Great moments in political analysis:
Bill Clinton branded Labour’s Jeremy Corbyn the “maddest person in the room” in a speech he gave explaining the resurgence of left-wing politics in Europe and America.
Documents released by Wikileaks show the former President joked that when Mr Corbyn won his leadership contest, it appeared Labour had just “got a guy off the street” to run the party.
President Barack Obama has suggested that Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party is “disintegrating” because it has lost touch with “fact and reality”.
Mr Obama said that the Democrats are not at risk of “Corbynisation” and that even the party’s more left-wing figures like Bernie Sanders are more moderate than Jeremy Corbyn.
In an interview with David Axelrod, who advised the former Labour leader Ed Miliband, Mr Obama was asked if he feared that the democrats could fall apart like Labour.
He replied: “I don’t worry about that, partly because I think the Democratic Party has stayed pretty grounded in fact and reality.”
After hard-left turn under Jeremy Corbyn, Britain’s Labour Party on course for historic defeat
[W]ith less than six weeks to go before Britain votes once more, the Corbyn-led Labour Party is on course for an electoral beatdown so broad and deep it would make the drubbing the party took in 2015 look like a triumph.
Reblogged this on 21st Century Theater.
It’s somewhat remarkable that the great, great preponderance of mainstream coverage is concentrating on May and the Conservatives. Granted, it’s a good story. But the better one is Corbyn, a fact that apparently escapes the US and perhaps the UK commentariat.
I think the question these comments raise is what exactly makes Corbyn “mad” or out of touch. They don’t like his left agenda. Is a concern about social problems a sign of a personality defect? What exactly are the principles “serious” people are supposed to embrace? Machiavellian realpolitik? Are they criticizing Corbyn’s methods or his goals?