Monday, February 29, 2016

Why Smart Phones Make Clinton-Sanders Polls Worthless.

CNN unveiled a new national poll recently that showed Clinton beating Sanders 55-38. It might have raised some eyebrows as well as red flags since, outside of the south which is only a small section of the country, the poll does not reflect reality in terms of what has been happening in terms of actual votes in the primaries.

In states outside the south that Clinton has won, the results were practically a tie with Clinton winning by chin whiskers in Iowa and Massachusetts,a virtual tie in Missouri and Illinois and only by 5 in the Nevada caucus. Contrary to Clintons virtual ties in those states outside the South, in states where Sanders wins, he wins by landslide numbers. Which one would think are facts that might make CNN and other pollsters consider that their polls are absurd. Because they are.

And its not as if there aren't facts staring them right in the face that explain why.

Maybe this will help. 

Every poll  including all the exit polls from all the voting venues  with the exception of the South shows that Sanders destroys Clinton 84-9 with voters under 45. Sanders swamps Clinton among women 35 and under by 81-14.  Its fair to say that among younger voters under 45 Clinton is a virtual non-entity. Where  Clinton beats Sanders is with older voters, 65 and up. Including older women.

And that is what makes any poll comparing Sanders and Clinton worthless.Both national and local.

Because all polling is conducted by phone.But not all phones. Only landline phones.  Phone numbers that are randomly chosen by a computer based on some formula that is supposed to be scientific and within a certain margin of error and then auto dialed by computer.

Except federal law prohibits the use of auto dialers making unsolicited calls to cell phones. Which is the only way pollsters do polls. So all calls made by pollsters are to landlines only.  And in case CNN and other pollsters havent noticed most younger people which is the bulk of Sanders supporters, don't use land lines anymore. They only use smart phones. Most college students dont have landlines. Its older voters who are more likely to have land lines.And people 65 and older profile as Clinton voters. That is where her strength lies.

So most Sanders voters who use only smart phones never get called in polling and so are never included.National polls and even local polls are always going to be skewed toward Clinton. 

Given all that the 55-38 poll actually looks pretty good for Sanders.  Because it means that 38% of people who profile as Clinton voters nationally support Sanders. Compared to less than 10% of voters who profile as Sanders voters who support Clinton. So you can automatically add on for Sanders in any national poll. Where he is probably leading by more than the polls show. Where he is behind, the gap is narrower. 

Another reason CNN and other national polling on Clinton vs Sanders has been inaccurate is that many polls are based on those who call themselves Democrats or are registered as Democrats. Many of Sanders younger supporters do not identify with being Democrats, but only identify with Sanders, not the Democratic party. And it is Sanders bringing them out not the Democratic party establishment which skews towards Clinton.  So based on CNNs and other parameters of asking respondents if they are Democrats or registered Democrats first and dismissing them if they say no, that also eliminates a lot of Sanders supporters from being included in polls. It's significant that in the exit polls in Michigan 73% who said they identified as Independent voted for Sanders. 

With the age, habit and lifestyle of the supporters of Clinton and Sanders so different as well as so relevant when it comes to national and even local polling, and with pollsters unable to call cell or smart phones which eliminates most Sanders voters from the polls the next question to be asked is:  does the news media know this and are simply completely dishonest and dont care knowing their polls regarding Sanders and Clinton are worthless, are they biased towards Clinton and the establishment they always kowtow to, or are they really too stupid to have figured it out?

Probably all of the above.  Another reason the mainstream media is proven to be incompetent, dishonest and have values and standards so low as to make them almost worthless. And you dont need a poll to know that's not only true but what most people think. 

NOTE: This article was updated to include results up to and including the March 15 primaries.

Sunday, February 28, 2016

Was There Something Rotten in South Carolina? Or Just Nuts?

The results of the South Carolina primary are in and for anyone who knows even a little about politics, for anyone who has even a little common sense and has even a little working knowledge of human behavior the results are, to say the least, a bit fishy. 
Bill Clinton in 2008 called South Carolina an aberrational state and pointed to Jesse Jackson having won the presidential primary as a third party candidate a few years ago.
Maybe so. But even that doesn't even begin to explain the final numbers and preposterous exit polls from South Carolina. Because none of it adds up as legitimate.
Not that anyone in the news media will look into it or bring it up. The last thing CNN or anyone wants to do is to have to investigate anything and then find something that might upset somebody. But the primary results and exit polls should have at least raised a lot of eyebrows and a lot of questions. 
Any one poll can be radically wrong.  It happens. But according to the Poll of Polls, the average of every poll taken in South Carolina, Clinton had an 18 point lead over Sanders and was expected to win by 18. Plus or minus 3. She won by 50.
Most polls have the well known margin for error and even with an unreliable poll that margin of error at worst is 5 points. Not 32. Right before the vote polls showed Clinto9n had 65% of the African American vote to Sanders 28%. The final results were 86% Clinton 14% Sanders. So something was up. Maybe just a concerted effort to get African Americans to the polls to vote for Clinton as per the White House marching orders. Maybe something else.
Looking at the election results the first analogy that came to mind was a horse race that was fixed where the jockey is told not to win by too much so as not to arouse suspicion and the jockey screws up, things go wrong and wins by 50 lengths. In that case there would be what's called a Stewards Inquiry because, if for  no other reason it looked bad. And phony. Too phony. 
But there will be no inquiry into the Democratic South Carolina  primary by the news media because they just don't have the stomach for it. And it won't have any affect on the outcome of who wins the nomination even if it does affect the apportionment of those delegates. It won't he determinative. 
But it just wasn't the margin of victory.  It was the exit polls. Which had results that were so out of whack with reality you would think someone would have pointed it out but no one did.
According to those exit polls 61% of voters were African American. African Americans make up 28% of South Carolina's population which is more than double the national percentage which is about 12% but maybe the extraordinary turnout can be explained by African Americans being a lot more motivated. Or being urged to go to vote for Clinton by surrogates . But there can be no reasonable explanation for the rest of the exit polls.
According to those polls 80% of African Americans who voted said income inequality was no problem.  Really? And no one questions that? We know it is a problem that affects the overwhelming majority of Americans all over the country and we know it affects African Americans at a higher percentage than other groups, but  according to the exit polls in South Carolina its no problem for African Americans. At least in idyllic South Carolina. 
The exit poll also showed that 77% said health care was no problem. Even though again, African Americans have a higher percentage of uninsured than other groups across the country and especially in South Carolina.  According to the latest available statistics there are over 700,000 currently uninsured in South Carolina, the majority African Americans. Clinton's entire vote total was 295,000.  Yet with over 700,000 uninsured  77% of those who voted said health care was no problem according to the exit polls. So not too many of those 700,000 must've voted. Maybe they were too sick to go to the polls. 
 South Carolina had one of the highest rates of uninsured in the country - 20.4% as of 2012. According to the latest available statistics that rate has dropped to 18.1%. A paltry, measly 2.3% drop after 3 years of Obamacare.  The whole point of healthcare reform  in the first place was to get coverage for the 35 million Americans who didn't have it, almost 800,000 of them in South Carolina. And reducing the obscene cost of healthcare for people who do. If dropping the uninsured rate by only 2% after 3 years and seeing insurance rates continue to climb isn't a failure then there is no such thing as failure. And it's what Hillary Clinton supports. Because it's what Obama gave us. 
So what does it mean that 70% of South Carolina voters want to continue Obama's policies as Clinton has vowed to do?   That they love that Obama sold out the public option to the health insurance lobby which is why they are still uninsured and want more of these great sell outs from Clinton?  They could very well get it.  More Wall Street executives who make $600,000 a week and who pled guilty to criminal fraud allowed to pay a fine and not go to jail? Based on Clintons $21 million take in speaking fees we could see that too.  Because Obama was right, that Isis really is the junior varsity and  terrorism is nothing to worry about?  This is what African Americans in South Carolina want more of? 
Will they want more of it in Alabama and Georgia and Louisiana too? We'll see. 

It seems that based on the exit polls either African Americans in South Carolina live in a Utopia and  experience things that no one else black or white or Hispanic experience or people were voting based on something other than reality. Their own and everyone else's. 
It's  almost as if everyone were told, if asked be against every issue Sanders is campaigning on and say so regardless of reality. 
If the South Carolina results are actually legitimate , if African Americans there really feel that there is no problem with income inequality and no problem with health care coverage it means one candidate could be in big trouble and its not Sanders. Because if thats what it takes to vote for Clinton when the primaries get into the rest of the country Clinton  may have a very hard time. Because Clinton cannot replicate what happened in South Carolina anywhere else though she is counting on doing it in the south where Obama has the most influence. 
And if the results aren't legitimate, if they don't reflect what even the voters in South Carolina really think then Clinton and her allies are not going to be able to replicate what happened in South Carolina in states like Ohio, Texas, Minnesota and Massachusetts either because Obama doesnt have the influence there.  It also means that in three of the biggest most delegate rich states in the country - New York, California and Florida,  Sanders 
could win which would negate any Clinton victories from her southern strategy. 

 The Sanders campaign so far as not done a good job pointing out to the uninsured that this year the IRS, based on the Obamacare law is going to dock them $700 as a penalty for not buying the low end health insurance polices that the White House itself called "substandard". 

That $700 is going to be assessed this year against those who can least afford it, and docked from their tax refund if they have any. Had Sanders pointed that out its an open question of how many of those 700,000 uninsured in South Carolina  who are going to get hit by that $700 penalty might have gone to the polls and voted for Sanders instead of continuing the Obama Love Fest. 

One thing we do know.  What happened in South Carolina will have no affect anywhere else in the country so Super Tuesday will answer a few questions.  And if Sanders reminds the uninsured of the $700 tax penalty they are going to pay and promise to do something about it,  along with his other issues, it might rouse even more voters to go to the polls because when turnout is high Sanders  wins. 

But if Clinton thinks  that what happened in South Carolina is somehow reflective of a national trend as she seemed to imply , Super Tuesday may bring her back to a reality that didn't exist in South Carolina. Because by then what happened in South Carolina will be just a memory. 

Saturday, February 27, 2016

Jesse Jackson Endorses Bernie Sanders Without Endorsing Bernie Sanders

Twenty years before anyone had heard the name Barrack Obama, Bernie Sanders endorsed Jesse Jackson for president and was his campaign manager in Vermont.

While not completely returning the favor, in a recent interview with CNN, when asked who he would endorse between Clinton and Sanders, Jesse Jackson said he would withhold an endorsement then went on to say we needed to focus on an economy where 1% of the wealthiest people in the country own more wealth than the bottom 90%,  how too many people still have no access to healthcare,(not exactly a  ringing endorsement of Obamacare) and how many people are still living in poverty in this country.  Sound familiar? Every point Jackson made echoed Bernie Sanders campaign issues.

Not an overt endorsement of Sanders but as close to one as you can get without making it official. And obviously when given the opportunity to jump on the Hillary Clinton Magical Obama Mystery Tour Bandwgon he declined. Or to endorse any of her positions.

When many black politicians have been endorsing Clinton, clearly following marching orders from Obama who made it clear he is endorsing her (as part of his backroom deal with Clinton) Jackson's refusal to go along with Clinton and his endorsement of Sander's policies is enough to say what he thinks.

While Sanders is sure to lose to Clinton in South Carolina, but no doubt by less than his margin of victory over Clinton in New Hampshire, the news media  has been putting an exaggerated emphasis on South Carolina. Gloria Borgia as part of the  Magic 8 Ball political segments on CNN (which is what their opinions are worth) said South Carolina was pivotal for Sanders. Its actually not at all but pivotal for Clinton whose candidacy would be over if she lost South Carolina.

None of these Clinton endorsements by African American politicians in South Carolina is going to mean a thing in Minnesota, Ohio, Massachusetts, Texas or any of the upcoming delegate rich states that will follow. And Sanders has gotten enough endorsements and support from prominent non politician African Americans from Cornell West to Spike Lee, that he will be competitive with the African American vote in those states not dominated by African American politicians.

For Sanders the key is getting his voters out. With Sanders demolishing Clinton with  voters 45 and under nationally, and with women 35 and under, (in New Hampshire it was 84-9)  and in every other ethnic group including hispanics, and who is likely to do at least as well if not better than Clinton with African Americans in states where endorsements by black politicians will not have the same influence, Sanders could emerge from Super Tuesday with a solid delegate lead over Clinton with the promise of expanding it as the primaries move both north and west.

And those pledged delegates won at the polls are still the only delegates that matter, something the Sanders campaign needs to make clear to news organizations that insist on including non-existent and for now invalid super delegate votes that are not in any way in Clinton's column and in all probability never will be.

Right now, Jesse Jacksons non endorsement endorsement means a lot more.

Friday, February 26, 2016

When Hillary Clinton Called Obama a Liar For Calling Himself a Law Professor.

A lot of people have called Hillary Clinton two faced, dishonest, untrustworthy and thinks that like Obama she will say anything to anyone at anytime to get the political backing she needs  to get what she wants or to avoid telling any truth that will hurt her politically.

Her entire campaign so far as been a Magical Obama Tour praising Obama and his largely failed policies in return for Obama and the Obama controlled DNC trying to do everything they can to rig the nomination for her. Like padding her delegatetotals with   superdelegate  "declarations" that have no official standing or value except as a show piece.

And she has been showing it in South Carolina pandering for African American votes in a state where the African American population is double the national average and a state that, with all the political establishment supporting her, would end her candidacy if she lost. And would put it on life support if she won only by single digits.

It has been Clinton's mission to show fealty to the first black president in return for Obama's influence in rounding up the African American vote in the south. 

A few weeks ago at the end of January  Hillary Clinton made a bit of news when she  said in answer to a question at a rally that she'd consider nominating Obama to the Supreme Court saying that she thought it was a great idea and that he'd be great because "he was a law professor. He has all the credentials".

Except that's not what she said back in 2008 when Hillary Clinton was running against Obama in the Democratic primaries. Back then, Clinton essentially called Obama a liar for claiming to be a constitutional law professor and any claim at being a law professor was false.

This is what the Clinton campaign said on March 27, 2008:

"Senator Obama has often referred to himself as a Constitutional Law professor out on the campaign trail. He never held any such title. And I think anyone, if you ask anyone in academia the distinction between  a professor who has tenure and an instructor who does not you'll find that there is --you'll get quite an emotional response."

Then in August of 2008 Hillary Clinton released a campaign statement that referred to a column written by Lynn Sweet of the  Chicago Sun-Times who also wrote that Obama's claim of being a constitutional law professor was false. This is the quote from Sweet's piece the Clinton campaign released.

"Several direct mail pieces issued by Obama's primary campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer on leave at the school. There is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter".

Clinton's talk of nominating Obama to the Supreme Court and justifying it with how "great" he'd be by saying " he is a law professor.He has all the credentials"  when she called him a liar for making that same claim and questioned his credentials might lead some African Americans, as well as everyone else, to question Clinton's honesty.

If nothing else it proves that Clinton is willing to be dishonesty, the kind of two faced politician that people have accused her of being in the past.

 In contrast to Sanders whose credibility she is always trying to question without success, Clinton is showing why she has a hard time being believed.  Which just re-enforces what the majority of people have said they think in the first place,  that she can't be trusted. Clinton herself said she knows she "has work to do" on the trust issue. This doesnt do her any good.

It's also an insult to the intelligence of African Americans since given her attacks on Obama and his law credentials in 2008, it sounds like a bribe for votes. 

Parenthetically it also makes the release of  all of the transcripts of her speeches even more essential --as the New York Times  editorial  demanded and as Carl Bernstein said she must,  to see what she really said in those speeches to Wall Street and the health insurance industry, not what she claims publicly. She is the one who has to prove there is nothing damaging there.  No one is going to take her word for it. 

Clinton is also having problems now with the Black Lives Matter group, two of whom paid $500 to get into a private Clinton fundraiser the other night to confront her with a speech she made in 1996 referring to African American male criminals as " super predators who need to be made to heel".

Like it or not, criminals or not, violent or not and no one is defending violent criminals, "being made to heel" is a term used in  relation to training dogs. And has never been used with regards to violent white killers. Even serial killers. 

This, from Hillary Clinton who has tried to turn African Americans against Sanders by her and her robotic surrogatges accusing Sanders of not being "loyal" to Obama (as if anyone ought to be considering Obamas repeated sell outs to big business and Republicans) and surrogates who  made fools of themselves trying to claim that Sanders was "late" to the civil rights cause.

At the fundraiser Clinton can be heard telling the black activists, "if you would stop talking you'd see I'd be coming over to your side". No doubt she would. 

Which is why  it's essential that Clinton release the transcripts of her speeches so that people can see for themselves exactly what she told those Wall Street bankers behind closed doors for the $21 million she was paid for those speeches and who else Clinton might think needs to be made to heel.

For  Hillary Clinton, when she wants African American votes, Obama is a law professor who has all the credentials to be a Supreme Court justice. When she was running against him in 2008  Obama was a liar for claiming to be a constitutional law professor or any other kind of law professor. 

No wonder she refuses to release the  transcripts of all those speeches unless "Republicans also  agree to do it" as if the Republican process for nominating their candidate is any of her business or is any concern to Democrats choosing a nominee. It shows how disengenuous she can be.

It's enough to make someone want to open a window. Sanders is trying to and the Democrats need it even if Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz keep trying to close it.

If this is the kind of judgment, honesty and integrity Clinton would bring to the presidency and Supreme Court nominations which is clear the next president will select, the best response to Clinton talking about Obama and his credentials depending on what suits her at the moment and more political  hypocrisy  and stonewalling would be, give 'em hell Bernie. And hope he does. 

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Hillary Clinton and the DNC's Super Delegate Fraud.

The AP headline read:  Super delegates Help Clinton Expand Her Lead Despite NH Loss.

It was and is a complete fabrication. Another way of putting it would be fraud. Initiated by Clinton and the DNC and unfortunately aided and abetted by two ignorant AP reporters (and others like CNN) who didn't know ( or maybe didn't care) that they were being snookered and simply swallowed what was thrown at them. It would help if people who actually think they are reporters would check DNC rules regarding the use of super delegates. Especially since there has only been one time in the history of the Democratic party that super delegates ever cast a vote and that was 32 years ago in 1984. And even then it was to affirm the candidate who won the most pledged delegates in the primaries.

Because as of this moment,all those super delegates claimed by Clinton don't actually exist in terms of real votes. The only delegates that count right now and in all probability ever will count are pledged delegates won during the primaries, not super delegates. 

CNN has also been doing it's share of inept and dishonest reporting by perpetuating the fiction around Clinton's bogus superdelegate count .

Super delegates do not count towards anyone's delegate total because they don't actually exist and will never be cast unless an extraordinary set of circumstances arises at the convention  circumstances that so far has only happened once before in the history of the Democratic Party. So in all likelihood super delegate votes will never be cast, something CNN is too inept to know and too lazy to find out about.Or too dishonest.

Super delegate declarations are also non-committal so any declarations made now count for nothing and carry no force of action even if super delegates were ever asked to cast a vote. And it's not even purely their choice to vote. They are there to break a deadllock. Which is why superdelegates haven't cast a vote in 32 years. Clinton and the DNC know this. 

But it's clear that the Democratic party establishment is willing to create the fiction and false impression that Clinton has a big delegate lead. She doesn't.  Ignorant, incompetent journalists who have more in common with parrots than Woodward and Bernstein just happily repeat the fraud they are fed.

Hillary Clinton has no actual super delegate votes.  Because based on Democratic Party rules and procedures super delegate votes don't count until the are cast at the convention, not before, and won't ever be cast unless they are asked to break a hopelessly deadlocked convention. They do not automatically vote as John King erroneously claimed on CNN and have never voted since 1984. In 2008 with much talk about superdelegates switching from Clinton to Obama then back to Clinton and with neither candidate even close to the 60% majority needed, even then superdelegates didn't vote. So the real story which CNN and other news organizations miss, is why is Clinton and the DNC claiming super delegate votes now as part of her delegate total when it's a sham, super delegates have no vote now and the declarations are non-committal?

It's as much of a fraud as looking at a house you might buy, keep it under consideration, decide to keep looking but include the house in your financial statement as an asset even though you don't own it. Or writing a check post dated four months from now, unsigned and on a bank account that's not even open and claiming it as an asset.

It's not only fraud, it reeks of campaign dirty tricks in collusion with the Obama run DNC as part of Clinton's backroom deal with Obama, trying to give the illusion of Clinton leading by a substantial margin when she isn't.  And it raises an interesting question: is Hillary Clinton and the DNC thinking about trying to steal the nomination?

This nonsense about super delegates is sheer political dishonesty with the Clinton campaign along with the help of the DNC who, as even David Gergen pointed out is in the tank for Clinton, trying to make it look like she's way ahead when she isn't.

The story as reported by two AP reporters, Hope Yen and Stephen Ohlemacher  (yes, let's name names) had the opening line, "so much for Bernie Sanders big win in New Hampshire. Hillary Clinton has picked up endorsements from 87 super delegates to the Democratic Conventions dwarfing Sanders gain in New Hampshire" . 

Its total fiction since Sanders pledged delegates are real  and the "endorsements" count for nothing in terms of actual votes so Clinton and the DNC establishment successfully played the two AP reporters for stooges. As well as John King and others at CNN.

Clinton saying she picked up 87 super delegates after New Hampshire has the same affect and same weight and real influence on the nomination as if she had picked up 87 empty beer cans. Well,no, that's not true because the beer cans would be worth more if they had a 5c deposit.

So here are the facts and the truth about super delegates based on Democratic Party rules and procedures that you won't get from Clinton or the DNC, and it seems from the news media, at least not now:

Super delegates have only cast a vote once in the history of the Democratic party, 32 years ago in 1984 when Walter Mondale beat Gary Hart by less than 500 delegates won in the primaries but didnt have the magic number needed for the nomination. But even then they didnt play a role in the nominating process for president. They cast their votes for Mondale who had 1,606 pledged delegates won in the primaries to Hart's 1164 which only affirmed the results of the primaries and allowed Mondale to get to the  approximately 60% threshold as required by DNC rules. They have never cast a real vote since. And as of now have no certain role. Pledged delegates do . So any declarations now are bogus.

Super delegates would not cast a vote unless an extraordinary set of circumstances arises at the convention, not before, a set of circumstances which only occurred in 1984,the only time  super delegates voted since they were created. Which is what makes any non-binding declarations now bogus.Like a post dated check on a bank account that hasn't yet  been opened.

Those circumstances are as they occured in 1984,  that neither candidate finishes the primary season with the 60% majority of pledged delegates needed for the nomination that are won in the primaries - if they did the nominating process is over without superdelegates casting a single vote or  the delegate count is so close as to make them virtually tied, AND the convention is hopelessly deadlocked with neither candidate or party officials able to persuade delegates on the other side to switch after the first ballot to get to the 60%.. 

 Then superdelegates could be used to get them over the top and to avoid what Democrats were afraid of when they created super delegates - a contentious convention and floor fight. Without being needed to vote superdelegates wouldn't vote and wouldn't dare vote in a way that would reverse the votes of pledged delegates won. If they ever tried it might bring down the Democratic Party.

When Obama finished the 2008 primary season with a paltry 65 delegate lead over Clinton and it looked like the nomination could go either way if superdelegates voted , Nancy Pelosi said super delegates were obligated to vote for the candidate who won the most delegates if they were to vote at all.

So where does Clinton get off claiming over 440 super delegates when whether they will vote at all is yet to be determined, their "endorsements" are non-committal,and mean nothing now as real votes, and  super delegates may never vote at all?

Delegates won in primaries, called "pledged delegates", are actually committed to vote for the candidate they are sent to the convention to vote for as a result of vote counts in the primaries. Without getting too esoteric, it's actually delegates that are elected during primaries, either Clinton or Sanders delegates who are then sent by voters to the convention to vote for the candidate they were elected to vote for on the first ballot. They are the only delegates that actually count now. And are real. And the delegates that traditionally, and to date have decided the nomination.

So until and unless those extraordinary set of circumstances occur which only ocurred once, in 1984, super delegates will not vote, don't count now  and for all intents and purposes dont even exist. When the first roll call vote is called there will be no super delegates voting. All of which shows the depths of dishonesty and deception Clinton is willing to go. And with her the Obama run DNC who look like they are trying to do what they can to rig the process and create false impressions.

If Bernie Sanders finished with 2000  pledged delegates won during the primaries and needed another three hundred to get the 60% majority with Clinton say, 300 delegates behind,there would be some horse trading to get the remaining 300 delegates needed from Clinton perhaps making a deal on picking a vice presidential running mate.But its inconceivable super delegates even those declaring for her now (which again, don't count) would cast votes for Clinton to give her the nomination at a contentious convention. It would bring the Democratic party to its knees if they tried to crown a queen instead of nominate a president. And Sanders voters would never vote for Clinton no matter what histrionics or begging DNC officials tried over Supreme Court nominations etc.

Super delegates are there only as a last resort and most importantly as mentioned earlier, super delegates have  only once in the history of the Democratic party ever cast  a single meaningful vote and that was 32 years ago.Yet Clinton and the DNC in collusion with a dishonest news media were and are counting them as if they are part of Clinton's pledged delegate totals.That is pure fraud.

So why is Hillary Clinton putting out the fiction that she is ahead on delegates even though she isn't because of super delegates? Because she is being  underhanded and so is the DNC run by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, Obama's  hand picked chair of the DNC who are trying to build a phony aura of expectation and inevitability and the illusion that she will be the nominee and then if she doesn't have the actual votes from the primary battles try and steal the nomination by using super delegates with Obama and Wasserman-Schultz driving the getaway car.

The New York Times acting like the long arm of the law put their arm on Clinton in a recent editorial making it clear that super delegates can have no role in the outcome of the nomination which needs to be decided by whoever wins the most delegates in the primaries.

But there is another reason the Clinton campaign is putting out these super delegate numbers as if they count now when they don't. Its the kind of outrageous political tactics we've seen from Republicans -- a tactic to suppress the Sanders vote.

There is little doubt that the Clinton campaign with the help of the DNC, by putting out these fictitious super delegate numbers are trying to create some false idea that Clinton has such a huge lead her nomination is inevitable. The hope is this will dampen the spirit and enthusiasm of Sanders voters (enthusiasm Clinton cant match) and hopefully hold down their turnout in the hopes of making them think Clinton's nomination is inevitable because of super delegates and there is nothing they can do to affect  the outcome. Which of course is not true . Its more of a Republican style dirty trick, the kind they have tried in the past in the hopes of holding down the African American vote in certain communities. The principle is the same.

The Clinton campaign and the DNC needs to be called out for this kind of dishonest manipulation when she is actually tied with Sanders 51-51 in pledged delegates, the only delegates that matter. 

This idea that super delegates have declared  anything for her carries no authority, no weight, no certainty.  Nothing a super delegate says now is binding. They could change their minds a hundred times between now and the convention, and no one would know so how can they be counted now?

And if Clinton is putting out these phony super delegate numbers to try and grease the skids for an attempt at stealing the nomination at the convention, it might be a good idea for Sanders voters to remind her and everyone else of one other thing: In 2008 when it looked like Obama might lose the nomination to Clinton because of a super delegate vote, Donna Brazille, an Obama supporter and former chair of the DNC said publicly that if super delegates decided the nomination she would quit the Democratic party. That was enough to stem any thought of superdelegates casting votes and deciding the nomination.(Some claim superdelegates voted in 2008- they did not. When Obama reached the requisite 60% of pledged delegates during the roll call vote a motion was made to nominate by acclimation which carried. Therefore all votes were recorded as being for Obama including those who never had the chance to cast actual votes . Those included superdelegates whose votes were recorded but never cast).

If Donna Brazile can quit the Democratic party in 2008 if super delegates were to  decide the nomination so can Sanders voters in 2016. And they will. Which means if Clinton and the DNC tries to steal the nomination from Sanders by using super delegates they can count on Sanders voters staying home and Democrats getting wiped out in November.

Clinton putting out the word that she has 469 delegates which include over 400 super delegates that she can't ethically or even by DNC rules count is almost a veiled threat as if to say, "okay I got buried by the voters in New Hampshire and it was razor thin in Iowa and Nevada but so what? I have a trick up my sleeve."(Ed note: it has since been proved the Clinton campaign was caught cheating in Nevada and Bernie Sanders has been declared the official winner)

If Clinton, Obama and the DNC think they are greasing the skids now so Clinton can pull a fast one at the convention later, they better not try. If they do anything to try and rig the nomination, Sanders voters can just vow never to support it, just like the threat made by Donna Brazile which will bring the Democratic party down like a house of cards and do Clinton and the Democrats no good in the general election.

Let Sanders and his supporters put Clinton and the DNC on notice that if they do anything to rig the nomination then the Democrats will have to face the music and take another drubbing  like they did in 2010 and 2014 essentially over Obama's unscrupulous sell out of the health care public option to the insurance companies.

Make it clear that if Clinton can't win honestly she is not going to win at all.

And if Sanders voters stay home in the face of a corrupt process it will wipe out Democratic down ticket candidates also, and if that's what it takes to throw open the windows, let in the fresh air and purge the Democratic party of those corrupting the system, so be it. No amount of whining or scare tactics by Democratic big wigs about what will happen if Clinton loses and begging Sanders supporters to go along with the corruption will ever work.

Its called making your own bed and lying in it. With the double meaning of the word "lying" very clear.

ADDENDUM:  This article has been updated to include the 1984 Democratic convention which is the only time super delegates have ever voted. And does not change the fact that super delegate votes do not count unless cast at the convention and non-binding declarations that Clinton includes in her totals are completely bogus.

NOTE: CNN and MSNBC are still showing super delegate totals for Clinton though the New York Times announced on March 6 they are no longer including them.

ADDED NOTE TO READERS: Apologies to the last 37 commenters (good and bad) whose comments were only now (March 29)  just published. Unbeknownst to me Google placed them all in a "Need to be moderated category" that I never checked or saw. I do not use moderation on this site and so never checked the file and dont know why they were placed there (and others werent). I published them en masse without reading them.  The only comments that ever get deleted here are spam.  I will reply to as many as I can over the next few days.


The above was written as the date shows, Feb 23 2016. In recently re-reading the piece i felt compelled to say to the DNC, the news media and everyone connected with the Clinton campaign, I told you so. All I had written back in February, all I predicted if Clinton and the DNC insisted on continuing the dishonesty, has come to pass.

This is being written 3 days before the Inauguration of Donald Trump, something even I could have never envisioned last February.But before a single hacked DNC email was published by Wikileaks, or any of the Podestas emails, it was clear to me the fix was in for Hillary Clinton. And it would never work.And in a subsequent piece as recently as this past June, I predicted Clinton would lose if Democrats insisted on rigging the nomination for Clinton over Bernie Sanders. And they did. With super delegates.

The emails eventually did offer documentary proof of what I could see with my own eyes and knowledge of the system given my support of Hillary Clinton in 2008 as Executive Director of a PAC supporting Clinton though this time around supporting Bernie Sanders.

Unfortunately for Democrats they seem to have not learned the lesson afforded them by the election which aside from suffering the losses I predicted both in terms of the presidency and the lackluster showing of down ticket Democrats should have been a wake up call to reform the party and end the corruption and corrupt leadership that was evident even back in February and confirmed in the emails.

Instead the Democratic party establishment decided otherwise, re-electing Pelosi, inventing empty and dishonest excuses for why they lost including the preposterous and dishonest excuse of blaming Russia for hacking emails which only revealed the truth about the dishonesty of the DNC and Clinton campaigns and their collusion with a dishonest media ,fraud, rigging and more that the Clinton campaign and the Democrats would have rather kept hidden. Even though there is no evidence that the emails effected the election it showed a pattern of dishonesty that seemed to have been a way of political life.

So the dishonesty that cost them the election continues, blaming the Russians, Comey, the Electoral College, Sanders, Sanders voters, everyone but those who deserve the blame -- themselves.

Which leads to another prediction: unless the Democratic party reforms in a major way, accepts the truth as to why they lost, knock off the dishonesty and arrogance when they have nothing at the moment to be arrogant about, and stop all the lying, they will lose again in 2018 and lose big. And keep losing until they decide that really, honesty is the best policy.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Paul Krugman's Republican style economic voodoo in attacking Sanders.

Paul Krugman is a well known economic writer for the NY Times who could be called liberal or progressive. He could also be called someone who went into the tank for Barrack Obama a long time ago and has yet to call out Obama on everything from Obamacare's failures to Obama's misrepresentations on the auto bailout.

Krugman at one time, back in 2009, called for a $1.6 billion stimulus to get the economy back on his feet. He was right. But Obama in his never ending capitulations and sell outs to any opposition he faces, cut it in half to $800 million to try and appease Republicans (which it didnt) which is why the economic recovery has been so weak, taken so long and ineffective for millions. But no criticism by Krugman of Obama and his ineffective half baked stimulus package.

But in a recent column accusing Sander's economist Gerald Freidman of engaging in voodoo economics with numbers that supports many of Sanders plans,Krugman sounded an awful lot like Republicans in 1996 who, led by Newt Gingrich, called Bill Clinton's 1996 budget "smoke and mirrors" and shut down the government. Using a lot of the same reasons.

Bill Clinton's budget was, as per the agreement with the Republican majority in congress,a balanced budget. It was based on forecasts of economic growth and job growth that Gingrich and Republicans, like Krugman now with Sanders, called voodoo or "smoke and mirrors". Republicans all but accused Bill Clinton of cooking the books and manipulating the numbers. Then they shut down the government. 

The reality turned out to be that based on the implementation of Clinton's policies and their success, the economy outdid the Clinton administration's forecasts and grew at over 4%, resulting in the lowest unemployment in 40 years and the greatest economic expansion in U.S. history. 

Krugman's claims of Sanders voodoo is based on an assessment by of all people, former members of the Obama administration who criticized Sanders' economist Gerald Friedman who assessed the success of Sanders economic programs based on a U.S growth of  5.3%  which also comes from the implementation of Sanders other policies, most notably a progression to a single payer health care system. 

Krugman's claims of voodoo sound a lot  like Republican claims of smoke and mirrors in 1996 based on their economists assessments and forecasts which all turned out to be wrong.(As an aside, the term "voodoo economics" was coined by George HW Bush in criticizing Reagan's economic proposals known as "trickle down").

More reality: the government run public health care option which had the votes to pass congress and which Obama sold down the river to the health insurance companies, a sell out endorsed by Hillary Clinton, had been scored by the CBO as reducing the deficit $160 billion over ten years. That alone as a transition step to a single payer would be, and would have been had Obama not been unprincipled and unscrupulous,  a boon to the U.S. economy that probably hasn't been seen since 1996. It would have put thousands of dollars in insurance premiums back in the pockets of people instead of the pockets of insurance companies, and would have been tantamount to people getting a giant raise.

Given that 80% of U.S. GDP is consumer spending, what that would have done, and can still do for the U.S., economy under Sanders is give it the kind of economic boost that could easily see 5.3% growth while cutting health care costs while providing heathcare to 30 million people who still don't have it under Obamacare.

Another argument made against Sanders economic plan is that the consecutive years of growth is based on the implementation of his plan and therefore cannot happen. When someone, especially those with no creativity, no vision and no ideas, tells you something can't happen because it's never happened before you throw their ideas out the window.

Sanders received his share of smirks in the 1980's when he endorsed Jesse Jackson for president and was his campaign chairman in Vermont. There more than a few people who thought the idea of a Black man becoming president was preposterous. It was something that would never happen.

History is littered with people who said something couldnt happen because it never happened before. 

If one wants to argue whether or not Sanders could get it through a Republican congress the answer is obvious. But Obama had the biggest congressional majority in 60 years and could have done anything. Obama just blew it.

If Sanders is elected with a Democratic majority in congress by voters who want Sanders polices implemented it will be done. 

Krugman says he is a wonk. He is. He is also a politically biased wonk since the group he quotes who criticized Sanders economic plans are all former members of the Obama administration who are trying as best they can to rig the nomination for Hillary Clinton and so their economic opinions when it comes to Sanders have more in common with Bernie Madoff than Bernie Sanders and are just as trustworthy.

It also needs to be pointed out that Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton supports Bernie Sanders and his economic policies and agrees with them. 

Krugman is a wonk. And a good one.  But wonks have no imagination, no creativity and no vision. That's why they are wonks. They can provide numbers and a point of view, and assessments, but in making those future assessments, their numbers are based on a vision they don't have, a creativity they don't have, and ideas and their effects on people that they don't have. Those policy decisions are best left to people who have all those things when they come along.

Which is why Krugman sounds more like a Republican attacking Sanders. And would be a lot better off getting back to some honest wonking.

Friday, February 19, 2016

James Clyburn Who Destroyed Clinton in the 2008 South Carolina primary Now Endorses Her.

Politics is a funny thing. Except there are a lot of people who dont think its so funny when politics looks like a teeming, dishonest hornets nest of people vying for power and who can rarely be trusted  but are making decisions that affect peoples' lives.

Today James Clyburn of South Carolina endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for president. In 2008 he destroyed her.

It was in 2008 right before the South Carolina primaries when Clinton was running against Obama that behind the scenes, Clyburn formulated an attack against Hillary Clinton on the subject of race which resulted in her landslide loss by 29 points.  Which makes his endorsement of Clinton now hollow and reeking of the kind of phony, worthless backroom politics that is clearly part of Clinton's backroom deal with Obama, which so far ironically, like most of Obama's policies is failing.

For anyone who remembers 2008, it was in South Carolina  that Clinton took the biggest blow of her presidential campaign. Up until then she had been splitting the African American vote with Obama 50-50.

But in a speech in South Carolina, Clinton, in trying to re-enforce her credentials as someone who had the experience to be president and that Obama didnt, Clinton made the point that while Martin Luther King was the conscience of the country and the spirtual force behind the civil rights movement, it took a president with the know how and experience of a Lyndon Johnson to actually get the Civil Rights Act passed through congress .Which was all true.

Tom Brokaw in his book about King said the same thing. But Tom Brokaw wasn't running for president. And wasn't running for president against a black man representing the cause celebre of electing the first black president.

With Clyburn pulling the strings behind the scenes it didn't take Obama long to seize the opening. And the Obama campaign unleashed a furious assault on Clinton claiming she had disparaged Martin Luther King and diminshed his leadership in civil rights and put King in the backseat behind a white man even if he was president. Only it could never have been Obama's idea. James Clyburn is as wiley a politician as there is. Clyburn has forgotten more  about politics than Obama will ever know. And even though it cant be proved and neither Obama nor Clyburn would admit it, what happened in South Carolina had James Clyburn's fingerprints all over it. So much so Bill Clinton blamed Clyburn for Hillary's loss. Which makes the image of Clyburn and Hillary Clinton embracing like old friends evidence of exactly the kind of phony, dirty politics that is the opposite of everything Sanders stands for and why he is attracting younger voters.

Clinton could have stood by her comments which were true and gone to the mat over them. Instead she started backpedalling and apologizing much the same way she did recently during a speech when she said " All lives matter" and Black Lives Matter activists in the audience took offense, chided her and she backed off promising never to say "all lives matter again." Very inspiring. 

So watching Clinton literally embrace Clyburn and listening to Clyburn trip over himself to tell us all the wonderful things he thinks about Hillary Clinton and how " my heart has been with Hillary from day one" is making a lot of people who remember 2008 gag. It also means Clyburn lives by his own calender since no one can figure out when day one for Clyburn was. Some think it was the day before yesterday. 

"Day one" is also probably the day Obama gave Clyburn his marching orders to endorse her in return for Clinton's willingness to throw herself prostrate on the ground in front of Obama and defend his failures  in return for Obama pulling strings to try and get her the nomination, an amusing but maybe not so funny look at what Democratic politics has become.  Thankfully, so far its been failing against Sanders. 

It's not the kind of politics Sanders represents and one reason why voters are flocking to Sanders in record numbers and why he destroyed Clinton in New Hampshire not just in the overall election by 22 points, but  among voters 45 and under 84-9.  That along with Sanders advocating policies far superior to the Obama retread Clinton is pushing as part of her Obama deal .

Clyburn confided in his memoirs that he received a call from Bill Clinton at 2 a.m. after the primary where Bill  unleashed  a tirade at Clyburn blaming him for Hillary's loss and saying, " if you bastards want a fight we'll give you one". Of course they never did.

So its almost political satire now to see Clyburn endorsing Clinton and seeing all those warm hugs and the old style political machine both represent. Which is another big reason why Bernie Sanders is winning. And why Clyburn's endorsement may mean nothing. 

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

New CNN South Carolina Poll Could Be Big Worry For Clinton.

Everyone knows that CNN polls are not exactly the gold standard when it comes to polling. But that said, their recent poll reveals big potential trouble for Hillary Clinton and that her "shameless sucking up to Obama" as Chicago journalist Carol Felsenthal put it, her way of bowing and scraping for African American votes, might not be working.  In fact it could have the opposite effect if African Americans resent being patronized by Clinton. And if Clinton loses South Carolina,  a state she was expected to win by a mile, it's probably the end of her candidacy.

The poll, taken Feb,10-15, shows Clinton ahead of Sanders, 56-38.  So why would an 18 point lead be a red flag for Clinton? A number of reasons. First, it was only a few months ago she had a more than 50 point lead which has shrunk to 18. Meaning Sanders is gaining as he campaigns in South Carolinia, something he hadn't done before. But even more worrisome for Clinton is this: that 56-38 lead is based on those who said they have made up their minds. And those people only amount to 40% of South Carolina voters. A full 43%  said they are undecided and 13% said they are leaning one way or another but wouldn't want to say who. So 53% of South Carolina voters have yet to fully decide.

Given Clinton's name recognition, her phony attacks by her and her surrogates against Sanders and their seedy and dishonest attempts at playing the race card, the Washington establishment black politicians who got their marching orders from president Obama to  act as surrogates for Clinton, and given Obama having all but endorsed her, that there are more undecided voters in South Carolina than decided voters is terrible news for Clinton. And those undecided voters aren't undecided because they love Hillary Clinton. They're undecided because they don't . And want to hear what Bernie Sanders has to say. 

That means there are a lot of African American voters in South Carolina who aren't buying Clinton. At least not yet. And not now.

The dishonest attacks by Clinton's Black political surrogates who are proving, like Clinton they are not beneath lies and innuendo for political purposes, like their empty and dishonest accusation that Sanders is late to the civil rights movement, are clearly being ignored by most South Carolina voters African American or white. And those attacks are so transparently dishonest, they could backfire against Clinton.

More evidence of that and more worry for Clinton is that two months ago polls showed she had 80% of the African American vote in South Carolina . As of the new poll it's down to 65% . If Sanders drops that lead another 15 points and splits the African American vote  in South Carolina Clinton loses.

So there is a lot to worry about in the Clinton camp. Having a large majority of voters in South Carolina  having not yet made up their minds, more than those who have made up their minds after all Clinton supposedly had going for her is something to worry about. And with her shameless jumping into the arms of Obama and waving to African Americans and saying " See?", pushing Obama's policies which everyone knows have been weak, ineffective and almost complete failures and are based on dishonesty, deceit and sell outs,  it shows that most voters are not falling for Clinton's attacks, and are still open to someone other than Hillary Clinton. That someone is Bernie Sanders.

Two weeks is a long time but if  a substantial majority of those 53% undecided go for Sanders, and again its fair to ask the question, if Clinton would be their choice why haven't they decided that by now,  what could they possibly want to know about Hillary Clinton in the next two weeks that they don't already know, Sanders will beat Clinton in a state Clinton had been calling her firewall and was supposed to be a lock. 

If that happens, its over for Clinton and the end of her candidacy. She will lose the rest of the south and Super Tuesday will be a rout for Sanders. Which may happen anyway. 

Clinton still enjoys a big lead now with African Americans. But Sanders has only recently started his campaign. And he has cut into it substantially. And with African Americans of the stature of Cornell West, Harry Belafonte, Ben Jealous the former head of the NAACP, and the poignancy of Erica Garner, Eric Garners daughter, all supporting Sanders as well as some prominent African American South Carolina politicians,  there is no doubt Sanders will cut into that lead even more. The question is by how much.

If Sanders can cut that lead among African American voters in half, Sanders will win South Carolina. If that happens, Clintons candidacy is on life support if not over.

If Clinton wins South Carolina  but its close, like single digits, Clinton will be barely left on her feet but still in the hunt.  But Sanders will have won enough South Carolina delegates to make Clinton's win almost meaningless. And while it means Clinton can go on, a single digit victory in South Carolina will only prolong the agony. And the inevitable. Which every day looks like Sanders winning the  nomination. The old fashioned way. By getting more votes.

Andrew Card, George W. Bush Lie For Jeb About the 911 Attacks.

In an interview with Wolf Blitzer to answer Donald Trump's charges that George W. Bush is accountable for the 911 attacks, which he certainly was, Andrew Card, Bush's former chief of staff simply lied as a way to cover up for his boss.

That image above was the front page of the New York Post. The Rupert Murdoch owned conservative Republican leaning New York Post who rightly threw political alliances out the window in the face of what happened and showed who was accountable. They were the only ones who did. And to this day the news media continues to demonstrate why they have no backbone and no integrity and care nothing for the truth . Which is what makes them so worthless .

Chris Cuomo on CNN recently asked a spokesperson for Trump to react to conservative radio talk show host Mark Levins' attack on Trump for stating the truth about Bush and the 911 attacks, every word out of Levins mouth being one lie after another to defend Bush. The fact is if Cuomo and his brethren in the news media weren't such abject cowards  and cared about facts and the truth, he wouldn't have had to ask the question. He would have been tearing anyone trying to defend Bush's 911 negligence to pieces instead of the mealy   mouthed dishonesty we're used to from journalists especially those on CNN. 

Faced with all the proof the 911 Commission unearthed through documents and testimony of all the principles taken under oath it is inescapable that George W. Bush and Condoleeza Rice were both guilty of the worst case of gross, even criminal negligence and malfeasance with regards to the national security of the United States in American history.

 It was an unforgivable display of incompetence and a mistaken belief in an ideology that killed 3000 Americans on that day and plunged the United States into a perpetual state of war against terrorists. And there is nothing that could have been more easily prevented if Bush had taken any of the intelligence and warnings, imminent warnings, seriously.

Neither he nor Rice did. And both know what happened because of it. Which may explain why in the 15 years since the 911 attacks neither George W. Bush nor Condoleeza Rice ever attended a single memorial or commemoration of the attacks.  Not the ground breaking for the building to replace the towers, not the ground breaking or opening and dedication of the 911 Memorial, not the ground breaking or ceremony for the opening of the 911 museum. Not any of the commemoration ceremonies that ever took place on the anniversaries of the attacks. Other presidents, politicians, dignitaries, officials and families were always there each time. But the president  and National Security Advisor on whose watch 911 happened never showed up. Because they both  know were it not for their own negligence and dismissal of terrorism as a threat, there would be no need for memorials. And they at least had the good grace not to attend.

Card lied in his interview with CNN when he said the reason for the successful attack was because the intelligence agencies who had the information that could have prevented the attacks weren't talking to each other because they had put up " walls" between the agencies that Card said "went back to the Clinton administration". Card lied. And Wolf Blitzer was either too ignorant, too intimidated or too much of a coward to point it out.

Bill Clinton overcame those walls. Richard Clarke who was the White House anti-terrorism chief for Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton and George W, and who during the Clinton administration held a cabinet level status, chaired what was called the Meeting of the Principles. Every day during the Clinton Administration,  the Attorney General, CIA Director, FBI Director, heads of the ATF, Immigration Service and the heads of every agency related to the terrorist threat sat in a meeting chaired by Clarke and shared all the related intelligence or information related to terrorism and Al-Qaeda they had collected in the previous 24 hours with each other. 

When George W. Bush became president he ended those meetings. And he demoted Richard Clarke to a sub cabinet level position so Clarke never had direct access to the president. Because he didn't believe Al -Qeda was a threat and thought Clinton exaggerated the threat. 

Clarke testified that Bill Clinton made anti-terrorism the number one national security concern of his administration and Bush dismissed it entirely. Which is why Bush ignored every piece of intelligence he was given about Al-Qaeda as not worth his time.

Clarke testified that in August of 2001, he and George Tenant, CIA Director were so alarmed by the spike in Al-Qaeda chatter and the translations of the intercepts that indicated the U.S. was about to be hit with a massive terrorist attack inside the U.S. an attack that in the words of the CIA translator that was going to be "spectacular", Clarke and Tenant were, in Clarke's words, " running around the White House like men with their  hair on fire" trying to get Rice and Bush's attention and to get Bush to do something. Bush and Rice ignored them, brushed them off and Bush went on vacation in Crawford. 

But before Bush left he had one another intelligence briefing on August 6, 2001 where he was told that not only was Al-Qaeda going to strike inside the U.S., Al-Qaeda cells were already in the U.S., they had New York City office buildings under surveillance and, most astoundingly Bush was told intelligence had determined the means of the terrorist attack was going to involve the hijacking of U.S., airliners. Bush did nothing. Rice did nothing. And when grilled by the 911 Commission counsel on how on earth she and Bush could have done nothing based on that intelligence her answer to this day is stupefying. She said, " we had no idea they were going to use the planes as missiles".  

It is only because of the cowardice of congressional Democrats, and the cowardice of the news media when Republicans circled  the wagons around Bush did that answer not lead to Bush and Rice's resignation. 

Andrew Card repeated the same preposterous defense. Meaning what? That hijacking U.S. airliners and holding maybe 1000 Americans hostage on the ground or in the air was nothing to get excited about?

Then Card went off on a tangent about what Bush did after 911.

Here are the inescapable facts: Had Bush simply ordered the FAA to issue a high alert bulletin,  a BOLO -- Be On the Lookout for potential hijackings by Middle Eastern men and to report any suspicious activity by Middle Eastern men , 911 never would happened. Those guys were not only not that smart, they were dumb.

The 911 hijackers showed up at Logan and Dulles Airport, 11 Middle eastern men who all bought one way tickets to San Francisco. None had any luggage. None had reservations. They all had to pay the highest ticket price,  $2500 for a one way first class ticket. They all paid in cash. What do you think any ticket seller for any airline who was told in a special FAA security bulletin to be on the look out for suspicious activity involving Middle Eastern men because of a threat of  hijackings would have done with that?

None of those hijackers would have ever gotten on those planes.  And 911 never would have happened. It did because of the gross negligence, malfeasance and dereliction of duty by George W. Bush and his administration. He didn't keep America safe as Jeb Bush tries to claim.  He allowed the worst attack and worst loss of life on American soil by a foreign enemy in American history.  And has never been adequately held accountable because of journalists like Wolf Blitzer on CNN and others who never had the courage to stand up to power and hold Bush and Rice accountable when it mattered.  Had they, Bush either would have had to resign along with Cheney and Rice, or he never would have had the political capitol to invade Iraq and would have been defeated in the 2004 elections.

Which is why so much can be laid at the feet of  journalists who won't do their job because of cowardice, fear and incompetence. And still are afraid to hold George W. Bush accountable to this day.

When Hillary Clinton was recently asked on Face the Nation if George W. Bush had kept the country safe, her answer was almost worse. It was so pathetic, so dishonest, such a dodge and so clearly the product of her political calculations spinning through her head at the moment that instead of answering the question honestly, gave an answer that was nothing but convoluted nonsense. Clinton deserves to be held accountable for her political dishonesty as well.

If Jeb Bush is going to run on his assertions that his brother kept us safe   it automatically disqualifies him from being taken seriously.  And given her answer to the same question, maybe it's the same for Clinton too.