. Then when polls moved and that was no longer possible, they ridiculed him as unelectable, even resorted to red-baiting, declaring him out of touch with mainstream voters and insisting, “America isn’t evolved enough to elect an avowed socialist.”

When it turned out Americans are willing to look beyond provocative labels and scrutinize policies, “they” now call him unrealistic.

The Washington Post derided  him for “selling his own brand of fiction,” while  Paul Krugman  deemed it “politically unrealistic to imagine that we can get the kind of radical overhaul he’s proposing.”

Chaz Pazienza encapsulates this latest attack strategy: “Sanders wants to fundamentally change American hearts and minds. Clinton wants to formulate a plan of action that gets things done. Sanders sells idealism.”

This is the story now. Hillary will get things done as the pragmatist, whereas Sanders is the out-of-touch idealist who has to invoke “political revolution” to advance, Pazienza says, “pie-in-the-sky thinking that simply doesn’t occur in representative democracies like ours, where change always comes incrementally and our system is designed so it can’t be remade in one fell swoop.”

I guess King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” wouldn’t play so well these days.

How quickly we forget about dreams and their importance, their necessity, for significant social change.

But now “dream” is a dirty word, a communist plot.

Indeed, the vocabulary of “incrementalism” Pazienza employs calls up the politics of gradualism invoked when African Americans sought basic and long-overdue rights in this nation. “Just wait. Be Patient. These things take time.” Are we seriously going to invoke the language of consensus and gradualism when it comes to gross and unsustainable inequality that undermines democracy and people’s basic dignity in this country?

Was it right to ask African Americans or women to wait for basic political rights and social equality because a good number of the nation’s citizens were racist and misogynist?

We are driving forward-thinking imagination out of our politics, going from “Yes, We Can!” to “Maybe later. We need to wait for reactionaries to change their minds.”

More to the point, though, is the utter speciousness and bad faith involved in figuring Clinton as the realist who will get things done and Sanders as the idealist who has no idea how to play the game in Washington. Remember, Sanders served sixteen years in the House of Representatives and has been senator since in 2006. He has legislated, and governed. He was elected to be mayor of Burlington, Vermont four times. Clearly, he can get some things done. He also helped craft the Affordable Care Act legislation, let’s not forget.

And let’s here address a grossly slanderous misrepresentation promulgated by the anti-Sanders campaign. This is the notion, forwarded by Clinton herself, that Sanders wants to tear down the Affordable Care Act and start from scratch rather than build upon it.

Sanders does want to move to a single-payer system, but his opponents make it sound as if suddenly people will be without health insurance, as when Clinton has said repeatedly that it’s easier to move from 90% insured to 100% insured than to start again at zero. These statements are either disingenuous or just outright ignorant, making it sound as if Sanders will dismantle or repeal the ACA before beginning and completing the process of putting something better in its place. He has never said or implied anything of the sort. The beauty of his vision is that we have the ACA in place so that now we can work for better. Until we arrive at a more optimal alternative, we’ll still have the ACA in place. Let’s face it—the U.S. spends more than twice as much per capita on healthcare as the average developed nation does and ranks worst among eleven wealthy nations in terms of “efficiency, equity, and outcomes,” Time magazine reported in 2014. Can’t we do better? Of course, we can.

And what about Clinton? I have heard little in terms of how she’ll get things done. According to the Washington Post, Sanders’ agenda doesn’t have consensus and ignores the reality of the checks and balances of our system. But what will Clinton do? Obama stepped into office met by a Republican constituency whose chief goal was obstruction. Clinton may be even more reviled by the Republicans and will face the same gridlock. Yet those who attack Sanders, arguing he will be ineffective in implementing his policies, have yet to offer any clear sense of what Clinton’s pragmatic strategy will be.

Finally foregoing bi-partisanship, Obama proceeded with what has been an historic presidency, using the power inherent in presidency, issuing executive orders when he could to realize his vision, most notably on issues such as immigration, gay marriage, wages, and gun control.  He had a large vision, and he implemented it as he could—often not through political negotiation but through executive action.  He did not have consensus; he dealt with checks and balances, just Lyndon Johnson did when pushing through civil rights legislation ahead of the national consensus.

Change may come incrementally, but don’t we want someone with the larger vision, the guiding dream, even if we only take baby steps toward that pie in the sky? How can we realize the ideal if we don’t articulate what it is and fight for it?  Sanders has given no indication that it’s all or nothing for him–that it’s a socialist society tomorrow or he’s out of ideas. His years as senator suggest his ability to hold onto his ideals while he works the daily grind of the political process.

Moreover, Sanders has presented plans to pay for his programs, but it is easier for critics to ignore what they don’t want to hear.

Maybe he can’t get all this done, get the tax reform he wants through congress, but wouldn’t you rather have someone who tried, who had a larger vision of where we needed to go and took what steps he could to get us there, rather than someone with a modest and compromised vision from the start?

His plan of political revolution is absolutely pragmatic. The dismissing of it by pundits is shameful. What is his revolutionary vision? Getting people engaged in democracy and voting. It’s not the ballot or the bullet. It’s just the ballot. If people vote, pressure will be put on representatives. That, Mr. Pazienza, is how representative democracy works.

Is thinking the American voter can have a role in democracy really pie-in-the-sky? Shame on anyone who dismisses this possibility.

Is this so much of a dream?

Geez, let’s at least dream the small dream of an engaged and empowered electorate to create a modicum of the democracy we are supposed to have.

Or are we too pragmatic for that?

Bernie Out of the Closet: Sanders’ Longstanding Deal with the Democrats
| February 7, 2016 | 5:36 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, political struggle | No comments

Submitted by Paul Street on


by Paul Street

Bernie may call himself a socialist, but since his terms as mayor of Burlington VT in the 1980s, the state’s Democrats have never run anybody against him.  In return “socialist” Bernie Sanders has supported every war and military intervention since the 1980s, just like every other good Democrat.

Bernie Out of the Closet: Sanders’ Longstanding Deal with the Democrats

by Paul Street

I am glad that the left intellectual and activist Chris Hedges does not support the Bernie Sanders campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. As Hedges explained in a recent interview on the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, Sanders’ candidacy lends undeserved credibility to the thoroughly corporatized Democratic Party. Sanders has pledged that he will support the corporatist military hawk Hillary Clinton in the 2016 general presidential election. Sanders stirs up legitimate progressive energy and popular anger and then “funnels it back into a dead political system,” Hedges observes. Sanders fails to confront the American Empire and military state, and, Hedges adds, has unforgivably “abandoned the Palestinians and given carte blanche to Israel.”

I agree on all scores. Hedges’ reasoning is consistent with my own recent writings on interviews on the Sanders presidential sensation. I do, however, want to raise one quibble with Hedges on Sanders’ history – a difference that makes Hedges’ case against Sanders even stronger. “I don’t understand,” Hedges told Nader: “He [Sanders] fought the Democratic establishment in Vermont his entire career. Now he has sold out to it.”

Sanders’ 1990 Deal with the Dems

Sanders did not “f[i]ght the Democratic establishment in Vermont his entire career.” As the left University of Vermont philosopher Will Miller noted in a 1999 essay recounting left peace activists’ occupation of then U.S. Congressman Bernie Sanders’ Burlington, Vermont office to protest Sanders’ support of the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia and the ongoing U.S. War on Iraq, Sanders sold out to the corporate and war Democrats as early as 1990.

Between 1981 and 1988, it is true, Sanders “presented himself to the left outside of Vermont as the leader of the third party movement, vanquishing the two major parties in every Mayoral election.” But in 1988, Sanders got a lesson on the perils of third party politics when he ran for federal office. In the election for Vermont’s seat in the House of Representatives, the independent Sanders and Democrat Paul Poirer divided the majority vote and the contest went to a Republican. Sanders responded by drifting right and cutting a deal with the Vermont Democrats: the party would permit no serious candidate to run against him while he blocked serious third party formation in Vermont and adopted positions in line with the national corporate war Democrats. Miller’s up-close account merits lengthy quotation:

“Bernie – out of office for the first time in eight years – went to the Kennedy School at Harvard for six months and came back with a new relationship with the state’s Democrats. The Vermont Democratic Party leadership has allowed no authorized candidate to run against Bernie in 1990 (or since) and in return, Bernie has repeatedly blocked third party building. His closet party, the Democrats, are very worried about a left 3rd party forming in Vermont. In the last two elections, Sanders has prevented Progressives in his machine from running against Howard Dean, our conservative Democratic Governor who was ahead of Gingrich in the attack on welfare.”

“The unauthorized Democratic candidate in 1990, Delores Sandoval, an African American faculty member at the University of Vermont, was amazed that the official party treated her as a nonperson and Bernie kept outflanking her to her right. She opposed the Gulf build-up, Bernie supported it. She supported decriminalization of drug use and Bernie defended the war on drugs, and so on…”

“After being safely elected in November of 1990, Bernie continued to support the buildup while seeking membership in the Democratic Congressional Caucus – with the enthusiastic support of the Vermont Democratic Party leadership. But, the national Democratic Party blew him off, so he finally voted against the war and returned home – and as the war began – belatedly claimed to be the leader of the anti-war movement in Vermont.”

“Since 1991 the Democrats have given Bernie membership in their Congressional Caucus. Reciprocally, Bernie has become an ardent imperialist. Sanders endorsed Clinton in 1992 and 1996. In1992 he described Clinton as the ‘lesser of evils,’ (a justification he used to denounce when he was what the local press called an ‘avowed socialist’). By 1996 he gave Clinton an unqualified endorsement. He has been a consistent ‘Friend of Bill’s’ from since 1992. One student I know worked on the Clinton Campaign in 1996 and all across Vermont, Bernie was on the stage with the rest of the Vermont Democratic Party Leadership, while the unauthorized Democratic candidate for his Congressional seat was kept out in the audience.”

During the 1990s, the not-so “independent” Congressman Sanders voted for and/or otherwise supported:

* Economic sanctions that killed more than a million Iraqi civilians

* Every U.S. bombing of Iraq from 1992 on

* The sending of U.S. military units to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to threaten Iraq because “we cannot tolerate aggression”

* The objectively racist and mass-incarcerationist Federal Crime bill.

* Every US intervention since elected to Congress–Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Liberia, Zaire (Congo), Albania, Sudan, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia.

Many of Sanders’ liberal fans might be surprised to learn that he voted for a National Rifle Association (NRA)-supported bill to restrict lawsuits against gun manufacturers and against the Brady Bill.

The “leftist” Congressman Sanders liked to send out mailings sends out mailings to veterans that supported the US having “the strongest military in the world” and praised soldiers as sacrificing “for the freedom of Americans.” Sanders repeatedly failed to invite antiwar veterans’ groups to his many veterans events in the state.

By Miller’s account, the “independent” and “leftist” Congressman Sanders’ political trajectory stood well to the right of Black House Democrats like Maxine Waters and Ron Dellums, “who movedcontinuously to their left during their Congressional careers.” Sanders, by contrast, “got where he is now by a lurch to the right. He promises working people, the aged, the poor, and the ‘vanishing middle class’ that he will defend them while he repeatedly blocks the building of the anti-capitalist political movement and party that might actual make such promises legitimate.” When a Vermont leftist questioned Representative Sanders in public about his failure to help build a left-progressive alternative to the capitalist party duopoly, Sanders said he was now too busy with his Congressional work to worry about such things.

“The Citizenry Moaned Audibly”

Miller’s essay appeared after he and fourteen other peace activists were arrested for “trespassing” in Sanders’ Burlington office. Seeking to control the public relations damage, Sanders hijacked a regularly scheduled town meeting in Burlington to advance his position on behalf of Bill Clinton’s criminal war on Serbia. By Miller’s observation:

“A general town meeting had already been scheduled for the following Monday, so he turned it to a ‘town meeting on Kosovo.’ Apparently, Bernie Sanders had forgotten what a Town Meeting is…Sanders as the self-appointed moderator/boss opened the evening with naked self-justification: ‘It is a very complex situation’… followed by the ritual of demonization of Milosevic – a technique he has perfected over the last eight years on Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Then he presented the false dilemma that the only alternative to bombing is doing nothing. Sanders said his situation was the same as that of Joschka Fischer’s of the Green Party, Germany’s Foreign Minister, who has outraged his Green Party membership by supporting the bombing his coalition government is carrying out as part of NATO. “

“Back in Vermont the assembled citizenry moaned audibly.”

After the 9/11 attacks, “Bomber Bernie” (as Burlington peace activists dubbed Sanders) voted for the initial 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists that has been cited as the legal justification for U.S. military interventions and endless U.S. “global war on terror” – including the invasion of Iraq (which Sanders opposed along with most Democrats in Congress in 2002 and 2003). He voted for a non-binding resolution expressing support for troops at the outset of the invasion of Iraq. In March 2006, he opposed efforts to bring articles of impeachment against the open arch-war criminal George W. Bush since “the Republicans control the House and the Senate.”

Senator Sanders as a de facto Dem

When Sanders decided to make a bid for an open U.S. Senate seat in 2005, his longstanding service to the corporate Democrats won him the critical endorsement of Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Schumer’s backing meant that no Democrat running against Sanders could receive financial help from the party. Sanders was also supported by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and Democratic National Committee Chair and Chairman and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who described Sanders as an “ally who votes with the Democrats ninety eight percent of the time.” Then-U.S. Senator Barack Obama campaigned for Sanders in Vermont.

As when he was in the U.S, House, Senatorial candidate Sanders made a curious deal with the Vermont Democratic Party: he agreed to be listed on their primary ballot but to decline the nomination should he win, which he did.

The “independent” Sanders has enjoyed a special agreement with the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate. He votes with the Democrats on all procedural matters in exchange for the committee seats and seniority that would be available to him as a Democrat. (He can break this rule in some exceptional cases if Democratic Senate Whip Dick Durbin agrees, but the request is rarely made.) Sanders is free to vote as he wishes on policy matters, but he has almost always voted with the Democrats.

Consistent with this party loyalty, Sanders refuses to seriously or substantively criticize his “good friend” and Democratic presidential primary “rival” Mrs. Clinton – a militantly corporatist and militarist right-wing Democrat. Sanders has backed Obama’s numerous murderous military actions and provocations around the world, from Libya, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Iraq to China, Ukraine, and Russia. Sanders has said repeatedly that he will not be a third- party “spoiler” in the general election and thus will direct his primary delegates and voters to line up behind Hillary, Inc. in 2016. In his presidential campaign speeches, Sanders has been unwilling to mention the corporatized Democratic Party as part of the nation’s oligarchy problem. Presidential candidate John Edwards fulminated consistently against “corporate Democrats as well as corporate Republicans” when he ran in the Iowa Caucus eight years ago. Sanders, by contrast, focuses almost completely on corporate Republicans.

“But he’s a socialist,” many leftists exult. I’ve heard a number of Sanders speeches since he announced his presidential candidacy. He does not call himself a socialist. He does not call for socialism. He does not criticize or even refer to capitalism or the profit system, the underlying political-economic regime that is wired for the endless upward distribution of wealth and power and the ruination of livable ecology. Sanders rails against “the billionaire class,” against economic inequality, against the Republicans, against FOX News, against theCitizens United decision, and especially against those terrible Koch brothers. He’s running as a strident populist Democrat. In that regard, he’s not really all that different from Dennis Kucinich in 2003-04, Jesse Jackson in the 1980s and even Edwards in 2007-08, all of whom struck strong populist chords in efforts to reach the Democratic Party’s “progressive base.”

Out of the Democrats’ Closet

None of this is a departure from Sanders’ earlier career since 1989. As the shaggy-haired Mayor of progressive Burlington during the Reagan years, Sanders may have been a Sandinista-supporting left politico willing to challenge the two party duopoly. But Bernie cleaned up his too-radical act after his 1988 defeat. He went to “liberal” Harvard’s imperialist Kennedy school and came back to work in tandem with the corporate and militaristic Democrats under the guise of an “independent” and third party political identity. He’s been on the not all-that-left wing of the dismal dollar Dems ever since.

It’s all very different than the story Sanders tells campus town progressives on the campaign trail. According to that narrative, he has joined with the Democrats only this year and because of his pragmatic calculation that third party candidates cannot succeed under the U.S. party and electoral system. In reality, however, the Democrats have been Sanders’ “closet party” (Miller) for the last fifteen years. He’s really just coming out of the closet now for the presidential race, in a Clinton-welcomed effort to help give the Democrats a much-needed fake-populist makeover for the 2016 elections. The great Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene Debs (whose poster hangs in Sanders’ Senate office) would not be impressed.

Corporate Media Endorses Clinton to Defend Their Own Interests

‘I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding’ – Trump at debates
| February 7, 2016 | 5:25 pm | political struggle | No comments

‘I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding’ – Trump at debates

Trump is also the person who recently in November said he does not care if torture doesn’t work, because “they deserve it anyway.”

On Saturday, he continued in the same vein. “I’ll tell you what, in the Middle East, we have people chopping the heads off Christians. We have people chopping the heads off many other people. We have things that we have never seen before, as a group…  I would bring back waterboarding and I’d bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.”

His opponent, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, went as far as saying he does not believe the notorious practice of simulated drowning to be torture. “It is enhanced interrogation… It does not meet the generally recognized definition of torture.” He later added, however: “I would not bring it back in any sort of widespread use.”

However, despite this national alarm over waterboarding and the Bush era’s murky history – or even the Obama administration’s somewhat disappointing failure to prosecute those who sanctioned it, many Americans still seem to be betting on the one candidate who is most in favor of such methods.

Trump has left Ted Cruz and Florida Senator Marco Rubio far behind in the polls, gaining twice their numbers. But some suspect Trump’s 32 percent may not be that inexplicable. Political analyst Eric Draitser believes the Republican rhetoric amounts to fear mongering, where everyone tries to use the party’s traditional tactics to score points.

“Well, they’re playing to a very conservative and reactionary element in the United States, one that sees threats from radical Islam; that sees threats from the Middle East, from ISIS and all of these things as existential threats to the United States, and they’re playing on that,” Draitser told RT.

“What is so deeply cynical about all of this – whether they’re talking about waterboarding and terrorism… the heroin epidemic or the growing scourge of heroin use – [is] never asking the question – ‘where is the heroin coming from?’:  Afghanistan. ‘Where are the terrorists coming from?’ All of the countries the United States has been bombing and destroying,” he continued.

While Trump may understand political theater better than anyone on either side of the spectrum, he’s also being accused by Republicans of being a loose cannon.

READ MORE: #TooLateObama: President criticized for mosque visit from left and right

Draitser believes people should unite behind someone who is a serious opponent to Trump – such as the establishment-friendly Marco Rubio – and somehow also prevent Trump from going with a third party. Because, if Trump leaves the Republicans, this may eventually pave the way for Hillary Clinton’s victory.

In this way, the internal divisions among the Republicans seem to be of great importance. Just a few months ago, people were willing to concede that the very establishment-friendly Hillary had all but won. However, the tide appears to be changing, as many Americans still view her as, basically, Wall Street, next to someone like Sanders, who is now almost exactly tied with her.

The other candidates seemed to be using other issues to try and score what little they could to compete.

Trying to slow down the Florida senator ahead of the New Hampshire primaries on Tuesday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie blasted him for lacking leadership skills and experience, and even likened him to Obama.

“We’ve watched it happen, everybody. For the last seven years. The people of New Hampshire are smart. Do not make the same mistake again.”

Rubio’s accomplishments were actually near the top of the agenda, together with Islamic State, the epidemic of heroin use, economic recovery and, of course, immigration.

As for the three front-runners, it was Trump, Rubio and Ted Cruz who really got the debates going. And it was terrorism and immigration that took center-stage. While Trump is still the front-runner, things could change: the billionaire mogul came in second in Iowa recently, and some believe he may not have what it takes to win New Hampshire.

‘65,000% radioactivity spike’: New York Gov. orders probe into water leak at Indian Point
| February 7, 2016 | 5:21 pm | environmental crisis, political struggle | No comments

Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant on the Hudson river © wikipedia.org
In an “unacceptable” groundwater leak at the Indian Point nuclear power plant, three monitoring wells were discovered to contain “alarming levels of radioactivity,” the Governor of New York said, ordering an immediate environmental probe into the issue.

Health and environment commissioners were ordered by Governor Andrew Cuomo to begin an investigation into the leak of “radioactive tritium-contaminated water” at the Indian Point nuclear power plant after the operator, Entergy Nuclear Operations, raised the alarm.

One of the three wells in question, according to Cuomo’s statement, had “radioactivity increasing nearly 65,000 percent,” while in total the company reported “alarming levels of radioactivity” at three monitoring wells.

The cause of the contamination is unknown. The contamination has reportedly not spread off-site and does not pose an immediate threat to public health, according to the operator. Yet Cuomo noted that his first concern is for the “health and safety of the residents close to the facility.”

The Governor also stressed that authorities must ensure that the “groundwater leak does not pose a threat,” calling the “latest failure” at Indian Point “unacceptable.”

He tasked Department of Environmental Conservation’s acting commissioner, Basil Seggos, and the Health Department commissioner, Howard Zucker to “employ all available measures, including working with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to determine the extent of the release, its likely duration, cause and potential impacts to the environment and public health.”

The Indian Point nuclear power plant, 25 miles north of New York City, is located in Buchanan and sits on the east bank of the Hudson River. It supplies about 30 percent of the energy to New York City. The site includes two operating Westinghouse pressurized water reactors – Indian Point 2 and Indian Point 3. The plant also has the permanently shut-down Indian Point 1 unit reactor.

Cuomo has been pushing to close the Indian Point facility for several years, arguing it is not possible to safely operate a reactor so close to the nation’s largest metropolitan area. Some 20 million residents live within 50 miles of the plant.

Albright, Steinem slammed for ‘shaming’ women who don’t back Clinton
| February 7, 2016 | 5:18 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, political struggle | No comments

Former Secretaries of State Madeleine Albright (L) and Hillary Clinton along with author Gloria Steinem (R) © Reuters
Comments targeting young female supporters of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, made by two prominent women backing his main opponent Hillary Clinton, face the ire of an entire generation, based on social media reactions.

Just days before voting in the first primary begins in New Hampshire, Madeleine Albright, who served as Secretary of State in President Bill Clinton’s cabinet, stumped for his wife Hillary.

“There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other,” former US Secretary of State Albright said when introducing the democratic presidential hopeful at a rally in Portsmouth, New Hampshire on Saturday.

Although Clinton herself can be seen laughing at the comment, social media users did not find it funny, some describing the remarks as “condescending”, “vile”, and “not appropriate”.
In a Friday interview on the US TV show “Real Time with Bill Maher”, Ms Magazine founder Gloria Steinem, who in 1996 described Sanders as an “honorary woman”, said she believed young women only supported Clinton’s rival because “the boys are with Bernie”.
That prompted the Daily Kos blogger foolme1ns to write in a Sunday post titled Baby Boomer feminists slut shaming millennials.

“Your dismissal of these young women as just being horny and supporting Bernie simply to find boys, is sooo disappointing on so many levels. Shame on you, Gloria, and all baby boomer feminists for slut shaming the younger women for following their own judgement,” wrote foolme1ns.

Steinem released a short statement on her Facebook page Sunday saying she “misspoke” and apologizes for “what’s been misinterpreted”.

Comments underneath the post, however, have described it as a “non-apology” with one user noting it was “a great example of establishment feminism for the wealthy and privileged”.

Many of those who shared their thoughts on social media said they felt the statements made by both Albright and Steinem have done no favors for Clinton’s campaign and have in fact bolstered support for Sanders.

Journalist Nathan Wellman wrote on US Uncut, “There’s a ‘Special Place in Hell’ for Madeleine Albright”, citing her prominent role in NATO’s 1999 bombing of Serbia which led to the deaths of 2,000 civilians, including 88 children.

Sanders, Trump Lead in New Hampshire Ahead of Primaries – Poll
| February 7, 2016 | 5:07 pm | Analysis, Bernie Sanders, political struggle | 1 Comment
Clinton’s a ‘Liar,’ Sanders a ‘Socialist,’ Biden an ‘Idiot’: Latest Polls

Sanders, Trump Lead in New Hampshire Ahead of Primaries – Poll

© AP Photo/ Charlie Neibergall

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and Democratic hopeful Senator Bernie Sanders lead in New Hampshire ahead of the primaries, a poll revealed Sunday.

MOSCOW (Sputnik) — New Hampshire is the next state after Iowa to hold a vote for Republican and Democrat presidential candidates seeking their parties’ nominations. The New Hampshire primaries are scheduled to take place on February 9.

According to the CNN/WMUR poll, 33 percent of likely Republican primary voters support Trump, giving him a 17-percent advantage over his closest rivals. The lead is followed by US Senators Marco Rubio with 16 percent of votes, Ted Cruz with 14 percent and  Former Ohio Governor John Kasich with 11 percent.

A third of likely Republican voters said they were still undecided.

A total of 58 percent of the New Hampshire Democrats will vote for Sanders and 35 percent support Hillary Clinton, the poll showed.

The University of New Hampshire Survey Center interviewed 953 adult residents of New Hampshire between February 3 and 6 for the poll.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20160207/1034379026/trump-sanders-lead-primaries.html#ixzz3zWhBkKhI