 So, it seems as if former President Bill Clinton has some access to grind, so much so that he chose to publicly vocalize his grievances with people in politics in the most inappropriate setting imaginable, at a funeral, but not just anyone's funeral, at the funeral of the civil rights icon, John Lewis. Yeah, he'd literally use the opportunity to speak about John Lewis to take shots at people in politics. Unbelievable, the audacity of this individual, like how narcissistic do you have to be to use someone's funeral to take political shots at people, to score some cheap points, some quick jabs? I mean, you'd think that he'd be more self-aware, being a former president, but no. So the first person who we took a jab at was Stokely Carmichael, later known as Kwame Torre. I'm going to link you to a really great thread by Andre, who has some videos that he shares about Kwame. I mean, if you just watch a couple of these videos, it'll be really clear why the Democratic Party establishment doesn't like Stokely Carmichael. He says things that make liberals like Bill Clinton feel uncomfortable. But I mean, regardless, if you disagree with that approach to civil rights, how dare you speak at the funeral of another civil rights leader about another one and disparage someone else who fought for civil rights and justice? Like who do you think you are? Why do you believe you have the authority to speak about this? I mean, Bill Clinton shouldn't even be speaking at the funeral of John Lewis considering his contribution to the civil rights movement. What he has done is set civil rights movements back. I mean, when it comes to LGBTQ rights, he signed Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and Doma into law. When it comes to Black liberation, what did he do? He signed the 1994 crime bill into law, which exploded mass incarceration and that disproportionately impacted Black and brown people. He gutted welfare, something that is especially harmful to communities of color who are deeply impoverished. So this individual, he really shouldn't be speaking here. But the fact that he is, I mean, he should consider himself lucky, but he's speaking out of term. But he didn't just take a shot at Kwame Torre. He also chose to take a shot at Bernie Sanders out of the blue. And he thanked Jim Clyburn for syncing Bernie's 2020 campaign. This is bizarre, nonetheless. This is what he said. I thank President and Mrs. Butch, President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, thank you and Representative Heuer and Representative Clyburn, who I really thank for with the stroke of a hand ending an intra-family fight within our party, proving that peace is needed by everyone. Again, you're at a funeral and you're talking about your political opponents and the intra-party warfare within the Democratic Party. Read the room. I mean, unbelievable. So first of all, he calls it an intra-family fight. And he just says, well, it's over because of Jim Clyburn, because Bernie lost. That's the implication, except intra-party warfare within the Democratic Party is not over. It didn't go away with the end of Bernie's campaign, right? This unholy alliance within the Democratic Party between the left and the center is one of convenience, just because we lost doesn't mean that it's over. We will continue to fight people within the Democratic Party who are causing harm to the country and their own constituents and are allowing themselves to lose to Republicans because they're unable to influence people to get on and vote for them because they are offering them nothing. That's not over. Second of all, the extent to which Jim Clyburn sunk Bernie's campaign, I think generally speaking, that's overstated, like I'm not going to say that it didn't hurt, that Bernie wasn't endorsed by Jim Clyburn, but it's not surprising. Like this is something that I think Bernie's campaign should have calculated, right? Jim Clyburn was always going to endorse the establishment's favorite pick, and sure he claims that maybe Bernie could have convinced him that Bernie never courted his vote. But I mean, you don't have to court someone if you align with them ideologically, right? They should just automatically endorse you if your goals align. So I mean, this was never something that was a surprise. What I think hurt Bernie Sanders the most is when Obama got everyone else who was currently running for president to drop out and endorse Biden, and that in combination with Elizabeth Warren's refusal to drop out and back Bernie is ultimately what led to his demise. Now I say led to his demise because I don't think you could even say that that single-handedly sunk Bernie's campaign. I think that the reason why Bernie Sanders lost is because of Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders, in spite of what the establishment did, which we all were expecting, he is the one who lost the will to fight after Obama stepped in, after Jim Clyburn didn't endorse him. He could have kept fighting, but he chose to unilaterally disarm, and that's what ultimately sunk him. He didn't want to ruffle any more feathers than he already had, and he chose to not attack Joe Biden in the way that he should have been attacked. So that ultimately is what sunk Bernie. But with regard to what Bill Clinton is saying here, it speaks to the disdain that him and other leaders within the Democratic Party have towards the left and younger voters, and also he doesn't realize this, but he is inadvertently admitting that there was an active effort to sink Bernie Sanders. That's what that was all about. I mean, they tried everything, right? And Bernie kept winning. We saw the Iowa debacle where we didn't have the results, and they were very clearly trying to make it seem as if Pete Buttigieg was the winner. They were sporadically releasing results throughout the week, and then in New Hampshire, you know, he won, but then the media downplayed his victory and said, oh, well, if you add all of these candidates' percentages together, then they do better than Bernie Sanders. Finally, there's this blowout in Nevada, then they can't deny it, and then they just resort to everything. They get everyone to come and endorse Joe Biden. So I mean, he's admitting here that there was an active effort. Now, this isn't surprising. I think it's very obvious to anyone with a brain that there was an active effort to destroy Bernie Sanders. But what he doesn't realize is that we know that this is more than just, you know, a Bernie versus establishment thing. This is really the establishment versus the left versus the people, because I don't just view this as, you know, them taking down Bernie Sanders. I view this as them taking down the left and being successful, because I don't care about Bernie Sanders, the politician, right? He was just a vessel for our ideas. But those ideas don't go away with the 2020 campaign of Bernie Sanders and the fact that he thinks that they do. It really speaks to the hubris of the Democratic Party. It speaks to how they genuinely believe that they have permanently won, right? But the problem is that these centrist voters, they're all older. Younger voters believe in the policies that Bernie Sanders was championing. So like it or not, our generation, millennials, and also zoomers, we are the future. And we do believe in Medicare for all. We are against capitalism. So like it or not, everything that they're doing now to stop momentum, it's just a temporary victory. That's not even a question. The only question is whether or not when we actually do take power, will it be too late? Will it be too late for the environment, the planet? But I mean, the fact that he's saying this, admitting this now, it shows just how scared the establishment was. And if we were able to almost carry Bernie Sanders to victory, so much so that the establishment pulled out all the tricks to stop him, even if it might not feel like it. I think that getting electoral success is closer than we are anticipating because, you know, in this election cycle, we've had far more victories. We have Cara Eastman winning her primary, Paula Jean Swarajan winning her primary. We actually have a chance to get a lot more people elected. Mondaire Jones, Jamal Bowman. So many people who are actually going to do a good job at fighting. And with just a handful of people who we have in power now, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, AOC, you see how they really are driving the conversation. They're driving discourse and they may not control the levers of power yet, but they do hold, you know, a huge amount of influence and we just need a larger block to really make a difference. But I mean, that is when you only look at electoral politics. I think that we have to really broaden our scope of political activity and really focus a lot more going forward on direct action, you know, subverting the electoral system but not ignoring it and also trying to affect change directly. At the state, local level, we have to do everything. So, you know, it was just interesting that he brought this up. He has no shame. Like you think that he, as a former president, would know not to bring things like this up when at a civil rights icon, icons funeral, you'd want to like bring people together ideally. But no, you know, when you're celebrating the life of someone who fought for justice, you're boasting about how you were able to, you know, sustain this injustice that's going on with corporate control of the Democratic Party. And it's, it's grotesque. It's disgusting. I mean, this is what we're working with. This is going to be intraparty warfare for the foreseeable future and we can't let off the gas until we win because we don't have a choice. We don't have a choice. So we keep fighting them until we win.