RadioFreeLiberal.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/us/po ... s-say.html

I like this reader comment:

What I find, and I'd like to amusing, but that's not how I feel right now, so I guess I'll go the head-scratching route, is that Hillary seems to be playing from the same playbook she used in 2008. It feels like dejavu. Even the meme that she is the "inevitable candidate" being bantered about. Nobody ever thought in 2007 when Barack Obama entered the race that he would be even on the radar let alone give Hillary Clinton fits. It does seem like it is happening again. Nobody seemed to think that Bernie could be on the radar let alone even run as good a campaign as he he seems to be and have a following, when he was down in single digits. Three weeks out from the first test of the Iowa Caucus Bernie is posing a serious threat to Hillary Clinton's inevitability, he is attracting huge numbers at rallies, raising money and inspiring people to volunteer, just like Barack Obama did 8 years ago. Now Hillary is attacking Bernie on the gun issue, much like she did with Obama. Didn't seem to get much traction but she continues to do it. Then she attacked him on single-payer universal health care, like she did to Obama and got mocked but. many in many corners, including the media for it Now, using the same recipe, the same ingredients, and as I have posted before here, why in Heaven's name does she think she is going to get a different result?!

_________________
It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach.
~Franklin D. Roosevelt~

I get deja vu also. Getting Chelsea to attack Sanders on healthcare was low. She (Chelsea) even went so far as to suggest that republican governors wouldn't go along with a national/federal single payer or universal healthcare, as if they could do that with impunity. It would be the equivalent to Paul LePage just telling Mainers that there would be no more social security checks coming to them because he's a republican and can do that.

_________________
Lest we forget

Chinks in the armor?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/us/po ... nders.html

The shameful thing is that this had to be written, at all

Progressive Brothers: You Don’t Have to Hate Hillary to Love Bernie (and Don’t Drag Elizabeth Warren Into It) - Blue Nation Review



I'm voting Bernie but honestly, anti-Hillary hate got old some time in 1993.

_________________

---

Stop calling the cops on us.

---

Go Bernie!

Meanwhile, from my perspective, HRC is still a far and away better choice than any of the Republican candidates.

From my perspective, a guy who's for campaign finance reform, more financial regulation, a living wage, for progressive economic policies, for voting reform, and, again, personally (IMHO) is better on gun control or immigration reform than the other two candidates (nobody seems able or willing to dispute this), is also being ignored.

He's asked for more debates, which will benefit both Sanders and him.

Don't see exactly why, other than yes, of course, Sanders is also for most of those same things, but even still, don't get why there isn't room for three candidates.

He resonates with Hispanic voters, a key constituency for the elections.

And, BTW, he could possibly do very well in the general election, though nobody's doing head-to-head polling on his name.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

Bernie is my third choice. I think I'll say that again, Bernie is my third choice.

I think it is fine for other folks to have Clinton as their third choice, as I think it is fine for me to have Bernie as my third choice.

The point being either he or she comes in by third choice. By the time California votes I kind of doubt that there will be all three to choose from. So I will probably vote my second choice in the primary, cause my first choice will be gone. In the general election I'm voting for one, two, or three, the one who is left.

So from a practical stand point for around here. Go Hillary! Go my second choice. Folks have probably noticed I've been sticking up for her around here.

If you're talking about O'Malley, it's because against the current opponents (Dem & Rep), he isn't charismatic enough.
Whoever gets elected is going to need charisma in addition to all the other ingredients to be successful leading the nation.

Yeah, and humans share 92% of their DNA with mice.

But those other 7 or 8% can make a huge difference!

What is Clinton's position on Glass-Steagall?
Where does Clinton stand on the federal minimum wage?
Where has Clinton's position been on fracking?
What is Clinton's position on single-payer/Medicare for all?
Prior to the challenge from Sanders, what was Clinton's position on TPP?
What was Clinton's position on the Keystone XL pipeline?
Where has Clinton been on same-sex marriage?

How did Clinton vote when deciding whether to give Bush the authorization to go to war against Iraq?
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/s237
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/107-2002/h455

Charisma is an elusive quality. Neither Bernie or Hillary strike me as being loaded with it either. They're both smart, I know Bernie is well liked, trusted, and has large rallies, but I don't think it's because he's a very charismatic man. He is certainly hitting the right themes, though, and I don't doubt his integrity or honesty, which of course matter to people.

You may or may not agree with me on this, you might not like Biden on policy or gaffe-proneness, but I think in other ways, he is more charismatic than either, which is why there was somewhat of a draft movement for him.



The three of them are all wonks, though not always wonkish on the same things. I think all three might be more comfortable with policy seminars than kissing babies. None of them can work a room like Bill Clinton did. There's a reason both those who love & hate him call him Slick. (I've seen the man do it.) She definitely doesn't have his charisma.

I don't think O'Malley's main problem is charisma. I would say it is that he remains mostly unknown to most people outside of Maryland (let's not forget being a Senator gives you national attention), that he has failed to say why he's the better alternative to the other two (and that is, indeed, partly the fault of him and his campaign but I have some blame for the media, see elsewhere), and finally, he is not seen as a complete outsider to the system (TM), so in a year where everybody is forced to make the Manichean choice of insider-devil or outsider-saint, he doesn't fit easily in either box.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

I completely agree that Biden has spades more charisma than any of the others.

I didn't mean that Clinton or Sanders is especially charismatic. Neither is, although Clinton has improved compared to how she used to be, and I think Sanders is moreso than she is.
What I meant is that by comparison to those two (and some of the Republicans), O'Malley is woefully under-charismatic.
In a different race, O'Malley might be just fine. Just not in this race.

Frësch, I spect you could make a good run on finding the answers for that list of questions over at Clinton's web site, or by using Google.

Hillary Clinton is shameless.




Notice how Clinton conveniently acts like the 8 years her husband served as president, during which she served as a very involved First Lady, don't count?

She's also right.

Well...it's not really a fair question. It's like the inverse of "anybody that says they're cool, isn't cool."

Plus, the whole point of a phrase like "the establishment" is to implicate more than an individual.

_________________
'''Greed: It ain't goin anywhere,' they should have that across a big billboard in Times Square!"
Joe Strummer
1952-2002

I guess my reaction to this is ... OK, so NARAL and Human Rights Campaign and Planned Parenthood are part of the Democratic "establishment".

So? I don't know exactly what that means (as an accusation) or why it's supposed to bother me.

Things have to get "established" to start getting things done. It was fine when Margaret Sanger was a lone crusader for birth control, but PP is now an "establishment" that carries on her work, as a larger, more concerted organization. I view that as a good thing.

This whole insider/outsider/anti-establishment vibe never really has resonated with me. The problem with anti-establishment rhetoric is first I need to see your counter-narrative. David Duke criticizes the "establishment" for being too racially integrated and mixed. Not all counter-establishment voices offer better alternatives. Adolf Hitler started out as a little rabble-rousing anti-establishmentarian, and then ... well, we know what we got.

I get it. Money in politics is the key thing. Overturning CU, critical, reinstating campaign finance reform, essential. That said, though, I see a variety of Democrats articulating these issues, both inside and outside Washington/the Beltway, some in office or key organizations, some not. There is no monolithic Democratic establishment opposing moving forward on these things, although I will agree some Dems are being rather useless in the fight and sometimes even getting directly in the way. Those douchebags do need to go.

All I can say is ... my personal view is such orgs should make no endorsements during primaries, only during the general. But they didn't ask me. However, the other thing I would say to some hardcore Berniebros is ... maybe, just maybe, they didn't make the endorsement you wanted for reasons other than them being "corrupt" or "evil" (which, esp. with PP, reinforces the Republican attack machine against it)... I like that Bernie came around to articulating this point, and his supporters should understand it.

They may not have made the endorsement you wanted, I would even agree that you're right there is no reason to prefer HRC over Sanders on reproductive rights issues, so they might be making that decision based on other criteria ... even ones you could question the validity of ... just don't repeat accusations against them that in many cases echo the Republican attack campaign on these organizations.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

"The establishment" belongs in Cliche Watch.

She's right that Sanders has served in an office in Washington to which he personally was elected for more years than she has, although, as I noted above, that is misleading.

But she's wrong to suggest that it is Sanders rather than she who is part of the group that political insiders will "circle the wagons" around to protect. The way his campaign was largely ignored by the media until just a few months ago is testament to that (the media can read Washington insider as well as anybody can).



http://www.vanityfair.com/news/1992/05/ ... presidency

The Des Moines Register - Endorsement: Hillary Clinton has needed knowledge, experience

If there’s one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on this year, it’s the fact that the next president will face enormous challenges.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/ ... /79240238/

Clinton can't defend her political contributions from Goldman Sachs, CitiGroup, and JP Morgan, so she attacks Sanders as going after her Planned Parenthood support as an attack on the "establishment." She knows damn well what Sanders meant, hence this BS defense of her endorsements.

The term "establishment" has come to represent the, as the msm now calls, "donor class." Clinton gets her campaign donations from the SuperPAC's (i.e., "donor class.") The establishment also refers to people like Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, those with political power and clout who are the "king makers" or "queen makers." They know all the right connections to the ones with the cash. The ones who write the rules and the legislation. The ones who really own our government.

_________________
Lest we forget

Well, again, terms matter. "The donor class".

Planned Parenthood has a PAC. They donate to campaigns. They lobby, they have lobbyists.

The question is what are you lobbying for? Better health care for women, including but not limited to contraception.

I'm OK with that 'establishment'.

I do believe we need to do something about CU and SuperPACs, and reinstate campaign finance reform, and part of that has to be no anonymity for donors. Sorry, there must be sunlight, transparency. We shouldn't be allowing corporate lobbyists to write our legislation and control our gov't. Totally onboard. ALEC needs to be exposed, that's their "front" on the state legislature level.

... Bernie's not the only one saying that, not even the only one doing anything about it.

... I might even agree with folks saying PP, HuRC, NARAL made the wrong decision (both to endorse in the primaries, or to then make the wrong choice) ... I just don't agree that that means they are part of some 'corrupt establishment'. Because then that buys into Rethuglican rhetoric against these organizations, and reinforces it.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger

[quote="ProfessorX » Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:11 am

... I might even agree with folks saying PP, HuRC, NARAL made the wrong decision (both to endorse in the primaries, or to then make the wrong choice) ... I just don't agree that that means they are part of some 'corrupt establishment'. Because then that buys into Rethuglican rhetoric against these organizations, and reinforces it.[/quote]

True. But I think Clinton was trying to promote the idea that Sanders was attacking PP as part of the corrupt, big corporations establishment.

_________________
Lest we forget

Sanders hasn't attacked Planed Parenthood directly, nor as far as I am aware did Clinton attack Sanders for directly attacking PP. She doesn't think Sanders is against PP.

Where this comes up is PP is funded in part by the Federal government, and under Obamacare PP continues to receive federal support. Clinton's claim is if Sanders gets on the bully pulpit, and stirs up the issue again with the Congress we have now in trying to bring us his plan the result would be the lose of Obamacare and PP.

She's saying its a good idea, its the timing, it really is a case of bad timing. It is a good idea, the timing of it is horrible.



I have a favorite old saw, "let sleeping dogs lie." Experience has taught me, if I haven't the support to change something the way I want it to be, don't stir the issue up and make the situation worse.

What happens is the issue once raised, it will take on a life of its own once Congress takes it up. Sanders might start the processes in a lame attempt from the bully pulpit, because he campaigned upon it to achieve a good end. But in the wrong hands (our current Congress) that end is unlikely to materialize out of thin air, and what is more likely to happen is what we have will be torn asunder if the issue is brought up at the wrong time.

The Congress we have now and the Congress we are likely to have even after an election where we win will not have the level of support we would need to control the mark up process.

I sure hope Noam has security detail after this

Noam Chomsky tells ‘UpFront’ he would “absolutely” vote for Hillary Clinton - Al Jazeera interview

_________________

---

Stop calling the cops on us.

---