Your feedback will help guide and shape our coverage and our grassroots membership program. It’ll only take 5 minutes.
On Reality Asserts Itself with Paul Jay, Sanders’ supporters Bill Curry and Jonathan Tasini discuss the fight in Nevada and the significance of the battle between Sanders and Wasserman Schultz
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome to the Real News Network. I’m Paul Jay. On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton won the Kentucky primary. Bernie Sanders won Oregon. It doesn’t really fundamentally change the pledged delegate votes. Clinton is still significantly ahead, but still, as Sanders maintains, without the superdelegate vote it would be a fight at the convention. The issue of the fight between Clinton and Sanders got even more bitter on Saturday in Nevada at the Nevada convention. According to the Sanders camp the convention was essentially hijacked by Clinton forces. A battle broke out. We’re going to talk about that in just a few seconds. Bernie Sanders responded to this battle, which included the chairman of the convention calling for a voice vote on rules, and apparently some people who were there thought the nos had it. Others thought the yeses had it. It certainly was close enough there should have been a head count. Instead she ruled in favor of the Clinton forces, banged her gavel, and that was the end of it. Bernie Sanders responded with a press statement and in a speech, and here’s a segment of what he said in his speech. [Clip of Bernie Sanders] Now coming to us from Farmington, Connecticut is Bill Curry. Bill is a columnist for Salon.com and was a councilor to President Clinton. And joining us from New York, New York is Jonathan Tasini. He’s the author of The Essential Bernie Sanders, CNN political commentator, and a longtime progressive and labor activist. Thank you both for joining us. JONATHAN TASINI: My pleasure. JAY: So, Jonathan, kick us off. What do we know so far about what happened in Nevada and how this is playing out? TASINI: First, good to be back with you guys, and also it’s good to reconnect with Bill Curry who I know, you know, have known for many years. Haven’t seen him in a while. But great progressive activist in Connecticut. So let me do a quick background so people understand where we were at on Saturday. As people know, Nevada has a caucus system. And Hillary Clinton on the day of the caucus won the vote. But caucuses in many primaries have several stages. The next stage, and this is important to what happened Saturday, the next stage happened at the county level. And essentially, Bernie Sanders activists out-organized the Clinton people and got more votes at the county level, particularly in Clark County, which includes Las Vegas, and therefore came to the state convention which happened this past Saturday with what they thought were more votes, and therefore the potential to actually get more delegates at the end of the whole process. Now, this is important because this is exactly what happened in 2008. Hillary Clinton, on the day of the election, won the day. But Barack Obama, because he out-organized the Clinton forces back in 2008, actually came out with more delegates from Nevada. So on Saturday Sanders people showed up to the convention, the state convention, expecting to be able to vote. And essentially what happened was the chair of the state convention, who was a Hillary Clinton supporter, did a few things. First of all, as you pointed out in your introduction, she called for a voice vote on the convention rules. And to people there it was quite clear that the nos were actually louder, but she refused to actually then have an actual either hand vote or roll call vote. JAY: The nos being the Sanders supporters. TASINI: Correct. But perhaps the more important thing is that the credentials committee of the convention ruled that 64 Sanders people were not eligible to be seated, essentially. And that was enough of a margin, not to get into the weeds too far, that was enough of a margin to give the Hillary Clinton forces an edge. Now, I have to point out that all this fight was over essentially a couple of delegates. So you have to wonder why the Clinton forces were so intent on essentially crushing, this is my view, and the Sanders view, crushing the attempt by the Sanders people to participate and essentially have more, more votes there. And so my view is that they were either trying to put down the hammer on the Sanders campaign, or they are a little bit concerned about the momentum of the Sanders campaign going into June, into the final primaries, and they didn’t want the narrative out of Nevada to be that in fact Bernie came out of that convention with more delegates. And what ensued–and then I’ll wrap up and see if you have questions–what ensued was a lot of yelling and screaming, waving of signs, people protesting. There was no violence at the convention. I looked at those videos. There was no violence at the convention. JAY: The reason you’re saying that is because the Democratic Party leadership, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, has accused the Sanders supporters of threatening violence. TASINI: That’s correct. And not only that, the media narrative has been that the convention itself was violent. Now, I want to say right away that I do agree with Bernie and the criticism of people who then went online–. The state party chair’s phone number was posted, and she got a lot of threatening and vile and disgusting threats by people, including death threats. And that to me is just completely unacceptable. But in terms of the actual convention, it was–. Look, I’ve been and Bill’s probably been in these conventions. I’ve been in a lot of union halls. It appeared no more raucous and contestable than many, many places I’ve been. People were yelling, people were screaming, people are upset. But at heart what this signifies is a deep distrust among the Sanders campaign about how the Democratic National Committee operates. And I think this goes back, frankly, a number of months under the leadership of Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The attempt to limit the number of debates when the debates were happening. And underlying this is a deep distrust about how the party operates and whether it’s been treating the Sanders campaign fairly. JAY: Right. Now, let me just add a couple of things. First of all, on the question of violence, Bernie Sanders actually has said that a few months ago shots were fired into his campaign office in Nevada, and– TASINI: That’s correct. JAY: –the apartment complex where some of the staff workers were living was broken into and ransacked. He says that in a press release that was issued last night. Now, there’s no evidence that any of this is linked to the Clinton campaign. But there’s suggestion that it might be, because it does show up in his statement, which I wouldn’t say one way or the other on what actually happened. It is a reflection of how bitter this fight’s getting that he kind of suggested it might be the Clinton campaign. Before I ask Bill a question, let me just add one more thing. We have been trying very hard to get supporters of the Clinton campaign to participate in interviews on the Real News. We’ve had one or two. But it’s not easy. They don’t seem to be ready to come on here. We will continue to try, and we will, in fact, try to get them on what we’re talking about now, what happened in Nevada and so on. So it’s not for lack of trying that you’re not hearing a pro-Clinton voice in this interview. If I can I’ll try to represent their position a little bit. But Bill, this fight between the Sanders campaign and the Democratic Party leadership, particularly Deborah Wasserman Schultz, in fact, on CNN earlier today, in fact, he specifically targeted her, saying the DNC as a whole is not the problem, but Wasserman Schultz has been very much clearly a Clinton ally and been using her position in the DNC to manipulate things in favor of Clinton. She’s not supposed to. She’s supposed to be neutral during this campaign. Talk a bit about this fight with Schultz, and what it means in terms of a bigger division in the Democratic Party. BILL CURRY: Let me just say first of all, one, by the way, it’s great to be talking with Jonathan again. It has been a while. He’s been doing great work in this campaign. The second thing I want to say, though, to this point, is it’s been hard for the Sanders campaign throughout this to handle the question of the personal. And one of the things that both the Clinton and Trump campaigns have wanted to do at every turn in their different ways is to personalize the campaign. To, when Hillary talks about being the victim of a smear campaign, the way she went after Sanders so strongly in that very first debate and throughout that. She does it through surrogates. She does it through syntax. She’s the person who raised the question of qualifications, et cetera. And as–and on both sides when you take the debate, when you take that bait, rather, when Marco Rubio took the bait of becoming personal in the way that Trump was personal, it cost him greatly in Florida. When Bernie very briefly took the bait of becoming personal in the way that Hillary is personal, she with subtle accusations did go to character and competency, that being the drumbeat, really, of her campaign, he paid a price, I think. And the problem is that at the same time Bernie was very reluctant. This has been one of the most courteous and civil challenges that I can remember in all the time that I’ve been in politics. And you have to sort of distinguish between the different ways of being personal. A revolution is about personnel. It is about changing people. It is about chasing people out of jobs and replacing them with more enlightened leaders. Bernie was willing to call for the resignation of the governor of Michigan over Flint. I think he would have been well-served to call for the resignation of Rahm Emanuel for his enabling of the racist and corrupt police force, and for his actual increasing the amount of pay-to-play politics in Chicago. And from the beginning, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been dishonest and double-dealing in how she’s handled this. So I wish that earlier in the campaign, rather than going after them in that same tone or character, that they’d simply made the point it’s time for these people to go. We need a new generation of leaders. And the second thing here, however, is that it isn’t just her. On the one hand it is, it is valid to say that a congresswoman who has really violated the rules of the Democratic National Committee in her conduct of her job relative to this campaign, and who in the Congress itself is a virtual lobbyist for the payday loan industry, it’s valid to call for her resignation. It’s valid to call her out for all the things she’s done. It’s also valid to say that the entire Democratic National Committee is little better than a closely-held political action committee. That all 456 of the DNC superdelegates who are elected by no one and accountable to no one, who even their DNC posts no one in the country can primary for. It’s one of the very few offices that is absolutely impervious to outside accountability, to new blood, to democratic process. The whole thing has to go. And they’ve been, fooled with him from the beginning. He’s been a victim of the process from when she first cut the number of debates from 26 in 2008 to 6 this year, and scheduled them all on weekends and during popular sporting events if she could. There’s been a point when, from the very first point of this campaign, from the very beginning she’s rigged the system as well as she could for Clinton. She ought to go. I think her going ought to be a precondition of support for the ticket. But at the same time, it’s not just–you don’t want to just get into name calling. You don’t want to just be re-litigating these factual questions that neither side can prove. The problem here is the entire system. She’s the perfect emblem of it, and she’s done many things wrong and she should go, and then the whole system should go. And last, I’ll just say one thing. The DNC members themselves who are all voting as delegates, when Wasserman Schultz did things like end Obama’s ban on federal contractors giving to the Democratic Party. When she set up this whole money laundering scheme, really, by which Clinton takes these large donations and works the state parties back into her own PAC. When she did all of these things there was never even a meeting of the DNC. There was never notice to the public or a recorded vote or a vote of any kind. There were no minutes. She’s making these huge decisions on behalf of the entire political party in what ought to be the greatest democracy of the world in close consultation with a couple of Hillary people, maybe the candidate herself, a couple of White House people. No one’s even been able to participate in this. And so from top to bottom, including in Nevada, in other caucus states where the party has not played, you know, fairly with the Sanders–. But from top to bottom, this party has not functioned as a political party ought to. JAY: Right. Jonathan–. CURRY: We shouldn’t ever lose track of the systemic nature of it. [Crosstalk] JAY: Jonathan, if you look at both political parties, both the Republican and the Democrats, they’re essentially united fronts. You have one section of the billionaires allied with other stratum and classes in the society. So in the Republicans you have sort of the right-wing section of the billionaire and ultra-right, you know, even people like Sheldon Adelson types and the Koch brothers and so on, allied with sections of the working class that they’re able to influence other sections of stratum, of classes. And the same thing in the Democratic Party. You have a section of billionaires on Wall Street and other places, a lot of hedge fund guys, and allied with different sections of the society. But the big alliance in the Democratic Party is these billionaires representing a section of the elites. And the big trade unions, with some exceptions. That alliance between New York hedge fund guys and major unions is all supporting Hillary Clinton, here. So when we’re talking about the sort of systemic problem that Bill just talks about, that alliance has a lot to do with it. Bernie, in this clip that we played in the beginning, he’s essentially saying the Democratic Party has to decide, the people have to decide who support the Democratic Party, what section, who do you want to lead this united front, if you will. You can’t allow the party still to be dominated by the billionaires. And Hillary being, he says, the representative of that establishment, or those elites. But this is a fundamental division. This is not just some division about ideology. This is a fundamental division about interest, is it not? TASINI: Yeah. Paul, you and I, we’re telepathic here, because I was–it’s great we’ve moved the conversation, that you’ve articulated [inaud.] about collecting the hedge funds with unions. Unions, it’s a little more complicated, which we can talk about another time. As I viewed it the hedge fund people, the consultants, the lobbyists, all the people that basically suck off of all that money that pours through the system, that’s essentially legalized corruption. And what I think you really hit on is that yes we can go into the DNC and personalities and so on, but fundamentally the reason this conflict is happening is that the party elites never have understood what this political revolution is about. They’ve not been, I’ve traveled to dozens and dozens of citizen towns. I’ve been in big rallies, I’ve been in rooms with people who are part of this political revolution, some of them for the very first time being involved in politics. Others had taken a hiatus because they’re fed up with the system but have come back. And really the reason the party elite doesn’t get this idea is when they call for party unity, that’s secondary to a lot of the people who are out there talking about a political revolution, which is what you essentially underscored. What the people who are engaged in this movement are about is completely blowing up the system, or at least demanding the changes that Bernie’s articulated. Single-payer healthcare. Getting rid of these bad trade agreements. You go down the list and many of these are fundamentally in contrast, in contradiction, to the policy not just of the DNC but, frankly, of the president of the United States. And so that conflict is expressing itself out there in terms of actual people going out to vote. They’re voting for a very different thing, in some ways very different from, as you point out, other contests, where at the end of the day in ‘92 or ‘88 the candidates were pretty much the same. They might have differed about some things, but party unity was simple because it was really about uniting factions about the same, that were part of that same system. Here it’s much different. JAY: So, Bill, personally I think it makes sense, I can see why Sanders targets Wasserman Schultz, because sometimes individuals, you know, become the representation of a whole stratum and, and class, and ideology within the party. And by fighting and exposing Wasserman Schultz it opens a way for people to see who really controls the Democratic Party machine. But this more fundamental division that Sanders is calling for the Democratic Party to make a choice, well, when he says if the Democratic Party doesn’t take on Wall Street and so on, well, we know they’re not. If you’re talking about the leadership of the Democratic Party, we know who controls the Democratic Party, and in the final analysis it actually is hedge fund money that has a very dominant role in every respect. So that being said, if the leadership is not going to go there, and then he doesn’t have the votes to sort of change what the Democratic Party is at the convention, and there’s going to be a war there if Nevada’s any foreshadowing of it, then where the heck does all this go? CURRY: To go back to what I was saying a moment ago, one of the iron rules here, I think, for the Sanders campaign ought to be never take the bait. And the Clinton campaign aided and abetted, consciously or not, by most media, has done three things constantly. One, attempt to personalize this, to cast the debate in terms of whether Sanders is competent and effective. Whether his ideas are realistic. Often whether he is sufficiently sensitive to the issues of minorities or of women. And every time he takes that bait it makes a mistake. The second thing that the Clinton campaign does and the media does is cast this all in terms of horse race politics. First it was all about polls. Then he caught up in the polls. Then it became all about delegates. And instead of trying to explain constantly about how there is a way forward for him in that system, I think he would have been better off not taking that bait and insisting–. And the third–let me just get the third thing. And the third thing is that Clinton’s main theme has been be true to your school. It’s a, you know, Beach Boys numbers could be played at every campaign stop. And it’s always you’re being disloyal to Obama. You have an obligation to bring the party together. You’re being disloyal to Bill Clinton. And there came a point where I think, rather than constantly trying to prove his bona fides in this regard, turning to her and saying, you’re right, there are fundamental differences here that I have with this whole system. I appreciate them, I’m grateful. But when they didn’t vote, when the President didn’t vote to raise the minimum wage in 2009 when he had the votes, when we didn’t bailout the homeowners along with the banks, when we didn’t do the public option, when we insisted on these global trade agreements that have done so much damage, when we continue with the pay to play politics, these are fundamental differences. And to say out loud where he is right now, yes, he’s doing three things. He’s trying to win an election still, he’s trying to win a nomination, but everybody knows it’s a real long shot. Number two, he’s going to campaign for Hillary Clinton. He’s going to endorse her. But number three, and to his followers and to himself in the beginning for everything he said, he’s building a movement so that on 8:00 on election night he’s ready to take whoever wins and hold them accountable. And this is about building what we’ve lost in this country. Another great, independent, progressive movement, like the women’s and environmental and consumer and labor movements that were responsible for every great social change. And that’s not the same as getting everybody in the chorus for another, you know, for another round of happy days are here again, or be true to your school. This is a truce that he’s, really, the most he can offer her on behalf of his followers, and on behalf of a deeply disgruntled middle class that the elite, the Democrats and Republicans both represent on all the issues I just mentioned, on which they agree, on which there is, in fact, bipartisan consensus at the top. He’s offering a truce in order to stop a fascist from being elected. He’s offering a truce in order to have a little bit of influence on the rules for things like Nevada and [debates] a little bit of influence in the platform. But mostly he realizes his chance of talking these people into waking up and seeing the light is pretty, it isn’t much greater than his chance right now of securing the nomination, and that what he really wants to do is build the movement. And he has a very tricky road here, because he has to begin movement building now. And to be building that movement at the same time that you’re campaigning for Clinton will be hard enough, and his message to her ought to be if you want me to do that, make it a little bit easier. And again, what happened in Nevada is just like what’s happening with all those committees on a national level. Platform, credentials, and rules. It’s what’s been happening throughout the campaign. There is a, there’s a, there’s a party here that needs reform. And he needs to make clear, I think–. He does a good job. I don’t want to understate it for a moment. What he’s done here is a miracle. But I think, I think it’s okay to make it clear to say, listen, we have great differences that we will continue to litigate, and I am building a movement to support a new progressive agenda for the United States. And we’re not always sure you’re on board. We’re going to try to bring you on board. We’re going to help you in this race. But we have different–but we have different goals, here. And the more we see that you share our goals, the easier it’s going to be for us to sell you not just to the left, because this isn’t just about left and right, far from it. But we could help you sell this to the broad middle class that the elites of both parties have alienated so deeply. But you’ve got to do something better than what you did in Nevada. And you’ve got to do something better than what you’re doing for this convention right now in order to make that happen. This is on you. JAY: Jonathan. CURRY: It’s the leader. It’s not the defeated candidate, it’s the leader. In every election it’s the person who wins the nomination who has to bring the party together. JAY: Right. Jonathan, I would actually, picking up what Bill said, even take it another step. Not only shouldn’t he have differentiated himself more profoundly with the Obama administration on the issues that Bill just outlined, but when he was cornered on at least a couple of debates where he was specifically asked, is Hillary Clinton a progressive? Is President Obama a progressive? I mean, in my opinion the evidence is they’re not. Not in any normal terms of the way we use that word. Hillary wanted–. I mean, Hillary’s fundamental campaign is that she and Bernie have the same objectives. She’s just getting there incrementally, which is more possible, and he’s got great big ideas that are unachievable, but they’re both trying to get to the same place. That’s, I think, her campaign in a nutshell. And I think the evidence is that she does not have the same objectives, both in terms of policy and record. That she represents a different section of the society, as I said. You know, for, you know, Bernie says she represents the establishment, and she has more or less said that. Well, you can’t be that and a progressive at the same time, and have any meaning to that word, progressive. And even now, does he not have to actually say that in a way that yes, there may be a truce. And I think the way Bill uses the word truce is a good idea. But not to create an illusion that somehow Hillary’s going to become something she isn’t. He’s not going to change what her basic alliances are, and such. What do you think of that? TASINI: Well, I think we have to keep in mind a few things. First of all, I think Bernie has been pretty clear that there’s very, very substantive differences between Hillary Clinton [and] himself. And I’ve been to, I don’t know, a hundred rallies of his, and he’s been very clear. That’s different from necessarily saying that in the context of a media, you know, show and debate that those things come out very clearly. And it’s just the nature of the stupidity of, and I don’t even–they’re not really debates, they’re kind of entertainment shows. Those things have not been clear. But to the people, and I think this is why there is conflict and why people don’t necessarily wrap their arms around unity, because Bernie’s been very clear in that every [rally] to the tens of thousands of people he’s spoken to that there are fundamental differences. And I do, you know, I think [crosstalk] put in context–. JAY: Let me just jump in for a sec. Jonathan, just a sec. I just want to make sure what I’m saying–it’s not just fundamental differences of opinion. There’s fundamental difference of economic political interest here. She represents, essentially, the section of the billionaires that he keeps critiquing. TANISI: Yes, he, and I think he–. Look, he says that his whole attack on super PACs, which he says almost every time, that she’s funded by Wall Street, is an attack on, you know, even though it was a very narrow one about her being paid by Goldman Sachs, there was a bigger point to be made there. I think he’s done that very, very well. And I do want to say that in his, not that Bernie needs a defense, we have to keep in mind, and this is what is always startling, and I have to say, I am more optimistic about changing this country than I’ve been for the last 25-30 years. And part of that is to recognize that this all happened in one year. That he came close and may still do it, even though it’s narrow, to taking down the most powerful political Wall Street-funded, corporate-funded machine that we’ve ever seen in our lifetimes. They’ve been running for this, for the White House, for 15 years. And we’ve come close, this movement, to basically destroying that. Had we had another year, we would have won the nomination. So I look at this, I know we’re focused a little bit on the convention, on the primaries, but I’ve been thinking already and the conversations I’ve had with people have been way beyond this. And one of the reasons I want the primaries to continue is that very time you have a primary you elect delegates who will then go home to be their leaders in their communities. And so if you think about it, let’s say Bernie doesn’t get the nomination. He’ll probably have at least 1,500-1,700 delegates who will then go back to every state in the country and be in a sense, some way, the nerve endings for the political revolution, which is going to continue. JAY: Right. Bill, I mean, we’re in a moment now with all this talk of party unity. They want, now they’re saying to Bernie, okay, now you riled everyone up, you got all these young people, now we want you to play nice. And he’s not. What I was saying about having not, said she wasn’t a progressive, is not to suggest that he’s somehow falling into line, here. Quite the contrary. What happened in Nevada and the way he responded to Nevada, and the language he’s using, he’s actually ratcheting up the fight with the Clinton camp. And by calling out the Democratic Party, you know, you either have to take on Wall Street or you’re going to lose all these young people. There’s a veiled threat there. I don’t–he’s clearly not playing nice going into the convention, which bodes well for the future of such a movement. CURRY: I want to first just underscore something that Jonathan said with which I wholeheartedly agree. One, that the Sanders campaign is a miracle. You have the Tea Party that started to take on the Republican party in 2009-2010, and in five years they took control of the House of Representatives, dominated the Senate. And Trump really is, in many ways, their airhorn more than anyone’s. And on our side, the left hasn’t been as focused in what it’s done. But Bernie Sanders, who suddenly came along one year go, and in a single year almost won everything, came this close. No one thought that the calendar of the revolution and the election calendar were going to necessarily sync up when this started. And it turns out they didn’t quite. But whoa, did they come close. And the second thing is that all the stuff about Bernie being not sufficiently detailed and varied in the things he has to say, Jonathan’s right. If you go to the rallies or you go to the rally [inaud.] as I have, it’s all there. And the fact that most, that so many people don’t think it’s there, is much more of a commentary on the Amusing Ourselves to Death media than it is on his campaign or what he’s been doing. He’s been–and the same with all the big proposals, healthcare, for instance. His numbers have actually added up. You know, the, again, the big media, the Times, the cable networks, how they handle that, it’s Hillary’s numbers that don’t add up. It’s the Obamacare numbers that don’t add up. Single-payer numbers add up in every country, and they do here, and you save a fortune on it and it really is that simple. And going forward, I don’t think–again, though, I’ll just say this is about tone. And I think some of the leaders I’ve admired most in my life in the last century, Nelson Mandela, [inaud.], Gandhi, all of those people had plenty of wonderful things to say about all of their opponents. They never deviated from it, in fact, from a positive tone. And their opponents were their jailers. And I think that there’s–and no one was ever for a moment confused as to what they believed, what they wanted in the particular, and how hard they were willing to stand and how long they’d stand and how hard they’d fight to get it. And so I think that, you know, what a Trump does, what a Hillary does, in their very different ways, they’ve both brought this campaign down. This isn’t a question of whether Bernie’s going to be bitter or fight them bitterly, or pursue this campaign bitterly. His difference with them is a difference of principle. It’s also a difference of theory. He has a–. In any other country they’d be in different political parties. In any other, certainly in any other Western democracy, and I think most Asian democracies as well in the last half-century, they wouldn’t even be together. These differences over trade, over pay to play politics, over single-payer, over public education, over ground troops, military interventionism, these are the biggest issues society ever faces. And the differences are stark and real. And in America, as in every country, the biggest question is the corruption of the democracy. There’s a pandemic of corruption throughout the world. We didn’t clean ours up, we merely institutionalized it. Bernie knows it, she doesn’t. And that moment when [inaud.] said, well, what’s the issue, what bill did she sell out on? I wish, again, [inaud.] a magnificent job. It doesn’t mean he’s second guessing. But you turn and you say, in effect, it’s not about whether you sold out a bill, it’s not whether you or I are the most honest person. It’s about whether this whole system, of which you’ve been one of the biggest beneficiaries, and even a principal architect, it’s whether this whole system is corrupt. I know that it is. You don’t. And that’s why he shouldn’t be the nominee. This is about cleaning it up. And you go through all these things–. Again, in his rallies, [crosstalk]. JAY: I think you’re being very generous, here. I know you’re talking about being–. CURRY: –clarifying the differences, I think, is as helpful as anything he could do. It’s not time to get bitter, but it’s not time to give up your principles, either. JAY: I think you’re being extremely generous to Hillary Clinton and others in those political environment that they don’t know how corrupt it is. They are up to their eyeballs in knowing. If they just think that’s the way of the world, and you’re naive if you think anything else is possible, and that she knows how to manipulate this rigged, corrupt system, you can’t be in it as long as she is and understand how Wall Street and the military-industrial complex and the shenanigans she’s been–shenanigans is far too weak a word in terms of what she’s been involved with in terms of U.S. foreign policy, from Libya to Syria and so on. I mean, war crimes are being committed. She’s very aware of it. CURRY: I don’t think she thinks it’s [a crime]. JAY: She just thinks that’s the way the world is. And if you–. CURRY: Yeah, that’s what they all think. What do they think about pay to play politics? They think it’s inevitable. And if it’s inevitable it can’t be corrupt. [Crosstalk] JAY: And there’s–. And listen, it’s the beginning of another conversation. But I, I think she, there’s a sense where she’s right within the current parameters of this system. But we don’t have time for that today. But we’re going to pick up this conversation, I hope, like maybe once a week we’ll keep this up. Maybe we’ll get another voice involved. And keep talking about things at this level. But I thank you both very much for joining us. I want to do a very quick note. When I was talking about hedge funds and the unions I should point out there are some major unions that have not supported Hillary Clinton, even though most have. The nurses, the postal workers, the Communication Workers of America, and I believe there’s a couple more big ones. There’s certainly a lot of locals across the country that have not followed their national leaderships and have individually endorsed Sanders. So there’s a real struggle going on within the unions as well about the attitude to whether or not the Democratic Party should be more or less dominated by hedge fund types. At any rate, I hope both our guests are going to come back regularly. So thank you, Bill. Thank you, Jonathan. And please join us for a continuing conversation about, well, I guess American democracy, the future of the country, and as it’s going to show up in these elections. Thanks for joining us on the Real News Network.
DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.