Thursday, February 11, 2016

Hillary Clinton, the Congressional Black Caucus Tell African Americans: Don't Dream.

If there is any constituency or group who knows what a dream is, and who knows how having a dream can make that dream real and see it become reality,  its African Americans. A little something Clinton and almost comically the Congressional Black Caucus seem to have forgotten.
Proving, like Obama has shown during his entire political life, that all that matters is politics, the Congressional Black Caucus endorsed Clinton, telling African Americans in attacking Bernie Sanders and why they chose Clinton over Sanders,  having a dream is  a waste of time. 

Practically repeating Clinton's talking points against Sanders  verbatim so you know there was collusion, they said at their announcement that they were endorsing Clinton who is practical and to forget Sanders' dreams. They are, they said, pie in sky ideas that sound great, but will  never happen.

Then they made themselves look even more foolish by painting Bernie Sanders as someone who has only come to issues of race and the cause of African Americans "recently".
To the CBC,"recently" must mean 1960 when Brooklyn born 20 year old Bernie Sanders went to Chicago as a white member of CORE, The Congress of Racial Equality and was arrested trying to desegregate segregated housing. Or "recently" might mean his endorsement of and working for, Jesse Jackson's presidential bid decades before anyone ever heard the name Barrack Obama and before anyone believed that electing an African American president was even possible. Anyone except maybe Bernie Sanders.
This is how politicians, black or white, male or female, Latino or any group, makes fools of themselves. By being politicians first, liars second, and foremost, thinking they can pull the wool over people's eyes while putting politics and their own self interests first and the truth  last. And hope nobody notices.
But given the history of race in this country, the last group of people whose set of eyes you would think a politician, especially a black one would try to pull the wool over would be African Americans who learned a long time ago how and what to see through. No matter who it comes from.
The timing of the CBC endorsement was  of course calculated to come the day of the PBS debate  between Clinton and Sanders and  is designed to give her something to crow about.
At tonight's debate and in South Carolina in the future, Sanders is going to present his dream of practical idealism . And Clinton is going to say, forget it, dreams never happen.  Clinton is going to tell African Americans, forget dreams they are not reality. She is going to say having a dream is fine but it's not  realistic. Which is exactly what the Congressional Black Caucus said to African Americans today about Sanders and in endorsing Clinton.
And Clinton wonders why younger voters no matter race are supporting Sanders and not her 84-9. 

Clinton, like the Congressional Black Caucus did in their endorsement is going to tell African Americans, the same thing she's been telling everyone else :  dont waste your time having dreams or believing in them.  Forget Bernie Sanders and his pie in the sky dreams. Instead vote for me. Which is sure to be an inspiration to everyone.

The CBC cautioned against voting for a candidate who makes promises he can't keep. They must've been channeling Obama since from the time he started to run in the 2008 primaries till about 5 minutes ago Obama had not fulfilled one promise or pledge - not one - that he has ever made . And not because he couldn't but because he reneged on every one, lied about it, caved in to the opposition, capitulated, compromised or pretended he never said it. His entire presidency has been a liberal and progressive disaster. 
It doesn't come as a surprise that all of Hillary Clinton's African American endorsements are coming from establishment politicians who want to protect their turf and their prerogatives as most establishment politicians do, Democrat or Republican regardless of race and who always make themselves their first priority.
Every African American endorsement of Clinton has been just that -- establishment politicians black and white. Sanders African American endorsements so far are Cornell West the pre-eminent professor of African American studies at Princeton University, Ben Jealous the former head of the NAACP, Harry Belafonte a long time civil rights activist,  Rrp Keith Ellison the first Muslim member of congress, Sanders own press secretary an African American woman who hasn't become the spokesman for his campaign because she thinks Clinton is the better choice, and lots of young African Americans male and female who think bringing a dream into reality is the most practical thing in the world. Like those who fueled another dream back in 1968.
What very well may happen is that on election day in Nevada and South Carolina,  African Americans may go to the polls and forget Clinton,  not their dreams.  They may decide to take Bernie Sanders pie out of the sky and put it in the oven. And turn up the heat. And if they do, its over for Clinton and  the establishment backing her. In that scenario the only dream that won't become a reality is Clinton's. 

But healthcare for all, free college tuition, expanded social security, a revamped justice system and a political system that keeps big money from buying access to politicians so that the government is rigged in their favor, may all have the chance to become reality. Just like another dream once did.

Monday, February 8, 2016

Hillary Clinton Supporters Unleash Sexist Attack Against Women Who Support Sanders.

In 2008 during the Democratic primary and the Democratic convention in Denver,  Hillary Clinton was steamrolled, backstabbled and robbed of a nomination  by Obama, the DNC and much of the news media and probably would have won the nomination and presidency had the process been fair.  It wasn't.

During the campaign Obama supporters called Clinton supporters "racist" for supporting her instead of Obama. And a lot of other things.  It is a fact that Obama was the most divisive polarizing Democratic candidate among Democrats in the history of the party,  who then went on to sell out just about every aspect of the Democratic party agenda which is why they were wiped out of congress two years into Obama's presidency after winning the biggest congressional majority in 6o years.

But now its seems the Clinton campaign thinks it can use the same dishonest gutter politics that were used against her  and use them against Sanders. Maybe she thinks when it comes to gutter politics if you can't beat'em, join'em and it will work against Sanders. It won't. It will backfire.

Maybe the Clinton campaign and some of her supporters think desperate times call for desperate measures. But the Clinton campaign is making itself look worse every day by looking desperate and willing to say anything to stem the tide that is flowing Sanders way, because of his ideas which are far superior to the failed dishonest policies of Obama that Clinton decided to hitch her star to. 

Her and her supporters dishonest attacks against Sanders may just as easily turn off many Clinton voters and supporters, at least those with integrity and will do nothing to win over Sanders supporters. Which they seem to think they can do by insulting them.

The worst insults so far are the cheap, dishonest sexist attacks by both Madeline Albright and Gloria Steinhem against women who support Sanders which is pretty sad considering the accomplishments of both women. And it is showing why Clinton may be doing well with women over 50 but getting destroyed by Sanders with women under 45. Overall Sanders is doing better with women 50-44. With younger women 34 and under they are for Sanders 84-9. 

Which may have prompted Madeline Albright, an excllent capable and powerful former Secretary of State under Bill Clinton to make a fool of herself and showed why people of her stature should stay within their area of expertise and stay out of politics.

Albright embarrassed herself and Clinton embarrassed herself and probably further alienated women who support Sanders when Albright said that women supporting Sanders "deserve a special place in hell". That's what she said.

This is one more indication that it's the  Clinton campaign that has gone to hell and its an open question of whether they will  ever make it back.

Aside from the blatant sexism of Albrights remarks, that women ought to support Clinton solely based on a common gender and that those who don't " deserve a special place in hell",  is not just preposterous, it's insulting. dishonest to the core and takes hypocrisy to new lows.

How hypocritical and dishonest? According to Albrights idiotic remark women all over the country including Democrats should have supported Sarah Palin in 2008 as Vice President, who, as everyone knows, is the same gender . So does Albright think any woman who didn't support Palin deserves a special place in hell?  Palin would probably agree. Maybe Albright's remark should apply to Fiorina for that matter. Or is hell a partisan place according to Albright? 

Albright's blatantly sexist and even idiotic remark further makes the Clinton campaign look dirty desperate and dishonest.  Clinton could have added her own "D" and  disowned the remarks. Instead the video shows she was both surprised and delighted by what Albright said and her surrogates have gone out defending it. Women who support Sanders wont feel the same. And they can probably kiss them goodbye all over the country, not just in New Hampshire.

The second stupid,  sexist statement by a Clinton supporter came from all people Gloria Steinheim which proves women can be just as unprincipled, dishonest,  hypocritcal and stupid as men. Steinhem said on Bill Mahr's show that young women supporting Bernie Sanders do so because they want to meet men. No kidding. Steinham reduced the Sanders campaign appeal to young women voters to nothing more than 

If  Steinhem wanted to transform herself into both a feminist dinosaur and make herself  and Clinton irrelevant to any woman under 45 she did both.

It doesn't matter that Steinham apologized afterwards . It's too late. But it does give some insight into Clinton's campaign and some of  her  supporters. 

Imagine if someone prominent from the Sanders campaign said the only reason men were supporting Clinton was to meet women ( for whatever purposes). Imagine the hue and cry that would've come from the Clinton campaign and cheap shot artists like David Brock. Clinton and every surrogate for the Clinton campaign would be out there using it to attack Sanders for their own purposes.  But it's okay if Clinton does it . 

Which makes Clintons recent  speech complaining of a double standard for women look like she and some of her supporters are living in some kind of alternate universe that play by different rules. 

 Even Bill has decided to get into the act which shows the level of desperation of the Clinton campaign . After Hillary supporters made two of the most sexist, dishonest, ridiculous statements that have ever come from a woman politician (will Clinton supporters call that sexist?) Bill, seemingly having become politically tone deaf said at a rally yesterday that the Sanders campaign is "sexist".

Bill's attack is based on some online trolls who support Sanders and who no one can control making sexist comments as if that has anything to do with the Sanders campaign and as if any of them have the stature of Madeline Albright who appeared with Clinton. The comparisons are embarrassing. And those troll comments are nothing compared to the virulent venomous attacks of racism leveled against Clinton supporters by Obama supporters in 2008 over which neither Bill nor Hillary ever said a word.

The Clinton campaign seems to be truly self destructing. They are sounding more like Republican attack dogs every day and its become embarrassing.

The shame of it is Bill was a terrific president. And Hillary has legitimate accomplishments.  She was bulldozed and run over and cheated out of the nomination in 2008 which she went along with at the time which was her own fault,  but now seems to think Democrats owe her.And African Americans owe her too. They don't. Nobody owes her anything.  And if the Clinton campaign keeps it up, if they cant win on a battle of ideas because Hillary decided to hitch her star to Obamas failed and dishonest presidency,  and so instead dishonestly and hypocritically attacks Sanders and his supporters because he is winning in the market place of politics and ideas, then she will not only lose, she will leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth over what should have been seen as an accomplished career.

And that self destruction may become complete in South Carolina. If Clinton doesn't win there and Sanders does,  if Clinton doesn't get the overwhelming African American vote she expects  because she thinks African Americans owe her, which they don't, it's over. Even if she wins and its close it's over. It will be her southern firewall crumbling. Or being "Berned" through. And with former NAACP president Ben Jealous and Princeton professor of African American studies Cornell West to name two prominent African Americans supporting Sanders,  it's pretty clear she is already feeling the heat as well as the Bern. One thing is certain: the lead she has now in South Carolina won't hold up. 

If Madeline Albright or Hillary Clinton for that matter or any Democrat afraid of losing their cushy relationships with big money interests want hell, they can be sure of one thing: Bernie Sanders, like Harry Truman before him, will give it to them. As one of Truman's supporters once yelled at Truman, "Give'em hell, Harry".  Truman replied, " I just tell the truth and they think it's hell". So does Bernie Sanders. So Albright's comment could very well give way to "give'em hell Bernie". Sanders' women voters certainly will.

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Hillary Clinton's Bizarre Debate Night Was No Date Night.

Hillary Clinton looked and sounded desperate.  From trying to cloak herself as a victim of big bad Bernie Sanders and what she called "artful smears",  to repeating White House fed lies about Obamacare and suprisingly reversing herself on universal healthcare, Clinton came off in the debate with Bernie Sanders like a prize fighter in the 12th round a fight whos knows she is so far behind on points her only chance is to land a lucky punch and flailed away at Sanders during most of the MSNBC debate at the top of her lungs and just made herself look bad.

(NOTE: For the record, the "top of her lungs" comment was written the morning after the debate. Since then others have criticized Clinton for her debate performance of shouting, yelling, coming off with an almost browbeating tone including her wild accusations of "smear" which will be dealt with in detail later.  Among those saying so was Bob Woodward. Clinton defenders have called the comments "sexist". Which also sounds desperate.)

The prize fighter analogy is interesting not just because Sanders used to box but because Clinton did flail away like it was the 12th round of a fight she was losing when it reality, given that New Hampshire is the first actual primary, its the first round. But Clinton came out swinging like it was the last. And maybe she is right. David Gergen said that no real candidate can withstand a 30 point defeat and if Clinton loses New Hampshire by 30 points or more it will cause serious damage the rest of the way.

But tone aside,  Clinton began the debate with one of the most politically calculated and bizarre statements in her campaign so far that has gone largely ignored by the media because they'd rather talk about the "fireworks" and Clinton's satirical claim of a smear.

Clinton began the debate by saying she was for universal health care.

Isn't that what Bernie Sanders has been running on for months? Isn't that what Clinton called in the first debate when she felt like the front runner  pie in the sky and would never  and could never happen? Isn't that what she accused Sanders of not being honest about  in terms of what it would cost? Isn't that what she accused Sanders of wanting to "dismantle Obamacare" and replace it with? After  blowing a 50 point lead in Iowa and getting clobbered by Sanders in the New Hampshire polls 61-30, now Clinton supports universal health care? But, she said, she wants to do it through Obamacare not replace it. Which is impossible without repealing all the parts that make Obamacare the failure it is.

Sanders did point out that while his goal and intention is universal healthcare, he wouldn't simply throw Obamacare away during the process of creating universal healthcare. But he would replace it with Medicare For All. Which destroys one of Clinton's arguments against Sanders Medicare For All proposal.

But her most bizarre statement of the night, the one that the news media has been talking about ever since was Clinton accusing Sanders of "smearing" her.

Clinton objected to Sanders correctly pointing out that after Clinton called herself " a progressive that gets things done" after eking out a virtual tie in Iowa and blowing a 50 point lead, that back in November of 2015 during a campaign speech she called herself a moderate and was proud of it. Numerous clips of the speech have since been shown on news shows where Clinton is in fact touting that she is a moderate. So  Clinton's problem is that what she is calling a smear the rest of the planet earth calls the truth.

But imagine. All Sanders did was point out what Clinton said about herself and she called it a "smear". That did cross the line -- into political satire.  It was the first time in political history that a candidate called what she said about herself a smear.

In that speech Clinton said, " people accuse me of being a moderate --- I plead guilty" and made other references to her being a moderate.  If  pointing that out is a smear than Clinton smeared herself.

Most people wouldn't consider the label " moderate" a smear. Most people think that's a very reasonable thing to be. And if Clinton stuck with it she might have had some debating points. But now,  because she is getting clobbered by Bernie Sanders who has always been an unabashed "progressive" or "liberal", Clinton seems to have decided behind closed doors that now, politically to compete she has to call herself a progressive.  Showing that she wants to have it both ways . Only a politician playing politics would call being a moderate a smear.

It makes her look like her finger is to the wind and she is willing to shift what she thinks and how she defines herself based on the political winds, something her detractors have always accused her of doing-- and, like her new found mentor and political best friend Barrack Obama, say anything to anyone at anytime to get what she wants politically which Obama has used successfully with well documented prolific lying which the news media with their infinite lack of integrity and spine, lets him get away with. They won't with Clinton. 

 It was almost like she was berating Sanders by saying, " you can't undermine my political strategy like that, how dare you!"

In what also seemed like a desperate clutching at straws, Clinton tried to play the gender card for sympathy, playing the victim and accusing Sanders of attacking someone who is "trying to be the first woman president".  Please. It may have worked for Obama with race given the racial history of the country but it's not likely to work for Clinton. Polling shows women in general are going to Sanders 50-44 and Sanders has a huge lead among younger women.  Clinton has a big lead with women over 50.

Clinton's other big accusation against Sanders was that he was employing " the artful smear" because Sanders had the gall to point out all the money she has accepted from Wall Street and the health insurance industry.

Clinton received $675,000 for a single speech from Goldman Sachs and her answer was,
"well that's what they offered". The Harper Valley PTA who would probably love to have Clinton come and speak, unfortunately can't afford $675,000. And the speeches were all made behind closed doors, news media barred and a clause in the contract that no one may make a recording of the speech or talk about its contents to the media or anywhere else.

Clinton's problem is she is running against a man who has refused to take a dime from Wall Street or any corporate interests for any reason and who is running against big money donors, Wall Street and corporate interests able to buy access to a candidate who gets elected.

Clinton received in the last 15 months,$11,000,000 in total speaking fees from Wall Street and the health insurance industry, including $2.85 mullion from the health insurance industry which could explain her still vocal support of Obamacare despite all its real failures, including the insurance companies actually writing the insurance part of the bill thanks to Obama. In the last two years Clinton has received over $21,000,000 in speaking fees.

But according to Clinton, pointing out those speaking fees and the $42 million her PAC received in January,  are in Clinton's words,"an  artful smear" saying that "Senator Sanders implying that...."

Sanders "implied" nothing. Anyone who has listened to Sanders speak knows he is about the most straight forward politician on the planet. He implies nothing. He insinuates nothing. He says what he means and thinks. And he pointed out facts. That Clinton regards it as implying something is what Clinton is attaching to it. It's almost a tacit admission that Sanders has a point in his railing against big money buying access to politicians. She could have agreed with Sanders about big money buying access but said " not in my case". If it were true. Instead she became defensive and lashed out with her ridiculous "artful smear" attack . She could end any of what she calls "implying" by releasing all the transcripts of all the speeches she gave to Wall Street and corporate interests,  not her speeches to the American Travel Agency Association.

 Instead, Clinton calling Sanders pointing out facts an "artful smear"  is in reality an artful dodge.

Most people would love to be smeared with $11 million. But not if your running for president against a man who has made Wall Street and big business buying access to politicians a big part of his campaign and refuses to take a dime from any of them.

Sanders has made a valid point  about the huge amounts of money Clinton has taken from big donors and big business without smearing anyone. Clinton feels it's a  smear because she doesn't like Sanders pointing it out. And because its true. And when asked if she would release the transcripts of her speeches which exist but by a  contract stipulation imposed by Clinton can't be released by anyone but her, she said, "I'll look into it". Some would consider that a dodge too. 

For the record a "political smear" is never true. That's why its called a smear. Its a rumor, a whispering campaign usually without any facts to back it up which is what makes it a smear.

Everything Sanders said about Clinton and her big corporation speaking fees and donations were all true. The real smear is Clinton accusing Sanders of a smear.

Instead of attacking Sanders for telling the truth and calling it a smear let Clinton defend her speaking fees and all the tens of millions she has brought in mostly from Wall Street. Let her release the transcripts of all her speaking engagements that were behind closed doors, and for which the media was barred. Not cherry pick them and no Nixonian editing or redacting. Just release all of them and let people decide for themselves their relevance. Defend what you do, don't attack someone for pointing it out.

It is entirely valid for anyone who doesn't like all the money in  politics, who doesn't like the idea of big corporations and wealthy donors being able to buy access that ordinary people cant, to go into a voting booth and use the fact that one candidate has taken tens of millions from corporate interests and the other refuses to take a dime and cast a vote based on that and use it as an indication of who is more likely to look out for their own interests. Thats just what big corporations do with their money. It's what people can do with their vote.

People are capable of looking at a set of facts and coming to their own conclusions whatever those conclusions are.

 It may very well be that  in other states people are going to prefer the guy who hasn't take a dime from corporate interests, doesn't have a PAC and doesn't change his tone depending on who he is talking to.

But it's notable that Clinton cancelled a big fund raising event in Boston  that was to take place the night after the debate and hosted by a wealthy venture capitalist with ties to Bain Capitol. So Sanders in a small way has already changed money and politics with Clinton deciding, for political reasons obviously, to cancel her fundraiser.  It's a concession to Sanders. Even if it's not s concession speech . Which means Sanders is winning. Philosophically and with votes.

And that's not a smear its the truth.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

The Stupidity of Calling New Hampshire a Home Court Advantage For Sanders.

Bernie Sanders is walloping Hillary Clinton in the polls in New Hampshire like its no contest.  And Hillary Clinton herself and some Clinton supporters, campaign aides and a lot of empty headed non-thinking members of the news media of which there is no shortage, have referred to New Hampshire's proximity to Vermont as being  some kind of home field advantage for Bernie  Sanders to help explain his enormous lead. 

If it wasn't so dumb it would be stupid.  And in many cases just typical dishonest excuse-making political spin that sometimes comes from the candidate themselves, or their supporters who find themselves on the short end of the polls and are trying to justify a defeat. Or it can also come from journalists who can't think.

There is not an iota of evidence, not a shred of truth and not a particle of reason or common sense to think that Vermont's close proximity to New Hampshire, or any state's close proximity to any other, has any influence on an electorate of a neighboring state. It's a preposterous attempt to try and explain why Sanders is clobbering Clinton by almost 30 points in the polls.

For Clinton or anyone associated with the Clinton campaign to call it a "home field advantage" is almost like being a sore loser before you've even lost.And ignores that months ago, Clinton was ahead of Sanders 57-16.

This is how much one state being close to another dictates political success or influence and explains Sanders huge lead in the polls:

There are no two states closer together, have more in common, share more or have more mutual interests that intersect than New York and New Jersey. They are separated only by the Hudson River and you can literally see New York from New Jersey and vice versa. They are connected by the Lincoln Tunnel, Holland Tunnel and George Washington Bridge and are minutes away from each other by car, train or ferry.  Maybe a million residents of New Jersey commute to New York for their jobs every day.

The New York Giants and New York Jets football teams play in Giants Stadium located  in New Jersey. 

And with all that, this is how much New Jersey and New York being in each other's backyards would relate to political success:

Chris Christy is the governor of New Jersey. If Chris Christy ran for mayor of New York city he'd get destroyed by 50 points. If he ran for governor against Andrew Cuomo it would be no contest. Chris Christy probably couldn't get elected dog catcher in New York in a state wide election.   If Chris Christy became the Republican candidate for president he wouldn't even campaign in New York because he would know it would be a waste of time.

In 1980 Ted Kennedy from neighboring Massachusettes lost the New Hampshire primary to Georgia governor Jimmy Carter. And former Massachusettes governor Mitt Romney lost the Republican New Hampshire primary to Arizona senator John McCain.   Romney won in 2012 but  he beat Ron Paul. That had nothing to do with home field.

That is how much a politician from one state automatically has a "home field advantage"  in a neighboring state. As senator Sanders being from Vermont just showed in nearby Iowa.

Aside from the false premise and stupidity that because one state is next to another a politician from one automatically has a "home field advantage" in the other, Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary in 2008. If anything one could say it's Clinton who has a "home field advantage" since she already won there, has the Democratic establishment like senator Jean Shaheen campaigning for her and is still getting clobbered in the polls by Sanders.

That Clinton is so far behind in the polls in New Hampshire has nothing to do with where New Hampshire is on the map in relation to Vermont.  It has to do with where Clinton is on the map in relation to New Hampshire Democrats and her policies versus where Sanders is and his policies. Along with their individual personal qualities and ideas and what Sanders represents in contrast to Clinton's vow to  continue Obama's failed or weak policies in return for his support and the Obama controlled DNC pulling strings for the Clinton campaign wherever they can, which, among other things does make Clinton the establishment candidate, something that does not endear Clinton to more idealistic younger voters which might help explain why Sanders lead over Clinton among voters under 45 is 81-14.

The poll numbers in New Hampshire have nothing to do with geography. They are a reflection of Sanders policies versus Clinton's promised policies and her vocal and well established embrace of Obama and his policies  almost all of which have failed and some of which were the product of subterfuge,  dishonesty and capitulation that Clinton promises to continue, policies that she and Obama try and paint as great successes but everyone knows they aren't.

It is that contrast between Clinton and her promised policies and fealty to Obama versus Sanders policies,  his independence from establishment politics, corporate interests and money, his committment to democratic principles, his integrity and appeal to younger voters that are whats being reflected in the polls, not geography. And that may not change when the geography switches to the South.
So let the excuses begin.

NOTE: on primary day CNN's Brianna Keilar gave a report about Sanders sizeable lead and how " there is no doubt that Sanders coming from from nearby Vermont plays into this". There is "no doubt" .  Because she says so right? 

As proved above it is the dumbest most vacuous and factually  false, and journalistically empty comment she could've made, a result of just parroting the same  ignorant comments other people  make. Which is why CNN has become virtually worthless as a news organization and has become the Most Rusted Name in News. 

Monday, February 1, 2016

The Dishonest, Disingenuous, Hypocritical Washington Post Editorial on Sanders.

One of these days news organizations are going to wake up to the fact that all they have to sell is their credibility. And when they damage it or destroy it through their own dishonesty, malfeasance, hypocrisy, and even incompetence, they take one more step in  the news media making the First Amendment irrelevant during political campaigns, elections, policy and politics in general.

The Washington Post in one of the most self serving, defensive,biased and dishonest editorials since Ben Bradlee retired and with him the Post's integrity, attacked Bernie Sanders in an editorial endorsing Hillary Clinton by accusing Sanders of not being a "a brave truth teller".

Pretty funny.

There is no instance where Sanders has not told the truth about anything. Anything. And if Bernie Sanders was " not a brave truth teller" where are all the articles in the Washington Post that could have been written for months about Sanders and any of his proposals that took Sanders to task for not telling the truth?

There aren't any. So two days before the Iowa caucuses where Sanders and Clinton are in a statistical tie, after Sanders closed a 60 point Clinton lead which existed about 4 months ago, decides now Sanders is not a truth teller about his polices.

Is it because his policies threaten Clinton and Clinton represents not the best of  corporate America which can be proud of a lot of things, but the worst? Which is greed and profiting off the backs of employees whose wages when compared with the top executives have the biggest disparity in American history?

Is it because his policies are much more popular than Clinton's so instead of attacking the polices in terms of good or bad, attack them and Sanders on the basis of honesty or whether they can be enacted?

If, like Clinton, you are out there promoting the failed and dishonest presidency of Obama and promising to continue or "build" on those failed policies while sycophants go around trying to sell the snake oil of how great they've been while a lot Democrats know better,  then you attack Sanders not for his policies but whether he is telling the truth about them which in their own 3 Stooges way, is admitting his polices are better than Clinton's so attack them on the basis that they will never happen.

If there was any truth to what the dishonest Post editorial board was saying about Sanders and his not being a "truth teller" about his policies,  then why haven't they fired every political reporter and editor at the Post covering Sanders who missed it for months? 

So now two days before the Iowa caucuses which show Sanders in a statistical tie with Clinton and destroying her in New Hampshire, the editorial board decided Sanders isnt a "truth teller" about his policies. 

Is their endorsement of Clinton because she can be relied on not to rattle the status quo? Obviously.  Is it a coincidence that the same corporate entity that owns the New York Times also owns the Washington Post and that both endorsed Clinton? 

And when it comes to simple truth telling Obama has probably told more flat out lies and made more intentional misrepresentations of the truth than any president or presidential candidate in American history. It could literally fill a book. And the Post has chosen to ignore all of it, from Obama's lies about Obamacare in which he has misrepresented  and distorted to this day the number of uninsured who bought plans covering up the massive failure Obamacare really is by making claims of success that are completely false which Clinton and her surrogates keep repeating, his lie after selling out the  healthcare public option to the corporate interests of the health insurance industry when he had the votes to pass it when he said " I never campaigned for the public option", his continued misrepresentation of the auto bailout as having anything to do with saving GM when it didn't and this is just the smallest fraction of  a lack of truth telling from the White House and Obama's entire political career. And not a word about "truth telling" from the Washington Post editorial board.

Also not a word about Clinton lying about Sanders and distorting his record on guns and being pro choice when Sanders has been on the record of fighting for and maintaining and protecting a woman's right of choice for all his 25 years in congress. But the Washington Post editorial board ignores that too.

How truly dishonest is the Washington Post Editorial Board?  On January 26 they ran a story titled:

"Read His Lips: Bernie Sanders is going to raise your taxes".

This is the candidate the Post editorial said is " not a brave truth teller". So they don't even read their own newspaper. A good reason no one else should either. 

This is all the proof anyone needs that the Washington Post editorial isnt an editorial at all but a political smear by a newspaper. The fact that it is the product of "the editorial board" and not an individual is further proof that it is more a conspiratorial than an editorial.

It is also an insult to the intelligence of not just Sanders supporters but everyone. When was the last time anyone heard a politician running for office tell people he was going to raise taxes? Never. It's unheard of. Which makes Sanders more courageous and more honest than any politician who ever ran for office. Exactly what the country needs running things and is every bit the brave truth teller the dishonest Washington Post tries to say he isn't. It proves that the editorial board collectively is either dishonest to their core don't read their own newspaper or both. Or is instituting a new editorial policy - " are you going to believe what we tell you or your own lying eyes"? 

Sanders has been on the record repeatedly that he would raise taxes to pay for universal healthcare for everyone -- a Medicare for all program --  which means people would no longer have their paychecks docked for health insurance or have to pay all of  it themselves meaning thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars goes back into people's pockets, money saved for each person or family especially when medical care is needed, not just a savings in insurance premiums. That in return for a modest tax increase.

So the Post editorial saying Sanders  "wasn't a brave truth teller" when only 4 days before the Post ran a story on  Sanders saying he would raise taxes shows how thoroughly dishonest and incompetent the Post editors really are. And that their agenda is dishonest agenda.

It's no surprise that the Clinton campaign has printed up hundreds of copies of the dishonest Post editorial and is handing them out in Iowa. They have their own dishonesty and distortion of Sanders policies and right wing style hit jobs on Sanders from former right wing hit man David Brock.  The problem is that the editorial board of one of Iowa's biggest newspapers endorsed Sanders as the kind of truth teller Iowans and the rest of the country needs. And that the Post seems to be scared to death of. And  with her dishonest embrace of Obama's failed presidency, so is Clinton.

Saturday, January 30, 2016

Clinton Spokesman Who Once Called Anita Hill a Slut Attacks Sanders on Race.

If the Clinton campaign is trying to  write the handbook for how to lose votes and alienate people by taking cheap political shots and going into the political gutter while making themselves look stupid, they are doing a good job.  Maybe they can title the book "It Takes a Village Idiot".
The Clinton campaign is starting to show on a number of fronts they are willing to get into the political gutter to attack Bernie Sanders and do it dishonestly as Clinton, in apparent early desperation  has started to launch the kind of dishonest political attacks against Sanders that Republicans have launched against her in the past and against other Democratic candidates. And she is doing it because she is losing.
The latest village idiot is of all people, David Brock, the former right wing mud slinger who was part of the vast right wing conspiracy that actually did exist against Bill Clinton and financed by Richard Mellon Scaife. 

It was Brock who wrote the first article in the American Spectator about Bill Clinton and Paula Jones when he was governor of Arkansas which was the opening salvo for all subsequent  attacks on Bill Clinton. It was Brock who did the opposition research and ferreted out the story of Clinton and Paula Jones, wrote the story and convinced her to make accusations against Clinton for political purposes which spilled over into the Lewinsky media frenzy.

That Clinton is even willing to accept Brock as a political ally says a lot about how the Clinton campaign will do anything to win. No matter how dirty it gets. Except against Sanders  it is not likely to work.
This is the same David Brock who went on to write a book attacking Anita Hill  and her accusations  of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas during Thomas' confirmation hearings. Brock referred to Hill at the time as  "a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty".
This is who is slinging mud on behalf of  the Clinton campaign against Bernie Sanders' TV commercial "America"  by saying that "black lives really don't matter to Bernie Sanders" because, according to Brock, Sanders didn't have enough black faces in the commercial.
It seems to prove that while you can take the political hack out of the gutter you cant take the gutter out of the hack, but what makes it so stupid and exposes it as nothing more than a low class political smear trying to use race to attack Sanders and support the Clinton candidacy, isnt just the tone deaf reality of who is making the attack -- Brock --it is that the Sanders commercial shows Sanders in an embrace with a young black girl, and a shot showing black supporters at a Sanders rally.  It also,  incredibly, ignores the fact that Sanders' press secretary is an African American woman. 

It's like it just doesn't matter what the truth is  to the Clinton campaign and they are willing to say anything to win even when its preposterously and obviously  untrue. It's desperation that shows. About the last quality anyone would want in a president. 
If one wants to make a racial issue out of the Sanders commercial based on the number of black Iowa faces in the commercial,  even though Iowa is not known as a must go to destination for African Americans, there are more African Americans in Sanders' TV spot than there are African American actors nominated for an Oscar.
This is clearly an attempt by the Clinton campaign to lay the groundwork for future attacks against Sanders in what the Clinton campaign believes is its " southern firewall"  and their belief that her continued  pandering to African Americans by effusively praising Obama despite his failed and dishonest policies will win her South Carolina which has the largest African American voting bloc in the country and other southern states with large African American populations. 
But the irony of having the man who called Anita Hill a slut attack Sanders dishonestly about race may not be lost on African American voters in the south.
And assuming African Americans like everyone else are going to vote on what is best for them and their own self interest, from the economy , income inequality and especially healthcare with the mammoth  failure of Obamacare that Clinton ignores and still  supports, Sanders has a great chance of winning South Carolina and "Berning" through the Clinton firewall.  

This is going to be especially true in a month or two when everyone who doesn't have health insurance, African Americans and everyone else, are going to find out when they do their taxes that they're going to be socked with a $700 penalty mandated by Obamacare for not buying the junk insurance policies that Obamacare tried to force on them through the insurance companies.
That $700 is going to be deducted from their tax refunds if they have any or assessed against future refunds if they don't. That is $700 that people who couldn't afford health insurance to begin with are going to have to pay right now,  and its going to hurt. 

That is $700 everyone, African American and otherwise, were counting on to use to pay bills or maybe even have a little fun. And yet Clinton has the gall to attack Sanders on his single payer plan because it will raise taxes so people won't have to pay thousands in insurance premiums? What does Clinton think that $700 penalty is? It's a $700 tax but only against those who can least afford it, thanks to the stupidity of  Obamacare which has failed on its face and fallen on it too. Only its actually worse than a tax because the people who will pay it got nothing for it in return.
No matter what nonsense or mud David Brock or anyone else in the Clinton campaign tries to sling Sanders way reality is going to set in. And attacking a man whose integrity is  beyond question after 25 years in congress when there is nothing to back it up is going to backfire.  

Brock tried another tactic recently trying to accuse the Sanders campaign of bussing in young voters to Iowa to vote for him in the caucuses, something that would be clearly illegal and would require each person to commit perjury since voters have to sign a paper declaring they are a citizen of Iowa. Sanders exploded at the accusation and Brock and everyone in the Clinton campaign yelled " incoming" and ducked.
 Its the kind of lie and smear tactic often used by Republicans and smacks of Karl Rove. That the Clinton campaign is willing to use these lies against Sanders is alienating voters and will continue to alienate voters.
When you try that against a candidate with Sanders' integrity, it's called spitting in the wind. And if they keep it up the only thing that is going to help David Brock, or anyone else trying the same is a box of tissues.

Monday, January 25, 2016

How Clinton's support of Obamacare Could Seal the Nomination for Sanders.

In recent weeks Hillary Clinton has gone on the offensive against Bernie Sanders' health care plan which is to eventually have a  single payer system that would provide coverage to all Americans.

Clinton has attacked that plan in support of  the ACA or Affordable Care Act,  known as Obamacare,  and has repeatedly defended it, extolled it, said she wants to keep it and build on it, and has attacked Sanders for wanting to replace it. She even sent Chelsea out to defend it using a torrent of blatant falsehoods about Sanders plan and what it would mean to Americans to lose it, all of which was untrue. What Sanders single payer plan would do is put the ACA in a dumpster where it has always belonged and for reasons which will be made clear.

Whether Clinton actually believes what she is saying or whether her support for Obamacare is part of the obvious backroom deal she made with Obama to publicly support his policies in return for Obama and the Obama controlled DNC going into the tank for her as many including David Gergen  believes is the case, politics aside, Obamacare is and always has been nothing less than the most  egregious, underhanded deceitful dishonest cave in and sell out of a government policy -- the public option --  to corporate interests and a special interest group -- the health insurance industry-- in American history. That is Obamacare and that is what Clinton is defending and supporting.

In June 2009 according to polls 72% of Americans supported and wanted a public option. Astoundingly 66% said they'd be willing to pay higher taxes to get it. (something the Sanders campaign can use the next time the Clinton campaign tries to trash his single payer plan by pointing out it would raise taxes on the middle class).

Obama reneged on his own campaign promises of a public option and that of the Democratic party. These were promises he made in every town hall meeting he had on healthcare reform in June, July and August of 2009  where he defended and promoted the benefits of the public option. Then in late August of 2009 Obama caved in to pressure from the health insurance lobby who wanted Obama to drop the government run public option because it would hurt their business. Obama caved in showing a lot more concern for the health of the insurance business than for the health of the American people. Especially the uninsured.

Since then Obama has told more lies about Obamacare and did more to cover up its failures than Nixon did about Watergate and did so from the very beginning.

In his first interviews after the passing of the ACA without the public option, Obama said he got "95% of everything I wanted". When it was pointed out to him that there is no public option, Obama lied and said " I never campaigned for the public option".

 It was as brazen a lie as anything Nixon ever told. He had campaigned for it in 2007-2008, it was in his campaign literature, there are a variety of  Youtubes of his speeches supporting the public option and it was at the heart of every speech he made in every town hall meeting he ever had on healthcare reform in June, July and August of 2009.

And he and the White House and Democratic party fundraising arms have been lying about it ever since,  from the number of people who actually signed up for insurance to its very purpose. In his latest State of  the Union message Obama tried to claim that the purpose of the ACA or Obamacare was to "close the gap" between employer based coverage and giving people the opportunity to purchase health insurance on their own when they lost their jobs. Really? Since when? That was Obama continuing to lie after the fact about Obamacare to try and make the policy fit the reality of so few people actually signing up. 

The two main purposes of healthcare reform was to get healthcare coverage for the 35-40 million Americans who didn't have it because they couldn't afford it, and to bring down the obscene cost of healthcare for those who did.This was not only based on the idea that healthcare should be a right not a privilege but every economist agreed that it was the uninsured who were partially responsible for the rising cost of healthcare. Obamacare accomplished neither goal. The public option would have accomplished  both. And been a boon to the economy since people switching from private insurance to the public option would have seen money spent on insurance premiums going back into their pockets. 

Obamacare has been a complete failure on both fronts and the people who the Unaffordable Care Act was supposed to help the most know it and most of them are Democratic voters.  Which is why Hillary Clinton's continued vocal support of Obamacare while attacking Sanders and his plan to replace Obamacare with a single payer system could by itself give the nomination to Sanders through primary victories supported by voters still angry over the sell out of Obamacare and what could have been. 

To show how dishonest Obama has been and how he knows Obamacare is vastly inferior to the public option which would have passed the congress, and how important it was to him that people forget that he sold out the public option,  when policies started being canceled in 2014 and Obama began taking heat from Republicans over what they called a broken promise over his claim that " if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance",  Obama was content to stay silent instead of pointing out the truth -- that he never  made that promise about Obamacare. He made that statement about the public option.

Obama made that pledge in defending the public option against Republican attacks that the public option was " a government take over of healthcare". Obama countered by pointing out it was an option not a requirement, that no one would be forced to sign up for the public option and that  " if you like your insurance you can keep your insurance. If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor".

He preferred to remain silent rather than remind people that a) he did campaign for the public option and then lied when he said he didn't, and b) didn't want to remind people of how much better the public option would have been than Obamacare.  And so Obama decided he'd rather take the political heat and hit on his trustworthiness in the polls and at the same time was willing to throw Democratic senators up for reelection and who voted for it now taking heat from Republicans, under the bus. Some senators scrambled to find ways to fix it but all Obama had to do was tell the truth. And take responsibility for his decisions. He wouldn't. 

Democrats were wiped out in the senate in 2014 almost as badly as they were in 2010, as I predicted they would be if they didn't repudiate the failures of Obamacare and promise to fix it by trying to bring back the public option. Obama made it worse by letting Democratic senators take the heat.

Hillary Clinton is either being dishonest, incredibly uninformed, or is in collusion with Obama when she says as she did at the last debate that the votes weren't there for the public option and that "even president Obama couldn't get it through".   Her point was that Sanders could never get his plan through congress because "even president Obama couldnt do it". Completely false. 

Healthcare reform with the public option had already passed the Democratically controlled House by a wide margin. Nancy Pelosi had called the public option "the centerpiece of healthcare reform". It was sent to the senate where the bill would be passed using reconciliation meaning it only needed 51 votes to pass. But Obama had already made his backroom deal with the health insurance companies to drop the public option as chronicled by both the New York Times and the PBS  Frontline documentary " Obama's Deal".

In an effort to give Obama a backbone 55 Democratic senators publicly stated days before the vote that they would vote for a healthcare reform bill that had the public option.  Among them was Sanders. Tom Harkin was another. But Obama had Harry Reid take it out. That is why there is no public option not, as Clinton falsely stated that the votes weren't there to pass it. And when Sanders was asked the day after the vote what he thought of the healthcare bill that was passed without the public option his answer was, " It's better than nothing"

At the time, Democrats had the biggest congressional majority of any party in 60 years and could have passed anything Obama wanted ( including gun control legislation and reauthorizing the ban on assault weapons.  Obama as was his political history, did nothing. It took the mass killings at Sandy Hook, the Colorado theater and Charleston to make him want to do something and by then it was too late as Democrats had lost their majority largely because of Obama's sell out on healthcare).

The reality of Obamacare is that of the 35-40 million uninsured before Obamacare,  less than 3% bought policies through the ACA. Conversely 97% of the uninsured remained uninsured. And for good reason. The lowest end policies designed for those who couldnt previously afford health insurance and which Obama allowed to be put together by the insurance companies,  are literally junk --  the equivalent of healthcare insurance junk bonds, charging high premiums, high deductibles and high co pays with little in return, policies that aren't accepted by most doctors and clinics. There have been reports in both the NY Times and AP of people who did buy these policies having to drive more than 100 miles one way to find a doctor or clinic that would take the insurance. New Hampshire where Sanders is beating Clinton in the polls 61-30 is one of those places. 

And if you make $40,000 a year or more you don't qualify for subsidies. Only the most desperate bought these  junk policies and its significant to note that while less than 3%  of the uninsured purchased polices in 2013,only 1% did in 2014, a drop of 2/3. Once people saw what they weren't getting for their money, they said no thanks. As for the drop in uninsured since 2008 which is miniscule, much of it can be attributed to people going back to work and getting coverage there, not through Obamacare.

The Inspector General issued a report a few months ago that the state exchanges are "awash in red ink" because the purchase of polices have been so anemic and that 22 of the 23 state exchanges are about to close. 

Which Is more proof of how false Obama's and Clinton's claim of Obamacare success really is and that 18 million previously uninsured bought policies. The real number is nowhere near that, probably under 2 million. 

A year ago in his 2015 State of the Union Obama  claimed 16 million who previously didnt have healthcare coverage bought polices. That too was false and Obama knows it.

In 2013 Obama claimed 7 million signed up. That number was a fabrication. Of the 7 million that enrolled,according to the insurance companies 20% never sent in their first months premium invalidating their policy bringing the number down to  5.6 million. About 10% turned out to be multiple enrollments because people had trouble with web site glitches and thinking they didnt go through, filed 2 and sometimes 3 applications. That brought the number down to  about 5 million. And the IRS said that at about 5% lied on their application about their income to qualify for subsidies they weren't entitled to and didn't match the income declared on their IRS return reducing the real number to about 4.7 million. Only about 1 million of those were the previously uninsured, the rest were people who previously had insurance looking for a better deal. 

But even using the White House's inflated number of 7 million in 2013,  Obama claimed 16 million in 2014 by adding the 9 million the HHS secretary hoped they would get in 2014 to the 7 million claimed the previous year. Except policies are renewed every year. So the hoped for 9 million policies weren't an addition to the 7 million the previous year, it would have included the 7 million assuming they all renewed their policies which they didn't, and then added another hoped for two million to get to 9 million. Obama adds the two years together and claims 16 million which is counting most of the same people twice but gives him a built in excuse if anyone in the news media were ever smart enough to notice or had the integrity to call him on it. And they weren't. And they didn't. 

The only successful aspect of Obamacare has been expanded Medicaid but that was left up to states to implement. In state's like Louisiana where Jindal rejected it 270,000 who would have been eligible didnt get it. And under a public option it wouldn't have been necessary. 

Obamacare has not only done nothing for the people it was supposed to help the most, it's actually going to hurt them badly this year just in time for the November election and this years spring primaries. Clinton's so called southern firewall has a great chance of crumbling over Obamacare. And deservedly so.

Those who didn't purchase the junk policies forced by Obamacare are going to be hit with a $700 penalty on their tax returns by the IRS. Its safe to say most of those 30 million or so still uninsured are Democratic voters. That $700 is going to hurt and it's going to be deducted from their tax refund so if they had any thoughts of just never sending it in or " screw them let them come after me for the money"  they are in for a surprise. Their refund is going to be $700 less. And this is what Clinton has been supporting and will be. 

I wrote two articles one in February of 2010 and again in August of 2010 when it became clear that Obama was going to sell out the public option that if congressional Democrats didn't take healthcare reform away from Obama and pass the public option anyway, they would get wiped out of the congress in the 2010 elections. It was a pretty bold prediction given that Democrats had won the biggest congressional majority in 60 years two years before. But a prediction I made with certainty.

Democrats, badly led by Pelosi and Reid, didn't take the agenda away from Obama, didnt pass the public option and were wiped out of congress in the 2010 elections suffering the biggest defeat of any political party in 80 years giving Republicans a majority they still hold. The huge defeat was not at the  hands of the people who voted against Democrats in 2008 but by those who voted for them and felt betrayed by losing the public option and stayed home. Something most Democrats and their strategists still bury their heads in the sand over. Except for Sanders.

I predicted the same level of defeat would happen in 2014 in the senate if Democrats didn't repudiate Obamacare after two years of failure and promise to bring back the public option. They didn't,instead listening to both Pelosi and Donna Brazile who said that they should run towards and not away from Obamacare.  Pelosi, sounding more  like Marie Antoinette than a Democrat kept repeating that the Affordable Care Act meant, " Affordable, affordable affordable". Democrats were wiped out of the senate in 2014.

Obamacare is a dishonest failure. An Obama sell out to the insurance companies. The state exchanges are going to close. About 97% of the uninsured remain uninsured. Those hoping to get a better deal on the exchanges are finding that mostly nothing has changed. And the cost of healthcare and insurance keeps going up. 

Clinton's firm support of Obamacare and trying to attack Sanders for wanting to dismantle it and replace it with a single payer system, the first step of which could be to bring back the public option,  could do to her candidacy what it did to the Democratic congress in 2010 and 2014 and its too late for her to turn back. She has already steadfastly embraced it and defended it and attacked Sanders for wanting to replace it.

Ironically with the Iowa caucuses coming up, it was in Iowa in 2010 that Obama told one of his bigger lies about Obamacare, a lie that makes Clinton's attacks on Sanders even more fruitless and dishonest. After the ACA passed in 2010 Obama went to Iowa to claim victory and that he had fullfilled the "promise" he said he made in Iowa 2 years earlier at the caucuses that if he were elected president he would pass "health insurance reform" in his first term. It was one more Obama lie. What Obama actually promised in Iowa during the caucuses in 2008 was that if he was elected president he would pass universal health care in his first term. Exactly what Clinton is attacking Sanders for now.  There was no Obama promise of "health insurance reform" . Naturally the news media didn't catch that either. Or did but we're too afraid to point it out.

Clinton's  belief that the African American vote will go her way in the southern states ignores the fact that the failure of Obamacare on every level affects African Americans the same way it affects everyone else.  And when voters,  African American or otherwise who have no insurance - 30 million of them - start getting hit with the $700 penalty on their 2016 returns for not buying the junk policies even the White House admitted to the New York Times was substandard, Bernie Sanders and his desire to replace Obamacare is going to be just what the doctor ordered. And just what Clinton and Obama didn't .