Tag Archives: Hillary Clinton

A movement, not just a campaign.

Not surprisingly, Bernie Sanders intends to remain fully engaged in the primary process right to the end. He has promised to focus on the issues, which suggests he may feel he’s devoted as much energy as he is prepared to invest in Hillary Clinton’s record.

If Democratic voters haven’t followed the bouncing ball of her reluctance to disclose the content of paid Wall Street speeches to its obvious conclusion yet, there’s little hope in this election cycle that they will. Likewise the implications of her judgement on Iraq, Libya, “Free” trade agreements, criminal justice etc. etc.

Faced with the seemingly insurmountable challenge of winning at the delegate game, Bernie needs to use his bully pulpit in the remaining primaries to advocate strictly on policy issues. The relatively few months that were available to him to introduce himself to the entire U.S. voter population and bring media attention to the issues about which he cares most deeply, were never going to be enough to realize a complete revolution in the Democratic Party, and now they are drawing to a close.

Bernie himself acknowledged that to the people who flocked to his rallies, from the very first one which we were privileged to witness in Burlington. A single election cycle would never be sufficient to change the politics that have condemned the U.S. to growing income inequities,declining opportunities, social injustice and the quashing influence of big money on any possibility of meaningful reform.

His candidacy is the vanguard of a new political movement that is still evolving on the left in the footprints left by Occupy Wall Street. It’s adherents are mostly younger, with much of their voting life ahead of them. If the Democratic party fails once again to live up to the progressive expectations of this base, like the Republicans before them, they can look forward to declining influence as young voters demand effective third and fourth party options within the primary process.

I look forward to the day when someone challenges the constitutionality of closed primaries in a voting system already dominated by two monopolies.

In the meantime, we are left with what can only be thought of as a caricature of democratic choice as reflected in the two likely nominees.

On the one hand, we have Donald Trump, a narcissistic billionaire, whom we can safely say will be the most unqualified nominee for President in the history of the office.

On the other hand, we have Hillary Clinton, a career politician and multi-millionaire, who, based solely on experience, must be one of the most qualified candidates in recent memory. Unfortunately, that experience is blotted both by her meathead of a husband’s own famously poor judgement, and costly mistakes that she herself has made in an official capacity.

Though jubilant at their almost certain victories in the nomination process, both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton share the distinction of being the most unpopular candidates in either party… practically, ever!

Each is also campaigning under a false flag of ideology: Donald Trump insists he is a Conservative, but his positions are rarely conservative in any sense of the word. They range from neo-facist, through cracker-conservative, all the way to conventionally ‘liberal.’

Hillary Clinton’s own politics have mirrored those of her husband and surrogate Bill, who was more right of center than left when he held the reigns of power. She now styles herself a “progressive” with Bernie’s personal comb. Since her days in the White House, she’s remained pretty much dead center with a dash of social liberalism, hawkishly veering right on many foreign policy issues. One gets the impression that the very word “progressive” was anathema to her until Bernie rolled into town and started getting all the attention.

The distrust for Hillary that is felt by some of Bernie’s supporters stems from her inconsistency over the years and her reluctance to ‘fess up to glaring errors in judgement.

In fairness, if Donald Trump were running for ‘President of American Enterprise,’ the only higher office for which he might arguably be qualified, he would be dogged by his own equally glaring failures of judgement over the years.

The fact remains that, all things being equal, come election day, American voters will be limited in their choice to a highly competent but ethically challenged Hillary Clinton or that wholly incompetent, wholly unpredictable, self-serving loose-canon, Donald Trump.

She might say one thing now and then do something else once in the Oval Office.

…But with Trump as Commander in Chief? There is a real possibility that he might wake up one morning feeling petulant over a sleight  by some other bellicose demagogue, and exercise his command of the nuclear codes.

I’ll hold my nose and vote for the competent, sane choice every time.

The Little Bill Who Cried Wolf

It would be a shame to see the Democratic primary race descend into the sort of food fight we‘ve lately witnessed from the GOP.

One would think that there are enough differences on policy between the candidates so that hyperbolic characterizations might be set aside. Sadly that doesn’t seem to be the case.

When the candidates begin to show a little strain, the media is right there to stir the pot, dangling ‘he said/she saids’ and hoping for a strike. All too often, they are rewarded with a juicy bite of red meat that keeps them coming back for more.

Bernie Sanders was finally provoked into suggesting something which I am sure he regrets: that Hillary Clinton might be ‘unqualified’ to be president, based on a series of regrettable decisions from her political career. He was responding to a leaked Clinton campaign plan of attack on Sanders described as “disqualify, defeat, and then reunite (the party).”

It was a war of words with a candidate who is extremely capable of dishing it out herself. Neither came out of the exchange smelling like a rose; however, it is Bill Clinton who ought now to be apologizing for his implication that somehow Bernie was being sexist in his remarks.

Of course, he was not; Bernie was simply hitting her on the issues in response to her campaign’s implication that he might not ‘qualify’ as a real Democrat.

It is an insult to women everywhere when a man such as Bill Clinton cries ‘wolf’ as he has in this case.

Sexism is a very real and pernicious obstacle that women deal with every day. It is not a false flag of political convenience to be trotted out whenever a female candidate is exposed to criticism for her policies. Most female candidates use the accusation only rarely, and even then, judiciously. They recognize the damage done to legitimate outrage when sexism is invoked without cause.

Certainly Bill Clinton should be the last man on earth to challenge Bernie Sanders on his feminist credentials. I have the impression that he still doesn’t ‘get’ that he is the very embodiment of sexism for many American women.

It is a mistake for the Clinton campaign to let Bill off the leash. He made a hash of her campaign against Obama and he may just do it again if somebody doesn’t send him on a long vacation.

Not your father’s horserace

I know that everyone from the conventional media to Hillary Clinton is racing to discount Bernie Sanders in the 2016 race for the nomination, insisting that the “math” is already against him.

What they don’t seem to understand is that the “math” is of little consequence to Bernie’s supporters who are focussed on issues of economic and social justice; and the only way progress will be made on those issues is if we bring them all the way to the convention.

Personally, I think that Bernie should continue doing exactly what he has been doing. Campaign on the issues that are important to most Americans and contrast his record with that of Hillary Clinton. Every voter in every state deserves an opportunity to weigh-in before the convention.

This is doubly important in a turbulent election year like 2016, when so many new voters are engaged in the conversation. There will never be a better chance to move progressive values forward in the political dialogue.

Were Bernie to simply fold his tent and steal silently into the night, as President Obama and the conventional pundits so fervently desire, not only would Hillary Clinton suffer the immediate uptick of slings and arrows from Donald Trump, she would also be likely to seek the conventional security of a centrist position. This would mean death to the forward-looking face of the 2016 Democratic party which has excited so many new voters.

It would also mean that Hillary’s campaign would languish in the ‘old news’ department, relegated only to responding to each outrageous new attack that DT slings her way. This is not the way any candidate wants to capture voter attention. Better she should be forced to flesh-out her positions on important issues in response to Bernie’s legitimate questions and that Barack Obama remains neutral a little longer. His interference would not exactly burnish her progressive credentials and could further alienate Bernie’s not inconsiderable bloc of loyalists.

The fact is that the president’s endorsement will not serve to peel away any support from Bernie since Bernie’s supporters are inclined to be disappointed in President Obama’s underwhelming performance on some key progressive issues.

If our democracy is to limp forward with any hope of regaining public confidence, it is necessary that the Democratic party do just as much soul-searching as will be required of the Republicans.

The writing is on the wall. We can’t keep shorthanding the political process to the advantage of just a few big power brokers and high rolling lobbyists.

It’s time to recognize that this not your father’s horserace.

Frankln County: Bernie decimates Hillary and GOP field

The front page table in today’s St. Albans Messenger tells it all: Bernie Sanders is the best candidate the Democrats can field in the general election.

As one of the most conservative counties in Vermont, Franklin County is a pretty good place to consider in an up-close examination of the primary results.

According to today’s table, here is how things shook out:

Donald Trump got a total of 1,782 votes.

Hillary got a total of 888 votes in all municipalities, roughly half of Trump’s total.

Of the other Republicans, only Ted Cruz got less votes than Hillary, at 508.

Bernie got a total of 7,060 votes!!  That is six times Trump’s total.

Bernie got more votes than all of the others together!

When voters really get to know Bernie, they are overwhelmingly drawn to his message.  For months now, Bernie’s strength against all of the Republicans (and Hillary’s relative weakness) has consistently shown up in all the polls.

Primaries are relatively poor tests of ultimate match-ups.

As we discovered in 2008, the super delegates are party loyalists above all.  When they began to see the groundswell of support for Obama toward the end of the primary season, they didn’t hesitate to throw-over Hillary for Obama.   I have to believe that they will eventually come around to recognizing where their best hope of winning lies.

Otherwise, we are in deep doo-doo.

Bernie vs. Hillary: duelling meme’s in the dead of night

Like many of our GMD readers, I was up late last night searching the intertubes for early
comments on Super Tuesday results.

If you are among our saner readers and simply went to bed, you might have missed a couple of contrasting blogposts that deserve greater attention.

The first, by Bernie supporter Cenk Uygur, appeared on HuffPost at 12:56 AM.

The piece focuses on a campaign narrative that I myself sensed was developing last night, but could not possibly have so well-articulated. It is well worth a read.

Hillary (predictably) won in all the deep southern states, but other than that, only Massachusetts went to her, and by the narrowest of margins.  Remember, despite all of her union endorsements, Hillary only scraped by in Nevada because the turnout was poor; and Iowa was a virtual tie.

This Tuesday, Bernie won in every state in which he actually spent some time letting people get to know him. The problem with Hillary’s southern wins is that in almost every case, Donald Trump outdrew her at the polls. . Those states aren’t even likely to be competitive; and when she lost to Bernie,  she lost big time.

In fact, in the states she won, Democratic turnout overall was down from the Obama years.

Her electoral delegate count looks impressive at this point, but so it did against Barack Obama.  The difference of course is that at this point in 2008, lots of super delegates were moving to Obama; but the super delegates are party loyalists like no others.  If they see that Hillary is not as likely as Bernie to win in the general, they will gradually begin to come around.

The second blogpost to consider is by Hillary supporter, Richard Wolffe, writing at 2:39 AM in the Guardian, presumably after reading Mr. Uygur’s earlier post.

I was not familiar with Mr. Wolffe’s reputation but was astonished by the ungracious tone. Mr. Wolffe seemed to have a major bug up his ass, making statements like

‘…it’s only a matter of time before Sanders stops perpetuating his own hoax and looks at the data of the delegate count.’

and

‘…“In Vermont,” Sanders explained, “billionaires don’t buy town meetings.” Well, they would be strange billionaires if they did.’

okay…

This is where all the dark energy goes in the really underground campaign…to seeding the ‘news’ shows, the blogosphere, Facebook and what-have-you with memes that favor your candidate. The Clinton’s are masters of that resource with an impressive network of seasoned operatives and powerful contacts.

What’s interesting is not so much the vitriolic and completely over-the-top attack Mr. Wolffe unleashes on Bernie, but the pushback in the comments section…all 3,282  of them!!   It’s a real reflection of those ‘unfavorable’ numbers we’ve seen for Clinton.

Somewhere in the first page of comments, I came across one that spelled out the connection of the writer to the Clinton campaign, something the casual reader wouldn’t know. Unlike Mr. Uygur, who wore his heart on his sleeve, Mr. Wolffe was not so transparent. Suddenly the angry tone of the article made perfect sense, and I read it in a new light.

Unfortunately, it would be a full time job spotting these things and where they come from.

Bernie’s revolution had a promising night.

Last night’s Iowa primary was a wild ride as befit the first official vote in this extraordinary year.

Even though cable news awarded the win to Clinton, the clearness of victory most certainly remains questionable and must be bitter-sweet for the once presumptive nominee.

Establishment pundits on the same cable networks still insist Bernie doesn’t stand a chance against Hillary when minorities are factored in, but his long-time supporters know how compelling his arguments are among almost any demographic once he is able to reach them on their home turf.

Conventional wisdom treats minorities as monolithic voting blocs, likely to herd in one accustomed direction. When you think about it, that’s a pretty demeaning assumption. If we are learning anything from this election cycle, it is the folly that lies in making assumptions.

The only question is whether there is sufficient time left for Bernie to make contact with all those voters in crucial southern states who are just now becoming familiar with his name.

I don’t know the answer to that, but I do know that Bernie is likely to get his revolution in the long run, if his support among young people is anything to go by.

Last night was far more of a moral victory for Bernie Sanders than it was for Hillary Clinton.

With Iowa, he has already proven that, even after Citizens United, a principled candidate relying solely on small donations can still be viable against the kind of money Hillary Clinton is able to summon from establishment and corporate interests.

It must be hugely gratifying for a man who has devoted his long political career to fighting for the little guy, often suffering ridicule for his idealism.

There is an overarching theme of populism driving both the Democratic and Republican primary races. Make no mistake though; while some glib pundits suggest they are drawing from the same pool of discontent, the theme plays in a wildly different key on either side of the two party divide. Suggestions, by the same pundits, that Bernie supporters could ultimately be recruited by Trump in the event of a Hillary nomination, demonstrate how clueless the mainstream media is about the values of Bernie voters. This is hardly surprising when you consider how little attention they paid to his candidacy throughout the summer and fall.

Bernie Sanders’ revolutionary message appeals to our evolved and ‘better’ selves, while that of Donald Trump appeals to the primitive and selfish id, which instinctively responds with an adrenaline rush to fear and prejudice.

The same kind of anti-minority, nationalistic drum-beat that recruited God-fearing German citizens to join Hitler’s brownshirts is calling the extreme right flank of the Republican party to renounce the traditional American values of personal liberty, tolerance and generosity that underly our constitution.

No matter who ends up the Democratic nominee, to imagine Bernie’s followers could ever fall-in behind Donald Trump is truly laughable.

Pssssst… Hey, want to endorse a Democrat for president?

Update: Five hours left and the DFA really wants you to vote!  

Democracy for America’s 2016 Presidential Endorsement Poll is closing in just 5 hours. Time is running out for you to get out the vote for the Democratic candidate you think would give us our best shot at winning in November.

You! Yes, you have the power to vote for who Democracy for America should endorse in the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries. And it doesn’t cost a thing, and so why not?

Just visit the DFA website –provide a name and email, check your vote choice and verify the vote by return email. Simple: no lines, no waiting.

Democracy for America was founded in 2004, post-scream, from the remnants of Howard Dean’s presidential primary campaign organization with the overall goal of empowering voters. In their 2008 endorsement poll no candidate passed the DFA endorsement super-majority threshold.

DFAvoteHere from the DFA’s website here is how their 2016 presidential endorsement process works:

  • The endorsement vote is live right now and will end at 11:59pm Eastern Time on Tuesday, December 15.
  • Just like in a real election, you will need to work hard to maximize support for your candidate if you want them to win this endorsement. That means getting your friends, family and other like-minded progressives to cast their votes for your candidate as well — on Facebook, Twitter, over email, on the phone, or however you want to spread the word!
  • DFA will only endorse in this presidential primary if there is overwhelming support for one candidate. That means that, just like in 2007 when we last conducted an official presidential endorsement vote, we will only endorse if one candidate reaches DFA’s super-majority threshold of 67% (two-thirds of votes cast, or 66.67% to be technical about it).
  • On Thursday, December 17th — after a complete security review of the votes — we will announce the results.                                                     Vote here

So here’s your chance, party activists and grassroots grumblers! Go get some votes for your gal or guy. Or maximize the “don’t endorse” vote, almost as good as “none of the above.” The sweet thing here is that whatever vote-hustling footwork you do now just might pay off in the early primaries.

 

Democratic Debate #2 Reveals Media Bias

The second Democratic debate has, for all intents and purposes, been swallowed whole by events unfolding in Paris.

Nevertheless, there is much that can be gleaned from what was a substantive discussion among grown-ups, quite unlike the vaudeville performed on Republican debate stages.

I thought Martin O’Malley stepped forward rather effectively this time.

It is interesting that, as was the case with the first Democratic debate, the conventional media seems to be awarding the ‘win’ to Hillary Clinton, mostly because she already has a substantial lead in the conventional polls and didn’t commit a huge blunder on stage. They place Bernie Sanders second and O’Malley a distant third.

Quite to the contrary, it appears that alternative media and online polls give it to Bernie by a landslide, followed not shabbily by O’Malley, with Hillary  the distant third.

Being a creature of the blogosphere, it probably isn’t surprising that I agree with the latter analysis.

What this disconnect tells us about the state of Democratic politics follows at least the leitmotif of their Republican counterpart.  Democrats are a party divided.

Advancing deregulation and globalization have consolidated conventional media under so few corporate owners that they could all be counted off on a single hand; and Citizens United has sealed the deal on corporate ownership of the public platform.

Corporatist media will of course look more favorably on the conventional candidate who represents their own interest and investment; and this bias will carry through, more or less unconsciously, in the ‘talent’ they hire and the analysis they trust.

It is the way of the world.

The fact that there is an ‘alternative media’ to test this presumptive arrangement is such a recent scenario that there has been little opportunity for the corporatist interests to secure the paddock gates.

Make no mistake about it; if the whole battle over ‘Net Neutrality’ ends badly for us, it will result in full message coordination, based on corporate interests alone.

2016 could be our last opportunity to see a truly independent candidate like Bernie on the debate stage, whose widespread appeal can still be easily tracked online, despite the fact that he vigorously spurns participation in his campaign by big money PACs.

Did you ever think you’d hear, on the stage of a major party debate, discussions of socialism,  free college tuition, healthcare as a human right, penal reform, a path to citizenship for undocumented aliens, legalizing marijuana and raising taxes on the rich?

Did you ever think the spouse of Bill Clinton would go so far as to style herself a ‘progressive?’

All these things are possible thanks to the populist support for Bernie Sanders, which you only know about thanks to the current situation of net neutrality.

I’ve gone on much longer than I had intended to before getting to what I thought was one of the most important take-aways from the evening.

With the Paris attacks not even fully in the rear view mirror, CBS was eager to shape the debate into a showdown over who would be toughest on ISIS.

After an awkward start, Bernie pivoted to the domestic platform which he earnestly commands; he refused to be distracted from his messaging mission. He knows how little time he has to energize his base for the revolution that is so badly needed.

Nevertheless, when he returned later to talk of ISIS and war in general, ably assisted by Martin O’Malley, he reminded Sec. Clinton and the audience of what exactly had precipitated the state of eternal terrorism in which we now find ourselves. Recognizing the folly that lay ahead, he voted against the Iraq invasion, whereas Hillary voted for it.

They both had the same information to rely upon, yet it was Hillary alone of the candidates, who followed Bush into a never-ending war.

While Hillary touted her experience with warfare in the past, both he and O’Malley pointed out that what is required in the face of twenty-first century terrorism is not a cumbersome and hugely overfunded machine of twentieth-century warfare, but a nimble and freshly conceived approach addressing the asymmetric threat all around us.

The U.S. military is something like three times the size of all the rest of the world’s military combined! Deploying conventional military assets to fight such an unconventional enemy amounts to using a steamroller to squash a swarm of flies around a sleeping dog. They’ll just scoot out of the way and its the hapless dog who will take the brunt…or, in the case of Syria, the innocent civilian population.

You probably won’t read a lot about that conversation in the conventional media because they are only concerned with whether or not Hillary did any damage to what they regard as her ironclad lock on the nomination.

The more things change, the more they remain the same.