Let's just get right to the main course...
--> A recent episode of Abby Martin's The Empire Files gave what I felt was perhaps one of the most cogent, most cohesive arguments made against a Hillary Clinton presidency. Her warmongering and overall neoconservative foreign policy are called out, along with her fiscal corruption (The Clinton Foundation) and her entrenchment in the banking and media elite. To vote for her, especially in fear of T-Rump getting anywhere near the Oval Office, is to feed the corrupt two-party system which feeds either the .1% (the Republicans), or the top 10% (the Democrats - Thomas Frank's most recent tome illustrates this very well).
So - .1% and the top 10% - who is left to represent everybody else? The Democrats count on the idea that since Big Labor has been rendered completely impotent, along with the Education and Media establishments having been completely infiltrated and taken over by the Right Wing, where else can the "rest of the rubes" go? There, then, is the Billion Dollar Question.
--> An increasing volume of talk has been occurring over the last several months, especially on the left, about the possibility of forming a third political party should Bernie Sanders not win the Democratic nod. I'm still fighting for Bernie (and will NOT, under ANY circumstances, vote for Hillary Clinton), but the odds are greater than 50% that because of a rigged primary process, an in-the-pocket Main Stream Media, and bottomless access to corporate and billionaire cash, Hillary Clinton will likely be installed as the Democratic standard bearer - and Bernie will, at the appointed time at the Convention after all of the expected convulsions, wind up supporting her.
I can tell you that I won't - regardless of what Bernie does. This movement isn't about Bernie - it's about US.
--> The pundit class in this country, including many of those on the left who I respect a great deal, will wax voluminously about the "fool's errand" that they feel is the formation of an alternative political party. They will tell you that it's effect will be to "split the vote", and take progressive votes away from the "progressive" Democratic standard-bearer. They point to Ralph Nader in 2000 as a lesson in why this is not a proper course of action to take, since it supposedly took votes away from Gore. They say, work within the Democratic Party, with it's great and wonderful infrastructure, and fight like hell for the standard bearers there.
All of which is pure bullshit.
First, let's take a look at the "split the vote" argument. This presumes several things: 1) that the Democratic Party is the home of progressive policies, politics, and politicians; 2) that the party is always less of a threat than the Republicans; and 3)that truly progressive policies and people are welcome in the supposedly "big tent" of the Democratic Party. Yes, there are a few true progressive in the Senate and Congress: Bernie Sanders and Alan Grayson come to mind. But look at what happened to Dennis Kucinich - his district was redrawn specifically to get rid of him in Congress. Look what is happening to Alan Grayson - Obama endorses his primary opponent (corporatist Patrick Murphy), and Harry Reid has been throwing shade at him since he started his Senate campaign. Also, look at the long roll call of DINOs past and present: Blanche Lincoln, the Clintons, Ben Nelson, Heath Shuler, and on, and on, and on. This is what a "big tent" gets you - a largely unprincipled group more enticed to look out for #1 than the rest of us - because that's where the money takes them (and us). It's been said, also, that "it takes a Democrat" to enact the Republican's worst policies. Boy, ain't that true: many of Clinton's and Obama's legislative accomplishments (NAFTA, for starters), TPP fast-track, parts of Obamacare (such as the missing public option), the constant drone strikes in the Middle East, and an arms-length list of neoconservative and Friedmanist policies, originating largely from the backsides of Republicans and lobbyists, gain the support of the Democrats and therefore, are made "acceptable" by the masses: bipartisanship, after all.
Next, there's Ralph Nader, and his continued vilification by the Democratic Party and figures like Jimmy Carter and Randi Rhodes. I hate to break it to you all - but Gore losing in 2000 was NOT Ralph Nader's fault:
--> There were several other candidates on the Florida ballot for the 2000 Presidential bid, most of them gaining more than enough votes to cover the 537 vote deficit for Gore;
--> One year later, a recount was done in the disputed Florida counties, and it was discovered that Gore won those counties - and thus, the 2000 Election;
--> The recounts in 2000 were halted by the Supreme Court, who issued a one-case non-precedent-setting decision stating that a further recount would cause harm to Bush. Thus, the counts ceased, and Bush II was installed.
The Election of 2000 was STOLEN BY JUDICIAL FIAT. It had NOTHING to do with Ralph Nader, who was within his rights as a citizen to run for whatever office he wants, however he wants.
Finally, there's the "infrastructure" of the Democratic Party. How do you think that great and wonderful infrastructure got there? With CORPORATE CASH. The same CORPORATE CASH that built the Republicans' infrastructure. A truly progressive message and candidates are, by nature, hostile to corporate and banking interests. If the progressives were to succeed in going in and "taking that sucker over" (as Thom Hartmann would advocate), then what's going to happen to that infrastructure? That's right. Bye bye.
So we need an alternative party. What to do?
That's a discussion for later.
