Guardian Watch, latest, United States
Comments 40

Owen Jones: vote for Hillary because when she’s POTUS we can ask her nice to be progressive

by Catte

p

Owen Jones – one time darling of the liberal Left, is now, officially, endorsing Hillary Clinton.

True, they changed the headline shortly after publication. It originally read “The Sanders movement is bigger than Bernie. Now it must work with Hillary” But someone snuck in with the scissors and paste and now the headline reads “The Sanders movement is bigger than Bernie. Now it must defeat Trump”.

The Guardian’s tweet of the Jones article preserves the original wording though the article feed has been changed

But even if this might make Jones and his supporters feel a tad less queasy, it changes nothing. No matter how many sophisms and evasions are employed to try and make it seem he’s still standing by his principles even while he’s openly flouting all of them, Jones, who last year was defending Corbyn, is now endorsing Hillary “I will obliterate Iran” Clinton,

But you see Owen wants us to understand that Clinton isn’t Trump. And being not-Trump is always better than being Trump. So, even though Clinton also isn’t progressive, or honest, or sane, and even though she has no interest in helping the disadvantaged or rebuilding social infrastructure, and even though she conducted state business on a private email server so no one would be able to tell what nefarious and illegal, and potentially insanely dangerous things she was doing, and even though she presided over the Honduras debacle, and even though she authorised and gloated over the illegal murder of a foreign head of state, and even though she has threatened to “obliterate” Iran and take the confrontations with Russia and China to new heights that really might result in WW3, we absolutely have to get behind her because – hello – she isn’t Trump. And anyhow if we get her to be POTUS and make sure there are lots of lovely Democrats in Congress, maybe we can ask them to please do some of the socialist things Bernie talked about. They will probably say yes, of course And anyhow, Owen’s not sure if he mentioned this but Hillary isn’t Trump

Yes, this is what passes for political analysis when the neolibs are slipping you wads of cash to endorse the unendorsable, the discredited and the morally broken.

The likes of Jones are paid to surrender their dignity and ethics and pretend this macabre farce is something called “democracy”, and to sell the decaying relics offered up for candidacy as if they were real choices. That doesn’t mean we have to pretend to believe them. If I were a US citizen I’d take the only truly free choice left and decline to play this game of fake reality any longer. And if we all did that, the game would be over, wouldn’t it.


40 Comments

  1. Mike says

    I don’t wish to appear reverse ageist or anything, and I have no idea how old he really is, but every time I see his photo, he always seems like someone not quite old enough for the sixth form and I’m afraid this tends to make me judge his outpourings in those terms.

    Like

  2. reinertorheit says

    In his daily screed today, Owen advocates more ‘door-knocking’ activism to drum up support for Labour – illustrated by his idea of where he thinks Labour supporters live:

    https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/2a4a50c6b7dad653b786898e30c3e5f96a4822c4/0_68_3000_1800/master/3000.jpg?w=860&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=e724799d1e4b61f5caa82de5a21982c8

    Charming Victorian villas in South London.

    God forbid that awful people from places like this would join the Labour Party:

    Broadwater Farm Housing Estate, Tottenham, North London.

    Like

    • Mike says

      Well fair do’s – the lifts wouldn’t be working, and it’s a lorra lorra stairs to climb!

      Seriously though – I don’t think it’s London Labour has to worry about really. Where is their support in the rest of the country?

      Where I live, there has been no serious Labour challenge at Parliamentary level for…well, ever really.

      They’ve been known to get a few council seats on council estates (when there were such things), but there are very few (if any) of those these days. In 2015, the LibDem vote collapsed, for obvious reasons, but the votes didn’t go to Labour. Some went to the Greens, some to the NHS candidates, and sadly, a lot went to the Tories.

      Like

  3. anonymous says

    I am a 57-year-old U.S. citizen. To disabuse those Europeans who both live in smaller countries and have the blessing of a parliamentary system, the U.S. system never has been democratic. It is a show–a very expensive one–that the capitalist class puts on every two years in order to control the citizenry and to provide a justification for U.S. imperialism. The citizens are convinced that they don’t have to do a thing in order to make the “democracy” work, and that if they don’t like the results that either they are to blame or it is useless to oppose the system. And outside of Rome, people are told that the Roman way is best because it is legitimized by the vote of the citizens.

    Now, the capitalist class that controls Rome is no longer national, but transnational, being based on the transnational corporations and financial institutions and enjoying the full support of the transnational capitalist media. And as the rise of the Alt-Right shows, the old communist vs. far-right poles have become obsolete with the utter defeat and assimilation of the Marxist left, and have been replaced with new poles: Globaliists vs. Antiglobalists.

    Donald Trump is an antiglobalist. That’s the reason he deserves the full support of all those who oppose the transnational capitalist class and its institutions, including the EU, NATO, the WTO, the IMF, the World Bank and the OECD, to name just a few. There are not a few “progressives” and “leftists” who refuse to support Trump because he doesn’t sound intelligent. However, the election should not be about appearances but about policies. Obama sounded intelligent, but his policies all come out of the globalist think tanks, the CIA (his mum’s former employer) and the neocon asylum in Washington. So chose: someone who sounds like a television personality with great positions, or… well we all know what Clinton stands for.

    Like

    • dahoit says

      I agree totally,Trump is the answer for American recovery.
      But the zionists want no part of America First and Israel on its own.
      And that is why the MSM and web sites everywhere are in full throat propaganda mode for the Hell Bitch.
      I have never seen anything like this before,and the American people can see the fix is in,but over our dead bodies,if necessary.I’m pissed to shite at this massive mis and disinformation bliztkrieg.
      It will backfire,just like all their attempts to marginalize him during the primaries.

      Like

  4. He’s happy to support Clinton’s murderous Jewish racist agenda. All perceived threats to Israel must be destroyed. Iraq, Libya, Syria and (next up) Iran.
    This is where leftist centrists think is a good place to stand in this terrifying age during which we must endure the brain-dead analysis of commentators who, in truth, are most easily understood as simple submissives to the establishment will … a will that everyone is afraid to recognise as being dominated by Jewish money and its globalist anti-commutarian agenda….submissives to the atomisation of all systems that might afford self-sufficiency to societies, that makes everybody absolutely dependent on and therefore subservient to international finance and it’s program of enslavement. Are ‘gays’ a new officer class in this operation?

    Liked by 2 people

    • The phrase “a Jewish racists agenda” should qualify for some award for unintended and self-defeating irony.

      If you can tell me how it clarifies, exlains or expands your point then I’ll recognise you have a valid reason for adding it that isn’t racist or intentionally self-sabotaging.

      Liked by 1 person

      • proximity1 says

        IF YOU can tell me how the remark is not arguably quite true based on a fair and honest review of facts, then I’ll recognise your valid objection to it.

        But, as it seems to me, the simple fact that Clinton’s policies aren’t solely confined* to the outrages which the writer describes as a “murderous Jewish racist agenda,” does not make that observation any the less true— does it!?

        What, other than that, are you objecting to?

        Liked by 1 person

        • You aren’t the OP, and we’re still waiting to hear from him.

          My “objection” as you term it is perfectly clear, but I’ll repeat it once more. I want to know what purpose of clarification, elucidation or explanation is served by the inclusion of the word “Jewish”.

          Is the “racist agenda” aimed exclusively at non-Jews? Is it practiced only by Jews?

          If neither of these things are true, and absent any other clarification, we will have to conclude the word “Jewish” conveys no useful additional information and is there merely as an expression of inaccurate personal prejudice or as an act of deliberate self-sabotage by the OP.

          You have not answered that question, you’ve merely posed others that are irrelevant.

          Like

          • proximity1 says

            Believe it or not the point of your objection–now clearer to me–wasn’t at all clear when I posted my comment. So thank you for taking the trouble to explain it in a way that I can more clearly understand.

            True–I’m not the OP and can’t and don’t pretend to answer for him.

            As a reader, I found his comment readily understandable in a straightforward way that doesn’t offend any respectable and honest liberal-leftist democratic principles. Nor did I have to engage in any special intellectual gymnastics to reach that understanding.

            I can appreciate that in this matter it’s the OP’s original words and meanings which count in reply to your post–so perhaps there’s no point in my attempting to offer my view of these Re your ”

            …”I want to know what purpose of clarification, elucidation or explanation is served by the inclusion of the word ‘Jewish’.

            “Is the ‘racist agenda’ aimed exclusively at non-Jews? Is it practiced only by Jews? …

            …”You have not answered that question, you’ve merely posed others that are irrelevant.”

            I am certainly prepared to offer my view of his intended meaning and could do that any time you might be interested to read it.

            Like

            • You’re, of course welcome to make any comment you choose, but my question was directed at the OP. His disinclination to reply does really give me all the information I need, and in future we’ll regard his comments as simply racist and/or attempts to discredit by association, until we hear any information that suggests we should do otherwise.

              Like

              • proximity1 says

                Catte–

                I’ll offer what is only my own
                interpretation/justification of what I think is a fair reading of the comment while admitting that this isn’t necessarily what its author had in mind–though I think it is:

                Recap on the OP & your comment :

                “physicsandmathsrevision
                July 26, 2016

                “He’s happy (i.e. Owen Jones) to support Clinton’s murderous Jewish racist agenda. All perceived threats to Israel must be destroyed. Iraq, Libya, Syria and (next up) Iran.

                “This is where leftist centrists think is a good place to stand in this terrifying age during which we must endure the brain-dead analysis of commentators who, in truth, are most easily understood as simple submissives to the establishment will … a will that everyone is afraid to recognise as being dominated by Jewish money and its globalist anti-commutarian agenda….submissives to the atomisation of all systems that might afford self-sufficiency to societies, that makes everybody absolutely dependent on and therefore subservient to international finance and it’s program of enslavement.” …

                ——-

                (You) … “I want to know what purpose of clarification, elucidation or explanation is served by the inclusion of the word ‘Jewish’.

                “Is the ‘racist agenda’ aimed exclusively at non-Jews?” …

                I think the OP itself sets out clarifications: 
                

                “Clinton’s murderous Jewish racist agenda,”
                is immediately followed by: “All perceived threats to Israel must be destroyed. Iraq, Libya, Syria and (next up) Iran.”

                 Those perceived threats are obviously threats as official Israeli (and thus Jewish Israeli ) government would have it.
                

                And, yes, it is a fact–virtually, if not also, indeed, literally– that this agenda is aimed exclusively at “non-Jews” in as much as it’s a matter of state vs.state international relations and the fact that Israel is the sole self-proclaimed Jewish state. Clinton’s observable acts do amount to the pursuit, among other things, of an Israeli-Jewish-defined murderous ‘racist’ agenda–as the writer put it.

                …” Is it practiced only by Jews?”

                Obviously not since Clinton, as U.S. Secretary of State and as U.S. senator from New York, is herself indicated as being a party to it, not to mention every U.S. presidential administration since FDR’s.

                Then, it’s further clarified here:

                … ” we must endure the brain-dead analysis of commentators who, in truth, are most easily understood as simple submissives to the establishment will … a will that everyone is afraid to recognise as being dominated by Jewish money and its globalist anti-commutarian agenda

                that is, a hell of a lot of those with beaucoups of money concerned directly and importantly in what can hardly be mistaken as other than a very well-coordinated effort are, in fact, by their own and others’ view, “Jewish” and that that this fact is not insignificant.

                We use short-hand expressions which reduce and generalize complicated matters: “The Guardian,” “Whitehall,” “the ‘Washington consensus,’ ” “the police,” “Unions,” “the Tories,” etc.

                We understand that, here, at Off-Guardian, “The Guardian” Is intended to mean practically all the editorial management and the vast majority of the staff writers at that paper but does not really intend to particularly include Gary Younge or George Monbiot as figuring importantly among those. To dispense with such short-hand would bring a great deal of more fluid communication to a grinding halt.

                And, speaking of that, your comments here strike me as being full of an unintended irony:

                ” Oh please. You actually believe the wealthy see this in terms of race? They’re just hoping you see it that way and waste your time and discredit yourself with this junk. Israel isn’t there for ‘the Jews’, it’s there to give the elites a foothold in the ME and a convenient platform for both creating chaos and invoking racism as a means of stifling debate. They want people such as yourself to make the issue of Israel an issue of Jewishness, because by doing so you allow them to call you antisemitic and effectively silence you.
                Of course there are wealthy Jews trying to get rid of Corbyn, just as there are wealthy non-Jews trying to get rid of Corbyn. But in singling them out you play exactly the game you are intended to play, and you make it more difficult for those who criticise the genocidal polices of Israel to refute the accusations of racism. ( this latter emphasis added)

                I think it’s easily just as much your own and so many others’ knee-jerk tendencies to react as you do here to the mere mention of “Jewish,” which contributes to keeping a public discussion in such a confined little box that we are rendered helpless to adequately address these matters.

                Your reaction to what is rather a plain and simple statement of some very obvious political facts of life is both typical of nearly ALL public journalism as well as frantically reactionary in character–in my opinion.

                Like

                • Captain Kemlo says

                  It is impossible, in today’s Guardian, to even initiate a sane discussion, devoid of abuse or threat, that mentions wealthy individual Jewish donors to the PLP (far to the right of the members) and considers whether these donations buy undue influence in policy. Why is that?

                  Take the case of Mr Michael Foster, who bought the court case to appeal against the NEC decision to allow Corbyn to stand for re-election without needing 20% of PLP nominations. An article in the guardian discussed this result:

                  http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/28/jeremy-corbyn-fights-off-court-challenge-labour-leadership-ballot

                  My own comment in a thread about Mr Foster’s motives, perhaps the most robust in this small thread was removed (NOT deleted) – along with all the other contributions. If we’re not allowed to comment on the man’s possible motives, or point to a wealthy donor having perhaps abused his position in these matters, where on earth can we discuss this? Hopefully, here!

                  My removed comment in full:

                  I think it’s worse than that. In an article in the Daily Mail, he wrote, “In the run-up to the last May’s General Election, the Jewish community donated almost one-third of the £9.7 million that Labour received from private donors – and that despite recoiling from Labour’s parliamentary vote to recognise Palestine.”

                  Recoiling, from recognising Palestine? And what about that ⅓ of Jewish donors, what do they get from the Labour party? Certainly influence, possibly policy changes. That’s not democracy as many see it, where wealthy individuals may be able to exert party influence over the regular members. Keep the rich, individual donors out of politics. It smells of corruption.

                  He goes on to say, utterly bizarrely, “Before anyone tries to claim that Piers Corbyn, Jeremy’s brother, is no racist by the way, just read his tweet – ‘Zionists can’t cope with anyone supporting rights for Palestine’ – and try replacing the words ‘Zionists’ and ‘Palestine’ with ‘Blacks’ and ‘White South Africa’”. And that, “The word Zio for those not used to the language of the young is not a shortened reference to a Zionist but slang for Jew.” It appears to me that Foster is deliberately trying to conflate anti-zionism with anti-Jew.

                  And then the granddaddy of them all, a rich individual attempting to overturn Labour’s National Executive Committee decision to allow Jeremy to stand without MP nominations. It stinks, doesn’t it?

                  And why all of this, from him and many others in media, politics and society? I believe it’s simply because Jeremy supports the concept of a Palestinian state and takes the morally upstanding position that the illegal occupation of Palestine should end forthwith.

                  Disgraceful.

                  Like

          • dahoit says

            Yes,evil resides in all humans,but the rest of humanity don’t own the bully pulpit that encourages human destruction worldwide that Zion does,and no not all Jews are Zionists,but all zionists are Jews,or honorary ones like the HB,Biden,Obomba and almost our whole political class of traitors.
            This refusal to recognize reality is getting tedious,and impinges on the veracity of this site.
            I also point out that this site exists because the zionists destroyed the Graun.

            Liked by 1 person

      • Roger says

        What a fuss about nothing! The phrase ‘jewish racist agenda’ means a jewish agenda (true, that’s where the money is), which is racist (also true). Good syntax. End of story.

        Liked by 2 people

        • That’s where the money is

          Again, you are not the OP from whom we are still waiting to hear. But ok…

          The money for what? Where is it? Are all the world’s Jews contributing to this fund? And are non-Jews banned from contributing? If not, in what sense is it “Jewish”?

          Like

          • Richard Le Sarcophage says

            It is financed by rich, Rightwing Jews, who identify strongly with Israel, exculpate its crimes, and work to destroy any support in the West for the Palestinians. You are surely not going to deny that, are you? Are you going to deny the money power in Western politics of rich Jews (now threatening to de-fund Labour unless Corbyn goes)who are working to ban or criminalise the BDS movement and ALL criticism of Israel as ‘antisemitism’.

            Like

            • Oh please. You actually believe the wealthy see this in terms of race? They’re just hoping you see it that way and waste your time and discredit yourself with this junk. Israel isn’t there for “the Jews”, it’s there to give the elites a foothold in the ME and a convenient platform for both creating chaos and invoking racism as a means of stifling debate. They want people such as yourself to make the issue of Israel an issue of Jewishness, because by doing so you allow them to call you antisemitic and effectively silence you.

              Of course there are wealthy Jews trying to get rid of Corbyn, just as there are wealthy non-Jews trying to get rid of Corbyn. But in singling them out you play exactly the game you are intended to play, and you make it more difficult for those who criticise the genocidal polices of Israel to refute the accusations of racism.

              You can understand why many people think posts like yours are intentional sabotage of the BDS movement. I’m not suggesting it’s true in your case of course.

              Liked by 3 people

              • Richard Le Sarcophage says

                Well, that is a tiny master-class in casusistry. To begin, the anti-BDS forces will slander the movement as ‘antisemitic’ as long as it dares exist, and many will do so not just to smear, intimidate and silence, but because they truly believe any attitude but total groveling, as when Bibi surveys the Congress, is ‘antisemitic’.
                As for the rest, it is simply a recipe for censorship, for NOT daring to notice the concerted, organised and determined work of one TINY elite to dominate the Western world, and to so control societies that Free Expression such as BDS and criticism of Israel is banned and criminalised. The rich parasite caste are, indeed, the architects of our global Hell, but from among them the most determined, controlling and demanding are Jewish elites, and to deny that is mendacious and to ignore it simply cowardice, or collaboration.
                When these controlling elites act as they do, say in the UK, demanding the final say in Labour politics, to be rid of Corbyn, on the basis of their monetary contributions, and run VILE campaigns of slander under utterly false accusations of ‘antisemitism’ directed at life-long anti-racists like Corbyn, then THEY have opened hostilities and declared war. And in the face of such arrogance and such unbridled power to demand that it not even be discussed (it certainly would be inside Israel)is, to be generous, simply madness.

                Liked by 1 person

              • dahoit says

                A foothold in the ME?
                God help US from writers like this,who say nonsense to support their nonsensical writings.
                To be called an antisemite today is a badge of human honor.

                Like

              • dahoit says

                I strongly disagree that Israel is a foothold of the West in the ME.
                In fact that statement reveals you a victim or dupe of propaganda from defenders of shite,the hasbarists.
                It is actually the splinter which started this whole infection of terror,which won’t end till its puss filled existence is lanced by Palestinian freedom.

                Liked by 1 person

          • That is not an answer to my original question. Please explain why the word “Jewish” is required or what it elucidates, clarifies or explains.

            Like

    • Richard Le Sarcophage says

      When one peruses the shit posing as the Guardian, and its insane anti-Corbyn hate screeds, one soon notices that the outside forces threatening to cease financing Labour if Corbyn remains, and endeavouring to remove Corbyn from the contest through ‘law-fare’, are virtually all Jews. When one looks up Mr. Foster the litigant, one soon discovers an article appearing under his name in the Daily Mail, that, in my opinion, is simply psychotic in the rage of furious hatred directed at Corbyn, basically for speaking up for the Palestinians. Well at least your Masters are no longer bothering to hide in the shadows.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. bill says

    Sane progressive expects the Democrat Party to split with 10,000s of resignations if there isnt a miracle this week- if the opposition to both HRC and T doesnt divide and moves to Gill Stein and especially if Sanders would only take his revolution forward and accept Gills offer to step aside and give up the anyone but T nonsense, a major advance could be made in Nov if and only if voting fraud is addressed in coming weeks. HRC did not win the nomination.Sanders won convincingly.He failed to challenge both the massive flipping and the election fraud so sheepdog may be the reputation he finally goes away with.There are numerous citizens lawsuits but Gasse J threw out Wisconsin suit even despite the massive delays and queues as not effecting the result, so this doesnt look hopeful without a legal breakthrough and massive protest to bring the fraud to wider attention.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Richard Le Sarcophage says

      Sanders was clearly the sheep-dog, and I won’t be surprised if an e-mail showing that reality appears. He is, in fact, with his total and immediate roll-over, even as the corruption of the process was categorically exposed by the e-mails, making no pretense otherwise, spitting in the face of the latest generation of suckers who thought that the elite plutocracy of the USA could be ‘reformed’ from within. He was the geriatric Obama, dispensing more Hopium for the dopes. And when Clinton feigns adoption of Sanders policy, like not signing the TPP, she is LYING.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Sanders’ own campaign called him the “youth whisperer”, but sheepdog is accurate. I have been calling him a sheepdog since 2014 and predicting, correctly, that he would both lose the nomination and endorse Hillary. This was inevitable since he SAID he would endorse her from the start of his so-called campaign. Perhaps he did so hoping that the DNC would play fair, but that goes to show you he’s no socialist. A real socialist would have been able to size up the opposition, not made any gentleman’s agreements with them and waged a real campaign.

        Like

  6. rtj1211 says

    So far as I’m aware, there must be a mechanism for an Independent to put their name on the ballot.

    If the majority of people in the USA are really thinking that voting for either Hillary or the Donald is worse than having unprotected sex with an HIV+ hooker, then the Independent would barely need any publicity. They’d just need to be on the ballot.

    Course, the Establishment might get cute and put a far-right nutcase up as ‘another Independent’ so as they would have someone who’d do as they were told no matter what.

    But until the US public say ‘da nada! Pasta! Finito! To hell with the Democrats and the GOP!’, you’ll still get the choice of ‘let’s invade Iran’ or ‘let’s nuke Russia’. You’ll get the choice of giving Israel a blowjob or agreeing to be tied up and have kinky sex with Israel. You’ll get the choice of bailing out Wall Street or bailing out Wall Street AND cutting social security for the poorest Americans. You’ll get the choice of running the USA for the bankers or running the USA for the bankers and a few multinational corporations.

    Oh, they’ll have to fight for it, just as Martin Luther King et al had to fight for civil rights. They may have the odd candidate shot by the CIA, the oil men or the weapons men. Because that’s how US politics works.

    But if they don’t want a Republican or a Republican-lite, they need to select an independent and vote for them.

    The rest of us? We have to use whatever influence we have to try and limit what they try to do overseas…….because we are affected by what America does overseas…….

    Liked by 3 people

    • Mike says

      As far as I’m aware, there must be a mechanism for an Independent to put their name on the ballot.

      I don’t know the exact mechanism, but Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, offered him her slot (or a higher slot) on the ballot paper, I believe. Obviously, he didn’t take her up on it. I think he didn’t want to “do a Ralph Nader”. Ralph Nader (still going strong) regretted that Bernie had attempted to stand as a Democrat. (You can find all this on Youtube … much more informative than the Grauniad… 🙂 )

      Like

    • Owen Jones has lost all credibility with his quest for publicity at any price. He’d sell his granny for whatever he could get if it served his interests. He’s a hypocrite and a propagandist opportunist. He doesn’t give a fig about the Syrians, the Palestinians, the Yemeni or anyone else but himself. At best he is a worthless egocentric loser who wants to be heard, whatever drivel he is spouting and is a traitor to the socialist/centrist movement, his only loyalty is to himself. Nothing he writes or says can be taken seriously anymore.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. There is no substitute for hard-earned experience. And yes, Owen has not been around long enough to speak from it or base his actions on it.

    It’s like a simple equation … 1 + 1 = 2 😅

    Liked by 4 people

  8. Nerevar says

    The game would not be over. And we are not U. S. citizens. Despite all “-xits” of all times we live in Europe. Hopefully that is the challenge.

    Like

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s