HOW IS IT THAT THE CORPORATE MEDIA HAS HILLARY WINNING THE DECEMBER 19 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE?

The analysis coming out of the corporate media focuses on style and knowledge of the issues. On that basis the media calls Clinton the “winner” and Bernie Sanders a “loser.” Especially prominent in the media’s “analysis” is Clinton’s closing statement “May the Force be with you.”

I happen to like Bernie Sanders’ sincerity over Hillary Clinton’s polished style, but that is admittedly subjective. What may be far more important in determining who “won” the debate are the positions of the candidates on specific issues. Here I believe that Sanders has it over Clinton. His clear rejection of “regime change” as a driving force behind foreign policy formulation and his specific reference to Washington’s responsibility in the disaster following the U.S. –backed overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran (1953) and Allende twenty years later I think resonates. In contrast Clinton’s statement that U.S. foreign policy has to combine realpolitik imperatives with democratic objectives in my opinion was not at all convincing, and O’Malley’s response that the former, in practice, generally eclipses the latter I think was well put.

The media has also omitted any discussion of Sander’s serious proposals including: free public university education, the single-payer health system (which some surveys indicate is supported by a majority of U.S. citizens and the media doesn’t seriously touch with a ten-foot pole), and schemes to tax corporate profit.  

My statement on the media’s evasion of the real issues that are being debated by the Democratic candidates has one surprising exception. Moderator Martha Raddatz cornered Clinton on her hawkish position on Libya which led into the current situation of that nation as a failed state and a haven for the ISIS terrorists. As Secretary of State she pressured Obama into military action against Gaddafi.

HUGO CHAVEZ’S LEGACY UNDER FIRE

The Venezuelan opposition’s triumph in the National Assembly elections may bolster its argument with regard to the unsustainable nature of the policies carried out by the Chavista governments. Opposition leaders label these policies “cheap populism.” In the following article published in Jacobin Magazine, I question their analysis on grounds that it is simplistic and lacking in contextualization: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/12/venezuela-elections-hugo-chavez-maduro/