Sunday, February 07, 2016

The Worm Has Turned-- Barring Unforeseeable Events, Bernie Sanders Will Be The Democratic Nominee


The Clinton campaign is collapsing. Built for an outdated presidential race from the past two decades, it underestimated the changing times, a unique opponent, and increasingly savvy voters.

Its first mistake was to take the traditional approach of sitting on a lead. That would have seemed a safe bet. The party's elected politicians would rally to her as the presumptive nominee-- and they did. Donors were lined up for a big hau-- and they gave. The media would willingly marginalize Sanders-- and they tried. And the voters could be quickly frightened with specters of Republicans into sticking with the establishment candidate-- but they weren't.

Despite every institutional advantage and a made-to-order GOP horror show, voters could not be scared away from Sanders. The more intently the machine insisted upon Clinton, the more suspect Clinton became. And now her campaign is out of options.

There are no more endorsements left to get. She's squandered her financial advantage by outspending Sanders by many times in Iowa, only to tie. Her big donors have largely maxed out in direct contributions, leaving Super PACs as the only vehicle through which she can make up the losses (less than ideal optics). And the media has already stooped so low in its dismissal of Sanders that there is no credible room left to expand that endeavor. At this point, Chris Matthews would literally have to beg viewers to vote Clinton in order to outdo his current advocacy.

On unfamiliar territory and feeling desperate, the inflexible campaign appears to be doubling down on its voter containment strategy and has completely given up on converting any new voters. There is no obvious goal or governing principles coming out of her camp at this point. No lines in the sand she's promising to draw as President. All that's left is jeering smack-talk of "Bernie-Bros," pie-in-the-sky aspirations, and sexism-- suggesting that anyone who still likes Sanders has been cut from the target audience.

It isn't working.

Why should it? People aren't idiots. Shirley Chisholm, Jan Schakowsky, Barbara Lee, Sheila Jackson Lee, Elizabeth Warren and many others have shown us that women can confront our sexist culture and still refuse to bed down with the male-dominated influences that have ruined our economy and democracy. And consider politicians like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, who have also battled untold sexist barriers to achieve their groundbreaking professional goals; only the most deluded Democratic voter would consider handing them high office as compensation for their troubles.

Essentially, the Clinton campaign is wrapping a sexist appeal in the veneer of feminism: because she was a woman, Clinton couldn't help but play ball with corporations, so give her a girl pass. What a slap in the face to every woman who never sold out or gave up. It's one thing to point out that a woman went through a mountain of man-shit to obtain her rightful due, or blazed a path for future women, however imperfectly; it's another thing, completely, to insist voters to overlook corruption because the candidate is a women.

And as the campaign lashes out in a panic, other wheels are starting to come off the bus.

In the last debate, Sanders addressed race on three occasions: 1) asked about the death penalty, he noted that innocent people of color are more likely to find their way to death row; 2) asked about our criminal justice system, he made sure to include in his answer the fact that we incarcerate mostly people of color; and 3) when responding to the Flint disaster, he asked a type of question rarely heard from a Presidential candidate: what would have happened if Flint's population was middle class and white?

Clinton said absolutely nothing about race. Well, almost nothing. At the debate's conclusion, with the last question answered, Clinton wondered aloud why there weren't opportunities to talk about race.

How must that have sounded to black viewers, who surely noticed not only Sanders' pointed and appropriate injection of racial concerns into his answers, but the absence of any equivalent from Clinton? I'm sure she had good sound bytes at the ready; she just lacked the intersectional ability to weave them into a question that didn't parade itself as race-focused.

Is it any surprise that public figures from the African American community are beginning to withdraw their endorsements of Clinton and line up behind Sanders?

It is as though the Clinton campaign was designed to last only so long; slap-dash construction enduring for the short time it would take to push Sanders out of the frame. When that didn't happen, there was no Plan B. The public didn't care who Congress endorsed, and they didn't care what the Chris Matthews of the world said, and they aren't buying the argument that everyone troubled by Clinton is somehow hoodwinked by Republican misogyny. They want actual representation and appreciate a candidate who shoots straight.

And this is the nail in the Clinton political coffin. The American people are beginning to realize they have the ability to elect someone they're not supposed to elect. Clinton represents everything "normal" about elections that are now universally recognized as abnormal. She is a safe bet only in a fictional world that is being dismantled. She has become the past and the future has become viable.

Berine Sanders' support will continue to swell, as it should, and Democrats need the courage to call this a good thing—a great thing. No longer can we permit our values and agendas to be boxed in by the very influences that oppose them. Time is running out on our ecology, our economy, and our social fabric, and nothing less than an out-and-out champion for our future will do.

You probably already know this. And that's probably the main reason you are voting for Sanders in your Democratic Primary. It looks like you'll have plenty of company.
Goal Thermometer

Labels: , ,

Saturday, February 06, 2016

Sometimes When It Sounds Like A Crackpot Idea, It Is-- Meet Run For America, The Idiots Primarying Raul Grijalva


As if Wall Street front groups like Third Way and No Labels weren't enough, there's a new bunch of assholes in town with a similarly self-righteous "mission." Meet David Burstein-- and self-proclaimed spokesperson for millennials-- and his nutty little project, Run for America. He claims to be "a bipartisan political consulting firm with a mission to reimagine politics and reinvigorate government. We strategically identify and work to elect bold leaders to Congress who are committed to innovative approaches that tackle our nation’s major challenges." His infantile dream continues into the realm of political sci-fi: "With cutting-edge campaigns and dynamic candidates, Run for America helps remove the barriers of running for office. RFA helps candidates navigate the process so they can run with integrity, win with independence and provide the leadership America deserves. Our Candidates will serve their communities by ending gridlock, increasing participation and bringing citizens together. Together, Run for America and its candidates can restore the promise of America for the 21st century." Yesterday these clowns had a fundraising call to roll out their two lame candidates and I was invited.

So I rsvp-ed. I got a response from the money person, Colleen Coyle
Hi Howie -

Thank you so much for taking the time to join us for an important conference call with Run for American on Thursday, February 4. We are excited to have your participation!

Please see below the call details:

Date: February 4, 2016
Time: 4:00 PM EDT
Number: (877)-229-8493
Passcode: 114689
Closed to Press

Please let me know if you have any questions!

Kind Regards,
The next day, yesterday, just before the call I got this e-mail from the same slimy little Colleen:
Howie -

It is with regrets that we have to cancel this call. We will be re-scheduling it at a later date and I will let you know!

Sorry about this.

Kind Regards,
I could tell immediately she was lying like a rug. So I called anyway at the appointed time and got on their childish little call with their two unimpressive candidates, one goof-ball running against Congressional Progressive Caucus co-chair Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, and one running against some random Republican backbencher no one's ever heard of. Burstein original secret targeting list-- which everyone in Washington had an hour after he published it:
 Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ)
 Grace Napolitano (R-CA)
 Shelia Jackson Lee (D-TX)
 Dave Brat (R-VA)
 Hank Johnson (D-GA)
 Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)
 Steve King (R-IA)
Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Trent Franks (R-AZ)
 Jody Hice (R-GA)
 Billy Long (R-MO)
 Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
 Cedric Richmond (D-LA)
 Scott DesJarlis [sic] (R-TN)
 Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
 Jim McDermott (D-WA)
 Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
 Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
 Scott Tipton (R-CO)
 Jim McGovern (D-MA)
Dave Schweikert (R-AZ)
Debbie Dingell (D-MI)
 Steve Knight (R-CA)
 Vicky Hartzler (R-MO)
 Maxine Waters (D-CA)
 Steve Lynch (D-MA)
 Rick Larsen (D-WA)
 Mike Capuano (D-MA)
And of all these congressmen he's picked Raúl Grijalva and Doug LaMalfa, who they referred to on the call as "Do Nothing Doug." Somehow huckster-chief Burstein decided Raúl is the anti millennial, gridlock-inducing candidate they want to go after? The guy who actually introduced the legislation for debt free college and who has never voted to shut the government down? The first I had ever heard of Burstein's deceptive silliness was nearly a year ago.
Burstein is nothing if not preternaturally motivated. As a 16-year-old high school student, he looked at the results of the 2004 election and grew frustrated. Less than half of Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 had turned up to the polls, and even that level of turnout was supposed to be a victory. (It was up a major jump from the demographic’s paltry 36 percent turnout in 2000.) Burstein was still too young to vote himself, but it made his blood boil.

...The problem, he realized, was that young people were looking at the candidates the two major parties were putting before them and walking away profoundly unsatisfied. If the political system nominated candidates that cared about the issues facing millennials, he reasoned, then maybe more millennials would start caring about the political system. Congress’s approval rating is sitting at a dismal 20 percent. It stands to reason that injecting new blood into an institution that people can now only call “the world’s deliberative body” ironically couldn’t make things that much worse.

The now 26-year-old Burstein’s newest venture, Run for America, is the culmination of that vision. Launched earlier this month, it’s an ambitious plan to use social media, big data, and Silicon Valley’s alternately vaunted and derided entrepreneurial spirit to bring a new generation of candidates into national office.

“I thought about what the problem in our political system is: It’s the question of talent,” Burstein said. “In every industry, there are these super aggressive programs for identifying, training, and retaining really great talent. In fact, we spent $75 billion a year in the U.S. on talent recruitment and identification. The only place we don’t have that kind of system at work is in politics.”

Largely working within the two-party system, Burstein aims to locate a new crop of candidates-- one free from many of the burdens of the past-- and arm them with the tools they need to get into office. “It seemed obvious that if we wanted to solve our political challenges, we needed to have different people because people solve problems,” he continued. “Systems can help, but people solve problems.”

...Run for America’s plan is to select a dozen congressional candidates to run for the House of Representatives in 2016. While the candidates will run inside the two-party system-- either as Democrats or Republicans-- Run for America aims to fill in the role traditionally played by party officials or party-affiliated political consultants. After identifying a candidate, Run for America will also run the campaigns of those candidates, handing everything from polling and fundraising to legal work and marketing strategy, all of which Run for America will charge the candidates for. The organization is split into two parts, a for-profit benefit corporation (essentially a designation that indicates that an independent third party has verified a company has a legitimate social mission in addition to making money) that does the campaign work and a nonprofit 501(c)(4) focused on grassroots organizing and mobilization.

Burstein argues that he’s designed a new model for doing campaign work based on using shared services between all of the Run for America candidates, which he hopes will allow the organization to charge one-third of the prices offered by traditional candidates. Campaigning on the cheap reduces the need for constant fundraising—one of the realities of political life that’s strangling Washington. It’s a relationship that Burstein wants to maintain over the course of a candidate’s career, helping them get reelected after their term is up.

“We’ll be there for them as long as they want to be there and as long as they stay true to their values,” he said.

However, the core of how Burstein plans to keep costs down is by being extremely selective in where Run for America runs candidates. The first thing the organization did was a comprehensive data analysis of every single congressional district in the country based on 40 different data sets. The goal was to find the districts with the type of voters who would be the most willing to vote for the type of candidates it would run-- places where it could mount a successful yet thrifty campaign. Run for America based those calculations on variables like percentage of the electorate under the age of 35 and where there was a high volume of registered independents. Run for America is now soliciting both applications from hopeful candidates themselves and outside recommendations for candidates.

Burstein remained vague on precisely what the Platonic ideal of a Run for America candidate would look like.

“It could be really interesting for educators, engineers, or veterans, or people who have run nonprofits. Their current job titles are less important than the quality and caliber of who they are,” he said. “One thing we’re not looking for is people who are planning on being politicians for the rest of their lives. We have a lot of that. What we’re looking for is people who don’t want to run for office—people who can be drafted into service. They don’t have to do it forever, but do it for a period of time and serve your country in that way.”

Listening to Burstein, a lot of this doesn’t seem particularly revolutionary.

Calling for citizen legislators to rise up and take back Washington from professional politicians is nothing new. It was, in a large way, the same mantra of the Tea Party movement, except the Tea Party put an intense focus on installing non-politician politicians at the state level, something with which Run for America doesn’t concern itself.

Everyone runs as a Washington outsider, and the system gradually turns everyone into a Washington insider. It’s the circle of life, and it moves us all.

Burstein didn’t respond to questions about precisely what type of hard choices a youthful Run for America candidate, unconcerned about their future electoral prospects, would be able to make that older, career politicians might not be. Cut Social Security benefits to ensure the entitlements system security for time immemorial? Repeal the popular but regressive home mortgage interest tax deduction to fill a big hole in the federal budget? Impose a carbon tax to fight global warming?

...In the end, all of this depends on Run for America’s candidates getting elected in the first place. The Beltway is littered with the metaphorical graves of similarly idealistic reform-minded organizations looking to clean up Washington. Mayday PAC, a super PAC set up by visionary Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig with the admittedly ironic goal of raising boatloads of money on behalf of candidates who pledged to get big money out of politics, ended up spending $10 million only to see the majority of its candidates go down in flames.
The purpose of the call was to solicit donations to Run For America's PAC, Together For America and to push their February 29th New York City fundraiser at the Irvington Hotel. Colleen and Burstein were pumping for donors at the Pioneer level ($10,000) up to $100,000. So far they've collected $9,850, given $2,700 to each their two candidates, Doug Wright in Redding, CA and James Villarreal in Tucson, AZ and $3,562 towards the party at the Rivington. Burstiein contributed $240 and he got a Philadelphia attorney, Ronald Levine to kick down $5,000 and the found of the World Poker Tour, Steven Lipscomb (CEO of Practicrats in Santa Fe), to put in $1,000. Burstein plans to use that to "fundamentally change the American political system." His two candidates:
Meet Doug Wright.

Doug is a proud 5th generation native of Burney, CA, a small logging town outside of Redding. Driven by his work ethic, Doug went to college despite the odds. As an undergrad, Doug worked full time for a local attorney to pay for school, which sparked his interest in law. He then received his JD and returned home to serve the community where he was raised. He started his own law firm, Wright Nash, where he represents small business owners and advocates for everyday people. Doug launched his campaign on January 20th for California’s 2st Congressional District with over hundred of his community supporters in Redding.
Actually, he's running in California’s 1st Congressional District but never mind that; it's nearby. The incumbent he's challenging in the primary is Doug LaMalfa. According to, Wright said he was "selected to challenge LaMalfa by Run for America. The consulting firm, whose focus is on getting millennials to run for Congress, contacted him via LinkedIn. He said he was told the firm was targeting districts it did not agree were being represented effectively."
Meet James K. Villarreal.

Dr. Villarreal is a 5th generation Arizonan, whose fascination with rockets and all things that flew put him on the path of aerospace engineering. He currently serves his community a Senior Propulsion Engineer where he focuses on rocket motor design, development, and testing.  He also is an Educator where he teaches the next generation of young Arizonan Rocket Scientists. He is exploring a bid for Congress in Arizona’s 5th District which includes the city of Tucson.
What are the odds, but they got his district wrong too. He's running in Arizona’s 3rd District, although you can understand why he's confused; he doesn't live in the district. He works for Raytheon and is an adjunct at the University of Arizona. He was asked several questions on the phone-- primarily about the Grand Canyon Watershed National Monument effort and uranium mining and climate change. He couldn't answer any of them. "I don't have all the facts so I don't want to make a statement... There's a need for uranium and a need for conservation," he opined" and said something non-committal that included the troubling line "whether or not climate change is real or not." He also said he thinks he can win the primary against Grijalva because almost no one votes in the district.

If you'd like to make sure this dithering imbecile doesn't get anywhere near Congress, you can contribute to Grijalva's campaign here at the One America Act Blue Page or by tapping the thermometer below:
Goal Thermometer

Labels: , , , ,

Was the Iowa Democratic Chair in the tank for Clinton? Some idiot neighbor told me that.


-by Melody Siegler

Oh, just shush. Or course not. She’s a Woman. Women always hold to higher moral values than men. And to stray a bit, in the South where I now live, they are always kinder. They say things like “I really like your dress. Did you make it yourself?” I’ve been an expert seamstress since the age of 12 (really) so clearly that was a Supreme Compliment. Especially because Betsy Ross was an expert seamstress.

And, given their (our) higher values, that of course explains why any “real” woman would want Hillary for President. And, anyway, we women in America live in the greatest, most exceptional country in the world.

I have to admit (although I don’t often pay attention to the news) that I was really disappointed when Hillary said her vote for the Iraq invasion was a mistake. She must have been under enormous pressure to do so by men, always of lesser moral values. Take that man, whatever his name is, the one challenging Hillary, who voted against invading Iraq, and some other places I can’t remember.

And, I was disappointed when Hillary changed her tune on the Defense of Marriage Act, in favor of gay whatever. She must have bee subjected to some kind of gay male pressure. After all, from all I’ve heard, she and Bill have had one of the most enduring and loving marriages known, ever.

However, in addition to all their superior assets, Women are Fair. So, I feel a duty to report some of the scurrilous information circulating about Dr. Andrea (Andy) McGuire, head of the Iowa Democratic Party. No doubt it was men who are responsible for this.

As men are particularly interested in Cars, it seems appropriate to give a picture of her (IDP chair) supposed license plate:

Here’s something else seems to be troubling for some, but not We Women:
McGuire was co-chair of Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign in Iowa.

McGuire had Hillary Clinton fundraisers in her home. In 2007, the New York Times reported, “On Friday night, Mrs. Clinton had dinner in Des Moines at the home of a leading Democrat, Andrea McGuire, and was joined by several other influential party members: Mr. Boswell; the state Senate Democratic leader, Michael Gronstal; and Bonnie Campbell, the former state attorney general, among others.” (“Clinton, in Iowa, Vows to ‘Renew the Promise of America,’” New York Times, 1/28/07)
After all, dinner parties with Important People have been the back bone of American life for decades. If you don’t know that, then you weren’t reading McCalls and Good Housekeeping back in the 1950’s and 1960’s like I was.

On to the next issue, which goes right along with my point about Women having superior morals:
The Sanders campaign is rechecking results on its own, going precinct by precinct,a nd is already finding inconsistencies,said Rania Batrice, a Sanders spokeswoman. The campaign seeks the math sheets or other paperwork that precinct chairs filled out and were supposed to return to the state party. They want to compare those documents to the results entered into a Microsoft app and sent to the party.

"Let's compare notes. Let's see if they match," Batrice said Wednesday.

Dr. Andy McGuire [a junior Wasserman Schultz sleaze-bag kind of character], chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party, dug in her heels and said no.
And, this insulting statement:
But there is something else at play here as well. She is ideologically opposed to Sanders’ Medicare For All policy and possibly even financially invested in keeping him from achieving it. That means she is definitely opposed to keeping us from having single payer healthcare because at one time she headed up a Medicaid privatization program in Iowa.

For “Andy” McGuire, Bernie Sanders’ revolution is the last thing she wants to see take shape in this country and therefore, helping Microsoft steal the Iowa caucus for her neoliberal candidate doesn’t seem like much of a stretch of the imagination.
In closing, this is great information about McGuire’s role in caring for the health of Americans. McGuire Steps Down as President of Meridian Health Plan.
Over the last three years, McGuire has worked to improve the quality of care among the Medicaid population at Meridian Health Plan-- doubling immunization rates, dramatically increasing prenatal care and growing the company from zero to over 50,000 members in 44 counties across the State of Iowa.

"I've spent the past 15 years in health care management and I'm extraordinarily proud of what we accomplished in such a short time at Meridian Health Plan," said McGuire. "But the timing is right for me to pass the torch to a new president at Meridian."

"Dr. McGuire took our footprint in Iowa from zero to over 50,000 members, in every corner of this state," said Dr. David Cotton, CEO and founder of Meridian Health Plan. "This is an amazing accomplishment. We are sad to lose her as President, but thankful she will stay on as a consultant to our company, providing us with her expert advice and institutional knowledge of the healthcare industry in Iowa."

Meridian Health Plan is a family-owned, family-operated health plan with extensive experience in its subsidiary operations in Michigan, Illinois and Iowa. Meridian's affiliates include Medicaid and Medicare health plans and prescription drug plans, a commercial plan available through the Health Insurance Marketplace and MeridianRx, a Pharmacy Benefit Management company. Meridian Health Plan currently serves more than 650,000 Medicaid members.
As a Woman, I really don’t mind if Dr. McGuire earned a ton of bucks in the Health Care Industry. Taking care of sick people has always fallen on the Shoulders of Women. It’s something to be proud of.

Who’s this nutso guy who wants to change all that? What’s all this blah blah about the U.S. being the only country in the developed world without Universal Health Care? What’s that “single payer” stuff? I, for one, as a Woman and a Citizen want the U.S. to remain exceptional.

Women are completely equal-- including being equally corrupt


Madeleine "Disgusting Serbs, get out!" Albright tried shaming women into supporting the establishment neocon she strongly backs by croaking "there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other"... although I think she exempts women like herself who advocate bombing women and children and order sanctions that starve them. Het we all get hot under the collars during an election season, right? You probably already read that Gloria Steinem said that young women support Bernie because they want attention from boys. She mentioned it on Real Time With Bill Maher: "Women are more for [Clinton] than men are... First of all, women get more radical as we get older, because we experience... not to over-generalize, but... Men tend to get more conservative because they gain power as they age; women get more radical because they lose power as they age. And, when you’re young, you’re thinking, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie." Still... there are a lot of gay boys with Hillary-- despite her vomit-inducing, anti-gay record-- and they want to be with the boys too, no?

And remember, even though Hillary went to Wellesley, an exclusive all-girls school (where Hillary went and was president of the Young Republicans), where there are few boys to impress, Bernie was endorsed last week over Hillary.

Labels: , , ,

How Soon Before Rubio's Career Of Corruption Catches Up With Him?


The corporate media is desperately pushing the establishment line that insider Marco Rubio can beat Herr Trumpf. And the Boston Globe had a poll that proves it they're peddling to show that the sweaty little high-heeled man-boy is moving up. The Kochs, Adelson, et all, are petrified that Herr or Cruz will win the nomination and trigger a gigantic landslide -- up and down the ticket-- away from the GOP. Pressure is mounting on Jeb and the other establishment candidates to stop attacking Rubio. The Globe insists the race in New Hampshire "is tightening." The RealClearPolitics average among New Hampshire GOP voters has Herr at 31.1%, and Rubio at around half that with 15.1%. But...
With four days until New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation presidential primary, the Republican contest is tightening at the top and churning in the middle as one third of likely Republican voters say they could still change their mind, according to a Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll released Friday.

New York businessman Donald Trump has a nearly 10 percentage-point lead over the field-- but the gap between him and the rest of the field has shrunk since his disappointing second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses. Trump received 29 percent in the survey, while US Senator Marco Rubio of Florida took second place with 19 percent.

...“What a difference a caucus makes,” said David Paleologos, director of the Political Research Center at Suffolk University. “By exceeding expectations in Iowa, Marco Rubio is converting likability to electability even more so than Ted Cruz, who, like many conservative Iowa winners of the past like Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum, can’t seem to convert an Iowa win into a major showing in New Hampshire.”
Steven Shepard, writing for Politico warns readers to ignore New Hampshire's volatile polls, which, he asserts, "may" be even less predictive than Iowa's. And this, the establishment narrative goes, is helping Rubio.

Friday, without much fanfare, colossally unpopular former Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, one of the big jokes of the 2106 Republican race, endorsed Rubio, excited about Rubio's neocon foreign policy agenda. Meanwhile, Herr Trumpf fired a shot over the bow of Rubio's S.S. Pinafore by having his son-in-law's paper, the New York Observer, unload all the crap and sleaze on Rubio they could dig up, a warning that if Rubio attacks him personally, Trumpf will uses his big megaphone to end the bubble boy's slimy career.

And yesterday Erik Erickson reprised the Cruz v Rubio battle for the soul of the soulless GOP. He writes off Herr and declares the race comes down to a battle between the two right-wing Cubans. "Both," he wrote, "have substantial war chests and heavily funded super PACs to run ads and build ground game operations. Rubio continues to get endorsements from political leaders, but Cruz continues to pick up sizable support from people mad at political leaders." He explains their differences in the eyes of potential voters:
If voters feel like the 2016 election is the last election to save the American experiment, Ted Cruz really is their only option. If voters feel like things are coming to an end in this country without drastic action, they really do not have a choice between Rubio and Cruz. They have only Cruz. Cruz is the disruptive candidate. A voter who feels like the end is near without drastic action has to take the gamble on Cruz, who still has a good chance to win.

Rubio, on the other hand, is the candidate for voters who think the best days are still ahead of us regardless of what happens in 2016. Democrats may fear Rubio as a candidate, but the base of the Democratic Party does not fear him like Ted Cruz. They think they could wait out Marco Rubio, even after eight years in power, and see few of their advances surrendered.

Washington's lobbyists think that Marco Rubio will not be a disruptive force to them. They know Washington will still be mostly the center of people's lives to a greater degree with Marco Rubio than with Ted Cruz. Ted Cruz will burn Washington to the ground and throw lobbyists on the street. Marco Rubio will strategically raze parts of Washington, putting fewer lobbyists in danger than Cruz. At least that is the thinking, and it is the thinking that is reflected in the attacks on both men.

For critics of Cruz, he cannot win. The reality is that Cruz can win, but if he wins those lobbyists and politicians attacking him will be out of a job. The Washington elite have every incentive to stop Cruz because he absolutely would be transformational, though his path to victory may be harder than Rubio's.

For critics of Rubio, he will not go far enough. The reality is that Rubio may have an easier time winning, but his critics do not believe he will go far enough and do as much to fix the problems in Washington.

Cruz and Rubio would both be conservative to varying degrees. What is at stake between the two is how easy their election would be and how transformational their presidency would be. Rubio backers are looking at the path to the White House. Cruz backers are willing to take a gamble on the slog of a general election campaign so they can see Washington rent asunder.

Sheldon Adelson had his newspaper endorse Rubio yesterday. It's a completely silly endorsement that Adelson appears to have dictated while he was taking a dump, even touting Adelson's approval of Rubio's plan to slash Social Security and Medicare to ribbons:
After much consideration, the Review-Journal is endorsing Sen. Marco Rubio for Nevada's first-in-the-West Republican caucus on Feb. 23. The RJ met with Sen. Rubio on Oct. 9, two months before the announcement of the newspaper's sale to the family of Las Vegas Sands Chairman and CEO Sheldon Adelson. The Adelsons have detached themselves from our endorsement process, and our endorsement of Sen. Rubio does not represent the support of the family.

Our reasons for endorsing Sen. Rubio are many. Notably, the Florida senator has deep personal connections to the state. He lived in the Las Vegas Valley from age 8 to age 14, the son of immigrants employed by the hotel industry. The driving force behind the 44-year-old's compelling story is his family's pursuit of better opportunities and a better life. The policies he champions in his campaign are intended to provide all Americans as much.

Those policies include issues of key concern for Nevadans. For example, Sen. Rubio agrees that the federal government owns too much land within Nevada's borders-- more than 80 percent-- and doesn't actively and appropriately manage that land. He believes the lack of privately owned land in Nevada and across the West greatly limits economic opportunity, and he supports transferring some federal land to private ownership. "There's no need for Washington to hold that much land," he told us.

On immigration, Sen. Rubio backs a reasonable approach to fix a broken system, while noting that legal immigration deserves just as much attention as illegal immigration. Among other reforms, he wants a merit-based system of legal immigration to replace today's family-based system.

Sen. Rubio also recognizes that entitlement reform is a must if Medicare and Social Security are to avoid insolvency. "If we deal with them now, we don't have to change them for current beneficiaries," he said. And on economic policy, Sen. Rubio understands that everything a presidential administration does influences the economy.

Labels: ,

The Pervasive, Sickening Impact Of Wall Street On Politics


Over the past few days the Republicans have pushed two bills from the Wall Street agenda, Randy Hutgren's H.R.1675, meant to weaken disclosure requirements for companies that offer stock options to employees, and curb oversight and liability on promotional materials that companies use to market certain products that investors rely on, and Blaine Luetkemeyer's H.R.766, meant to handcuff federal prosecutors from filing civil actions against financial institutions that prey on consumers or investors. Although Luetkemeyer has been one of the biggest recipients of Finance Sector legalistic bribes--$397,552 this cycle and $1,702,485 since being elected to the House in 2008-- as has Hultgren-- $219,750 in bribes this cycle and $1,239,227 since he was first elected in in 2010-- that's not the direction I want to go in today.

We mentioned the other day that Wall Street financed Patrick Murphy had voted for H.R.766 but hid in the toilet when the vote was taken on H.R.766, although he was a co-sponsor of that Republican anti-consumer legislation. In all, 10 Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with the GOP on the bill Thursday and 24 Dems did the same thing on Wednesday with H.R.1675. Almost all of the Democrats who voted with the banksters and GOP just happen to be on Hillary Clinton's leadership team. What a coincidence! And what a coincidence that these same Wall Street Dems have been busy smearing Bernie since he crushed her in both debates this week. Ultra-corrupt New Dems Scott Peters (CA) and Gerry Connolly (VA), each of whom regularly sells his votes to the banksters, attacked Bernie yesterday as "unelectable. And, on the Senate side, this session's most right-wing Senate Democrat, the odious Claire McCaskill, is a non-stop Bernie attack machine on behalf of Clinton.

The of my favorite lines from Thursday's debate were about Wall Street. Bernie mentioned that "the business model of Wall Street is fraud"-- which drives Establishment pundits into a frenzy of insanity-- and Hillary said I will look into it (in response to a question about releasing the transcripts of the speeches banksters paid her to give) and mentioned (not as a standup comedy line) that "The Wall Street guys are trying to stop me." They're trying to stop her. The only two people ever elected to Congress who have gotten more in terms of legalistic bribes from the Finance Sector than Hillary are Obama and John "Savings and Loan scandal" McCain-- and she's about to overtake McCain. Not counting the personal cash they put into her pockets for "speaking," the banksters have given her $39,278,192. Oops-- this morning she overtook McCain's $38,101,487; congratulations? So maybe when she says "The Wall Street guys are trying to stop me," she doesn't count Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley as Wall Street guys?

Americans do and as they find out more and more about her grotesque and all-pervasive corruption-- personal and professional-- they are turning away from her in droves. The latest national Quinnipiac poll of Democrats show exactly that:
Hillary 44% (down 17 points since December 22)
Bernie 42% (up 12 points)
And the head-to-head matches with Republicans are even worse news for Hillary and her establishment supports. Although Hillary manages to beat Herr Trumpf 46-41%, Bernie pulverizes him 49-39%, a result that would wind up with powerful enough results in Senate races to not just win the Senate back in 2016 but to have a decent chance it hold it in 2018. In the other match-ups, Hillary looks like a total loser compared to Bernie. She ties Cruz 45-45% and gets slaughtered by Rubio 48-41%. Meanwhile Bernie beats Cruz 46-42% and ties Rubio 43-43%.

On top of that, Bernie has a 44-35% favorability rating among American voters, while Hillary has a negative rating (39-56%) as do Herr Trumpf (34-59%), andCruz (36-42%). Rubio isn't well-known enough by most people to get an accurate read on his favorability standing. According to the brand new WMUR poll of New Hampshire Democrats, Bernie has an 82% favorable rating against a 12% unfavorable rating and Hillary has a 68% favorable against a 24% unfavorable. New Hampshire voters say they'll pick Bernie 54% (up 20 points since October) to 39% for Hillary (up 1% since October).

After the debate Thursday Amy Chozick, writing a highly biased pro-Hillary piece of political propaganda for the Clinton campaign in the NY Times was still forced to acknowledge that Hillary is still perceived as a Wall Street shill, which is precisely what she is and has always been. She's just a few years older than I am but I was smart enough to recognize what Barry Goldwater was when he ran for president. She, on the other hand, was a "Goldwater Gal."
Throughout the debate, Mrs. Clinton found herself cornered by Senator Bernie Sanders and the moderators about her ties to Wall Street, the political contributions that have bolstered her campaign account, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars in paid speaking fees she received from Goldman Sachs and other financial firms in the months after she left the State Department.

...In an election year fueled by the anger over the growing gap between rich and poor, Mrs. Clinton, who is widely viewed as too close to the financial sector, seems an imperfect messenger for change. She has developed sophisticated policy proposals that many economists agree would aggressively regulate the financial sector, but they have collided with the image that Sanders supporters and other political rivals have painted of her: Wall Street’s friend and defender.

“Look at my record,” Mrs. Clinton said throughout the night. “I have a record of trying to go at the problems that actually exist and I will continue to do that.”
Except that's another of her lies. Her record is that of a conservative Democrat and a friend of the Wall Street banksters who have financed her career and made her and his husband into multi-millionaires. Camp counsellors didn't make her wealthy; banksters did. When she got on her high horse during the debate-- accusing Bernie of smearing her reputation--and said that she's never changed a vote in return for a payoff or bribe or whatever you want to call all the millions she's taken from Wall Street, I laughed out loud and tried to remember any politician who has ever taken a bribe who admitted to voting because of the bribe. This person is so unfit for public office that Democrats who vote for her need to consider what a Republican Supreme Court for 2 decades will be like if they cast a primary ballot for Hillary.

John Nichols made a lot of sense writing about her lack of viability and why Democrats should reject her immediately and in no uncertain terms.
In the first one-on-one debate of a campaign that will see its first primary on Tuesday, Clinton renewed her attack on Sanders’s proposal for a single-payer “Medicare for All” healthcare system. “The numbers just don’t add up, from what Senator Sanders has been proposing,” said the former secretary of state.

Sanders countered by arguing what Clinton claims is undoable has been done elsewhere-- and can be done in America.

“Every major country on earth, whether it’s the UK, whether it’s France, whether it’s Canada, has managed to provide healthcare to all people as a right and they are spending significantly less per capita on healthcare than we are,” he said. “So I do not accept the belief that the United States of America can’t do that,” said the senator from Vermont. “I do not accept the belief that the United States of America and our government can’t stand up to the rip-offs of the pharmaceutical industry which charge us by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.”

...At one point, Clinton said, “we have a vigorous disagreement here,” and she was right. But that disagreement was about more than specific issues and agendas; that difference was about the boldness of the visions advanced by two contenders and about what can practically and realistically be achieved... Clinton argued that they are limits on what can be achieved... [S]he seemed to suggest that some of the fights that grassroots Democrats want to wage are unwinnable.

“I am not going to make promises I can’t keep. I am not going to talk about big ideas like single-payer and then not level with people about how much it will cost,” she said. “A respected health economist said that these plans would cost a trillion dollars more a year. I’m not going to tell people that I will raise your incomes and not your taxes, and not mean it, because I don’t want to see the kind of struggle that the middle class is going through exemplified by these promises that would raise taxes and make it much more difficult for many, many Americans to get ahead and stay ahead. That is not my agenda.”

That led moderator Rachel Maddow to ask: “Senator Sanders, have you established a list of what it means to be a progressive that is unrealistic?”

“No, not at all,” responded Sanders, who argued that there is nothing radical about guaranteeing healthcare for all, about making public colleges and universities tuition-free, about making massive investments in infrastructure improvement and about taxing corporations and eliminating tax havens.

The primary barriers to necessary change, he explained, are political.

“The reality is that we have one of lowest voter turnouts of any major country on earth because so many people have given up on the political process,” he said. “The reality is we that have a corrupt campaign finance system which separates the American people’s needs and desires from what Congress is doing. So to my mind, what we have got to do is wage a political revolution where millions of people have given up on the political process, stand up and fight back, demand the government that represents us and not just a handful of [campaign contributors].”

What followed was an intense exchange about campaign financing in which Sanders said that “one of the things we should do is not only talk the talk, but walk the walk. I am very proud to be the only candidate up here who does not have a Super PAC, who’s not raising huge sums of money from Wall Street.”

Clinton responded by suggesting that “time and time again, by innuendo, by insinuation, there is this attack that he is putting forth, which really comes down to-- you know, anybody who ever took donations or speaking fees from any interest group has to be bought… I think it’s time to end the very artful smear that you and your campaign have been carrying out in recent weeks, and let’s talk… about the issues. Let’s talk about the issues that divide us.”

Sanders accepted the invitation, delivering the most powerful statement of the night-- and one of the most powerful statements of the campaign.

“Let’s talk-- let’s talk about issues, all right?” he began. “Let’s talk about why, in the 1990s, Wall Street got deregulated. Did it have anything to do with the fact that Wall Street provided-- spent billions of dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions? Well, some people might think, yeah, that had some influence.

The crowd was laughing.

“Let’s ask why it is that we pay, by far, the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs, and your medicine can be doubled tomorrow, and there’s nothing that the government can do to stop it. You think it has anything to do with the huge amounts of campaign contributions and lobbying from the fossil-fuel industry?”

The crowd was clapping.

“Let’s talk about climate change. Do you think there’s a reason why not one Republican has the guts to recognize that climate change is real, and that we need to transform our energy system? Do you think it has anything to do with the Koch brothers and ExxonMobil pouring huge amounts of money into the political system?”

The crowd was cheering.

“That is what goes on in America,” Sanders continued. “You know, there is a reason why these people are putting huge amounts of money into our political system. And in my view, it is undermining American democracy and it is allowing Congress to represent wealthy campaign contributors and not the working families of this country.”

That imbalance, Sanders concluded, demands not talk of what is unachievable but recognition of the need for a “political revolution.”
You can contribute to Bernie's intensely grassroots campaign here and stop the establishment from owning both political parties instead of just the GOP. Or you can contribute to Bernie and the congressional candidates who support him and who are running on his issues by tapping the thermometer below:
Goal Thermometer

Labels: , , ,

So Where Is This Gender Bias You Speak Of?


-by j. darcy

The primary reason propaganda works so effectively is that the practitioners understand their target audience will accept it on faith. This is what they count on, in fact-- that the audience is just low-info enough not to recognize that they've even been propagandized in the first place. It's a deeply cynical and unprincipled exercise which, for obvious reasons, is never intended to make anybody smarter.

In our current political landscape, it's fair to say that the easiest people on whom to work this scam are right-wingers-- they tend to be very low-info anyway, such as the folks who get all their information from an outfit like FOX "News." People like that are arguably better off watching no news, or so we've been told. However, people who identify as liberals and vote Democrat are a tougher nut to crack because they tend to be better informed. You can't throw just anything at such people and expect them to accept it on faith-- "Obama's a Muslim!," for example, or something equally idiotic. Consequently, in order to sell a bogus narrative to that audience, one must be considerably more subtle but no less deceptive.

Which brings us to the following piece of frothing-at-the-mouth hyperbole straightforwardly entitled An All Caps Explosion of Feelings Regarding the Liberal Backlash Against Hillary Clinton. It's by a writer I'm unfamiliar with, a Courtney Enlow, on a blog I've never seen called PAJIBA, so I can't really swear to what the politics are here, but there's no question as to the intended audience. I was intrigued (and irritated) enough by this article to try to make sense of it paragraph-by-paragraph in order to determine, as this writer implies from the beginning, whether Hillary Clinton-- yes, that Hillary Clinton-- has indeed been the victim of some form of gender bias at the hands of the left-leaning segment of the elctorate and the progressive bloggers, male and female, who pull their collective hair out at the roots in the thankless effort to inform the public.

The opening lines of the piece don't say much worth responding to, so we'll jump directly to the rant itself, which, as advertised, is presented in ALL CAPS.

FIRST AND FUCKING FOREMOST, COOL, YOU LIKE BERNIE'S WISHES AND DREAMS APPROACH TO POLITICS. "FREE COLLEGE FOR EVERYONE AND A GODDAMN PONY." YES, THAT SOUNDS FUCKING WONDERFUL BUT DO YOU THINK HILLARY COULD EVEN SAY THOSE WORDS WITHOUT FOX NEWS LITERALLY BURYING HER ALIVE IN TAMPONS AND CRUCIFIXES? The very first thing this writer does is lob a ham-handed smear at Bernie Sanders by reinforcing the meme that Bernie is a pie-in-the-sky idealist who has no clue how politics works in the real world. Odd, since the man's held elective office for more than 30 years and counting. She also includes a back-handed swipe at Bernie's supporters, suggesting they're too stupid to see how stupid her smear of them is. Further, it's not a question whether Hillary "could" make Bernie's promises-- the point is, she hasn't and, most likely, won't, ever, regardless of what FOX "News" would bother to say about it. (Do reasonable people even give a damn what FOX "News" says about anything, anyway?) Besides, to every other centrist word out of Obama's mouth FOX responds by "burying him alive in tampons and crucifixes" or some such, and Obama's a man. Ailes tends to do that to everybody with a "D" next to their name, male or female.


It sure as hell is. It was actually President Clinton, with or without Hillary's input, who in the 1990s signed off on many policies that today's progressive critics consider mostly wrongheaded. We continue to live with the negative consequences of those things today. And as Bill Clinton at the time famously quipped, he and his wife were a package deal. She has seldom, if ever, distanced herself from her husband or his policies, so it's not unreasonable to equate the two and to criticize her on that basis. And since the writer throws in transgenders (for whatever reason), we should also point out that it was President Clinton who signed the hideous DOMA and DADT bills which certainly didn't do the LGBT community any favors. I don't recall ever hearing Hillary repudiate either of those bills.


This one is interesting. If Hillary plays any "game," that game is one that she and her husband, and a host of like-minded others in the Democratic party establishment largely invented and essentially perfected. That might indeed be how certain "fucking shit gets done" in the Beltway-- but exactly what shit and to whose benefit? In the '90s the "new" breed of Dems-- of whom Bill and Hillary were (ahem) THE FUCKING VANGUARD-- made a calculated choice tantamount to a deal with the devil. Stay to the left on (some) social issues, but go Republican-lite on others, while outright Republican on matters of concern to big business and Wall Street interests. The underlying point of this strategy is money-- specifically, campaign money-- boatloads and boatloads of it. Before this present campaign is over, Hillary Rodham Clinton may very well end up with upwards of a billion dollars in her campaign war chest, if she's not there already. As far as I'm aware, nobody put a gun to her head and demanded she take that money; she offered herself up for it and willingly accepted it. This becomes a problem when your policies (how's this for pie-in-the-sky?) magically tend to benefit your biggest campaign donors! I admire this writer's optimism that a Hillary presidency will miraculously change the very corrupt system of (to cop a phrase) "legalistic bribery" that Hillary herself has helped to create and perpetuate (on the Democratic side), but I am skeptical. I also wonder what game this writer thinks Elizabeth Warren, clearly a woman, is playing?

As for the next section-- a couple of idiot meme posters with inane pop culture references-- I agree wholeheartedly with the author that these are stupid, so a point in her favor.

SERIOUSLY? THAT'S YOUR LINE? SHE'S NOT COOL ENOUGH? WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU PEOPLE EVEN WANT FROM HER? WOMEN HAVE TRIED FOR YEARS TO "HAVE IT ALL" AND THEN WE GET YELLED AT FOR TRYING TO HAVE THE IMPOSSIBLE "ALL" BUT THEN IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH WHEN WE DON'T HAVE THE "ALL." IT'S FUCKING BULLSHIT. Unfortunately, the author fails to let it go at that. Since reasonable people would agree these particular meme posters are quite stupid, not to mention irrelevant, I don't understand why the author continues yelling. And I fail to see her point here, as the rant is mostly gibberish. THE DAY MY HUSBAND TOLD ME HE LIKED BERNIE, HE SAID, "I mean, how great is it to have a president who just doesn't even care how his hair looks" AND I EXPLODED "DO YOU THINK THERE EXISTS A WORLD WHERE A WOMAN COULD EVEN CONSIDER THAT?"

Whoa, don't blow up, Mama! I have yet to witness any presidential candidate, male or female, lounge around in dungarees with a toothpick hanging from his or her mouth. They are all, by and large, impeccably well-dressed and immaculately groomed, like, always. Furthermore, this is a free country and Hillary is free to walk around looking however she damn well pleases. Nobody is preventing her from walking around with screwed-up hair; that said, WHY IN THE HELL WOULD SHE WANT TO?! AND THE MOST MINDBLOWING PART? THIS ISN'T EVEN COMING FROM THE GOP! BECAUSE WHAT I AM SEEING IS THE SAME THING WE SEE WITH OBAMA ONLY ON THE MORE LIBERAL END OF THE SPECTRUM-- PEOPLE WHO WOULD NEVER CONSIDER THEMSELVES BIGOTS IN ANY WAY BUT JUST KNOW THERE IS *SOMETHING* THEY DON'T CARE FOR ABOUT THIS PERSON. THEY REFUSE TO BELIEVE THAT SOMETHING COULD BE SKIN COLOR OR GENDER BUT FOR VERY MANY OF THEM IT ABSOLUTELY FUCKING IS.

In other words, otherwise thoughtful and well-meaning liberals don't even realize they are engaging in a form of gender bias regarding Hillary and her personal appearance...Huh? Didn't I just say that Hillary's appearance is Hillary's business? Personally, I couldn't care less how Hillary presents herself; my only interest is her (mostly sorry) policies, which have nothing to do with her appearance. Furthermore, I have yet to hear any responsible progressive writer comment on this in any way. And if this writer is trying to argue men in public life don't get judged by their appearance-- didn't Nixon lose the first (and hence, the only one people remember) televised debate with JFK because Nixon looked so uncomfortable (not to mention shady) on the boob tube with his five o'clock shadow beard growth?


Uh, but you just did. Recall that she implied in the first paragraph of the rant that neither Bernie nor his supporters need be taken seriously on the grounds that they're all naive idealists. (We'll be hearing that one for the foreseeable future, so I've resigned myself to it already.) In addition, she hasn't presented any bona fide "issues", only her own perceptions about some vague personal assumptions...of her own.


Lady, you said a mouthful! I don't pretend to be psychic, but it's obvious you do like her because she's a woman-- and not just any woman, but this most specific woman, Hillary Rodham Clinton; otherwise why would you have bothered writing this? And you know what? GOOD. FOR. YOU!!! YOU SHOULD LIKE HER BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN. YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO LIKE HER BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN OR ANY OTHER REASON FOR THAT MATTER. THE FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT WOULD BE AN AMAZING THING TO WITNESS IN MY LIFETIME, AND I WOULD LOVE TO NO END TO WITNESS IT. BUT DON'T ACCUSE ME OF SEXISM IF I ASSERT THAT I DON'T WANT IT TO BE THIS WOMAN. Good grief, this all caps thing grows on you... Anyway, to this point, the author has not cited a single example of HRC's policies or plans that she's been screaming about. I, on the other hand, can sum it up in two words-- status quo. I will lay odds as I write this that all the stuff we (especially progressives) can't stand about D.C. politics will pretty much continue unabated. I can think of one especially heinous item Hillary is almost certain to support as president, the disastrous Trans Pacific Partnership moneygrab, something like the NAFTA bill President Clinton signed, but on steroids. Screaming hyperbole aside, let's let that sink in...TPP. Will it help a lot of people or, to channel Al Pacino from Glengarry Glen Ross-- FUCK-THEM-UP? Does it do women any favors? Minorities? Working-class types? Disenfranchised people of any kind? You tell me. And if Hillary was your role model as an accomplished professional woman, GREAT! I applaud her for that, and you should, too. Everybody should. Like her all you want, nobody is stopping you. There should be many more such women running for president-- there's a certain Senator from Massachussetts I can think of who would fit the bill nicely-- but personally, I need my president to represent more than just the top 1%. If that's a problem, sorry.


And here is where she fucking loses it. I can state here and now and unambiguously so, that I do NOT care for HRC's policies (such as they are), never have and never will. I am a died-in-the-wool Franklin Delano Roosevelt New Deal Progressive Liberal Democrat. That's it. Period. That is where I draw the line on this. I'm not interested in "incremental" anything, or phony "pragmatist" centrism, which describes to a "T" Hillary Clinton's political career in its entirety. If real progressive change is too hard, here's a newsflash-- TRY HARDER! Not taking the money would be an excellent start. And if you don't want to listen to any facts regarding who Hillary really is as a politician, then please don't dismiss me as an idiotic dreamer because I happen to want to bring back the New Deal, Part Two. My only interest is what makes for good public policy. If the roles were reversed and Bernie's platform was Hillary's platform, and it was legit, I would be screaming at the top of my lungs for a Hillary presidency right with you. But alas, reality sets in. My misgivings with her have nothing whatsoever to do with her sex-- my problem is that Hillary's like the ANTI-Bernie, the ANTI-FDR, the ANTI-New Deal. That's who she is. Just quit screaming and accept it. And you're absolutely correct-- her positions are similar to Obama's, if not slightly worse. I don't know about you-- and I certainly don't want to trash Obama; he's a decent man and I want so desperately to like him more-- but eight years of a centrist Democratic administration is quite enough, thank you. And if you can't tell the difference between Bernie's platform and Hillary's, I respectfully submit you need to educate yourself. But wait-- didn't you already marginalize Bernie as a naive dreamer? Didn't you begin this thing by pointing out how they're not the same?


Hillary: College should be affordable.

Twitter: Establishment puppet, no better than GOP.

Bernie: College should be affordable.

Twitter: DAD

Who gives a shit about Twitter?


Not exactly sure where she's going with this one. Hillary has to be a conservative fake Democrat hack because nobody would accept her as Mrs. FDR? She sort of implied that earlier, and it's just as out of left field now as it was then. I guess this writer never heard of Eleanor Roosevelt-- arguably the most highly respected First Lady in American history who, like Hillary, was seen as an extention (if not an ambassador) of many of her husband's programs... but right there, the comparsion ends, and it ends HARD. The best of FDR's social policies continue to this day, while Bill Clinton sheepishly apologizes for many of his not-so-great ones. Again, my issues with Hillary have nothing to do with her looks or her gender or her temperament or her hair, but her...all together now...POLICIES. And the exact same thing goes for Bernie. If Bernie were some corrupt conservaDem like a Debbie Wasserman Schultz or a Steve Israel (don't even get me started on Rahm or I'll start screaming), I would not hesitate to crucify him (figuratively speaking, of course!). But anyway, why would you want some crazy person in the White House?


Is Hillary Clinton an important public figure?-- absolutely. You'll get no argument from me on that point. Has she been the victim of a lot of bullshit right-wing vitriol and fake scandals by right-wing political hacks over the years?-- absolutely. The Clintons had (and presumably still have) plenty of venal right-wing whack job enemies who hate their guts and will stop at nothing to destroy them. But to lump the right-wing noise machine and general insanity together with perfectly valid criticism from the progressive left and say "they're all out to get her" is not only false, it's outright absurd. Pretty much all the bullshit the right-wing throws at her should be ignored as well as condemned in that it contains no facts. Never has. If you can't tell the difference between the two, then we have no basis on which to meaningfully communicate. And to reiterate what I said up top, nobody to my knowledge ever forced HRC to be who she is; she simply is who she is. She never needed to make a choice to play any game-- assuming the game to be corrupt politics-- because the lady helped invent the damn game. Weren't these the guys who brought you Rahm and Rubin and Larry Summers? Bernie's the one who had to decide whether or not to play the damn game and, to his credit, he chose not! That's the only choice a political figure really has, to decide who they are and what they represent. Hillary has certainly done that, and it is what it is.


I can see you're emotional, as can anybody else with functional retinas. Calm down. We get it. But consider this: Hillary Rodham Clinton is about as thick-skinned and as cynical and as hard-nosed as any political figure in recent memory. She also controls a war chest that (thanks, Citizens United!) contains God knows how many millions upon millions that will get a lot bigger as time passes, is supremely well-connected in the United States and throughout the world, and may well be the master of pay-to-play beltway insider politics. I don't know Secretary Clinton personally, but I would not be the least bit surprised to discover her perfectly capable of screaming at people if she were pissed off enough, and (despite your repeated assertions to the contrary) not giving a fuck what we think about it. There's the rub-- you see her as helpless to the indignity of some (as far as you've shown) imagined unfair treatment; I see her for the powerful political operative she is. That you presume she would need you to scream on her behalf says more about you than it does about her. As for me, we've stated that a female president would be a once-in-a-lifetime event, but wanting a better candidate than Hillary for that job does not make me a sexist. And as a non-sexist, I, like you, also think women are entitled to a "fair shake" in the world that many still fall short of. But unlike many women in this fucked-up world, Hillary Rodham Clinton has the power to write her own ticket in this world any way she pleases, and that is simply the reality. To go from idiot anonymous Twitter trolls spouting (admittedly) insulting crap about her to "liberals don't want her to be president because she's a woman" is a load of crap, lady. At the very least, that proposal is something of a stretch. And to paraphrase your last line in all caps, I, too, am sick of fact-free bullshit rants that I'm expected to accept as legitimate political discourse lest I be branded sexist.

So what does it all mean? We could argue that this writer was simply making an over-the-top (albeit clumsy) attempt at political satire. The whole thing may amount to little more than a playful wink and nod and nudge to an audience that the writer understood to be in on the joke. I might buy that. But good satire needs to contain at least some grain of insight, and this piece contains none. In addition, it's easy for less critical readers to hold this up as something to be taken seriously, which it most certainly isn't, regardless of intent, satirical or otherwise. Does gender bias exist in this world? Obviously. That was never in question, so what is this writer screaming about? Are there some idiots out there who hate Hillary because she's a woman? Probably. But does that make liberal voters who dislike her sexist? I'm told many feminists support Hillary, and God bless them all. If Hillary is your candidate, then for heaven's sake, vote for her already-- nobody anywhere is preventing that from happening. It wasn't all that long ago, relatively speaking, that women in the United States were told with a straight face that they were not allowed to cast ballots. This is the working definition of gender bias-- You-Cannot-Do-This-Because-You-Are-A-Woman. Nobody of consequence anywhere, to my knowledge, has said that about Secretary Clinton or her bid for the presidency, and anybody that has or does?-- FUCK 'EM. Talk is still cheap, last time I checked. But let's not forget that before the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified on August 18, 1920, Hillary Clinton would not have been allowed by law to vote for herself! Wrap your brain around that. Do you really think that a couple of anonymous Twitter trolls (with not one iota of real power to speak of) who toss out some stupid brickbats at her are on equal footing as writing laws that explicity state what a woman can or cannot do?! ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME, INDEED! And what about the millions of women who happen to not support her? What do you do about them? Are Susan Sarandon and Sarah Silverman anti-woman(?!) because they support Bernie Sanders? Is this the lunacy that this divisive campaign has degenerated to already, that we're even having this discussion?

Maybe there's another possibility.

Unlike satire, whose function by definition is to use humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose society's ills or to criticize people's personal foibles, the purpose of political propaganda is to employ those same devices to flummox, not enlighten, the public. And the more I think about this piece, the more I think we're being hoodwinked.

It should be clear right now to anyone with a brain (and no, I am not specifically addressing women) that Hillary Rodham Clinton, powerful and intelligent and successful she may be, role model to millions of girls everywhere and the most viable female presidential candidate that most people can remember, rightly or wrongly-- this lady has a history that shows she will stop at nothing to win. In her way, she is about as ruthless a political creature as there is, and I say that respectfully. As this campaign grows more tempestuous and divided, I find it mystifying that liberals have somehow wound up in the absurd position of arguing over whether or not Mrs. Clinton has been the victim of gender bias. Personally, I don't know that to be true. While this article did nothing to sell me on that proposal, I will concede that it's an interesting question for a more serious writer than myself to examine.

But I must confess that the cynic in me suspects a script is being written. Inundated as we are with respected mainstream writers telling us Hillary is more electable because the American public will never, EVER elect some 70 year-old weirdo commie hippie [hyperbole mine], I'm seeing tactics utilized in the service of her campaign, the purpose of which I suspect is to undermine the Sanders campaign and its followers. According to this script, Hillary isn't floundering because Bernie is simply the better of the two candidates who has been working his seventy year-old tail off with the infectious enthusiasm of a college student; if she loses, maybe it's because she's a woman. Because people thought as a woman, she wasn't good enough. Because she was insulted by some idiot people on social media, because she wasn't taken seriously enough-- I myself have to laugh at that one; I'm quite certain anybody that owes her a favor takes this woman damned seriously, as do the beltway insider types that she owes favors to. None of this needs to be a fact, mind you-- planting the seed is all that's required to sell this script. But I also think there's a subplot at work-- laying the foundation to vilify Bernie, and by extension ALL progressive Democratic candidates, now and in the future, in the wary eyes of the left-leaning voting public, should Bernie make it to the general...only to wind up losing. The I-Told-You-So narrative for that scenario is already being laid out. We can't, nor would we ever, accuse Hillary herself of these tactics; there are plenty of people able and willing to carry out such dirty work for her—such is the reality of modern politics, perhaps. But with this high stakes game rigged so overwhelmingly against Sanders, it's ironic that we're being told here, and perhaps elsewhere, that the game is inherently rigged in his, not Hillary's, favor, on the basis of gender-- not just told to us, but screamed at us. And to disagree with that false premise, according to the script, makes you part of the very problem that may or may not exist in the first place! Beautiful.

As I recall in 2008, Hillary stubbornly refused to bow out gracefully long after it was clear that she was mathematically eliminated from contention.

Something tells me it's going to be a long, long summer.

You mean "allegations?"