The Washington Post admitted on Tuesday that the Democratic Party is full of socialist hearts. In a story on the Clinton-Sanders primary battle, reporter Karen Tumulty announced Clinton and Sanders “are laying down a choice for Democrats: Lead with their heads, or with their hearts.... For Democrats, the question is whether the best path to retaining power is the pragmatic or the ideal.”
Although the Post doesn’t say this directly, Hillary is the pragmatist head and Sanders the socialist is the idealist heart. But the headline merely said “Clinton-Sanders contest pits pragmatism vs. idealism.”
Tumulty strangely tried to say Bernie Sanders isn’t leading the grass-roots against an establishment:
The Democratic battle is not the bitter rebellion of the grass roots against the establishment that is underway on the Republican side. For Democrats, 2016 is turning into a soul-searching exercise, reminiscent of many contests the party has seen in recent decades.
But if Sanders claims to be leading a "revolution," how is this not against an establishment? How is it not bitter, when Sanders proclaims that Wall Street is based on fraud? It seems the Post just can't stand the possibility that the Clintons don't have the grass roots....or, as Tumulty suggests from a source as the article concludes, "it's going to take a while" for the "progressives" to come around to supporting her with any enthusiasm.
This Tuesday analysis crumbled quickly. On Wednesday, it became a fighting word for Bernie Sanders to describe Hillary-endorsing groups as “establishment.” Conor Beck at Lifenews.com reproduced the Sanders statement:
“What we are doing in this campaign, it just blows my mind every day because I see it clearly, we’re taking on not only Wall Street and economic establishment, we’re taking on the political establishment. … So, I have friends and supporters in the Human Rights [Campaign] Fund and Planned Parenthood. But, you know what? Hillary Clinton has been around there for a very, very long time. Some of these groups are, in fact, part of the establishment.”
The abortion organization, which for the first time in its 100-year history made a primary endorsement this month for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, shot back by saying, “It’s a little ridiculous to call an organization Congress and Republican presidential candidates have spent six months attacking ‘establishment.’”
But being attacked by the Republicans doesn't mean you're not part of the Democrat establishment. It underlines why Republicans would want to deny funding to the Democrat establishment (beyond just the grisly business they're in).
Sanders declaring – truthfully – that Planned Parenthood was a pillar of the Democrat establishment drew furies from feminists, like it was somehow a vicious smear. Nita Chaudhary, co-founder of the feminist group Ultraviolet, declared “At this time when Planned Parenthood, and women's health care in general, is under daily attack from Republicans and right wing extremists, the choice by Senator Sanders to malign such an important organization for women on national television is particularly disappointing. We stand with Planned Parenthood: Care. No matter what.”
Tumulty and the Post cannot seem to place Sanders on the “left” and certainly not on an “extreme.” The word "liberal" appears twice, and nothing for "left-wing" or "leftist." Instead, Sanders represents “bold ideas,” while Hillary is apparently just a vanilla liberal:
“People are tired of being dominated by big-money interests, and Bernie Sanders expresses that, and I think he expresses it in a way that says, ‘You know what? As Democrats, we also need to be about bold ideas, and not be afraid of bold ideas,’?” said [leftist] Rep. Donna F. Edwards (D), who is running for a U.S. Senate seat in Maryland.
One of the boldest of those is a single-payer health-care system, which Sanders describes as Medicare for all — a massive expansion of government that many liberals believe is the only way to reach their cherished goal of medical coverage for everyone.
Kudos for noting socialism is "a massive expansion of government," although in reality, there is not quite "medical coverage for everyone" in these European paradises cited by Sanders. People are still denied care, but the denier is the government, not some private company.
