Clinton Campaign Starts to Play Dirty Politics Against Sanders.

The Clinton's, both Bill and Hillary know what its like to be on the receiving end of dirty  dishonest politics. Unfortunately it seems that Hillary Clinton or her strategists have decided that if you can't beat'em join' em when it comes to trying to win using dishonest political attacks.

Hillary Clinton seems to be willing to resort to the same dishonest tactics that were launched against her in the past and were the earmark of Tea Party Right politics of distortion and half truths. And it's obviously  because she is now losing decisively in the polls in New Hampshire to Sanders and by landslide numbers, losing to him in Iowa,  and  has seen  a 20 pt lead nationally evaporate to 7 in less than a month, and all for good reasons  --  her new found embrace of Obama's failed, weak and capitulating policies in return for the Obama run DNC to tilt the playing field in her direction as even the esteemed David Gergen pointed out was obviously the case. Which is why the DNC refuses to schedule more debates.

In response to Sanders surging numbers, Clinton and her surrogates including a Clinton PAC have resorted to lying about the Sanders healthcare proposal and Sanders position on guns by using dishonest scare tactics about his policies.

Lie is the only word for it --  a knowing and intentional misrepresentation of the truth to try and gain some personal advantage or benefit. That's what a lie is. As opposed to a fib. Or white lie.  Its not an honest disagreement on policy. Its lying to falsely make one side look bad and the other side look good or better than it deserves.

And now they've even sent out  Chelsea to misrepresent Sanders healthcare policies in the hopes of stemming the tide.

Democracy For America, a Progressive group, wrote: 

"Unfortunately, over the last few days, the Clinton campaign has launched extremely dishonest attacks against Bernie Sanders on an issue that defines what it is to be a Democrat -- universal healthcare. In those spurious attacks,  the Clinton campaign has completely distorted and misled voters about Bernie's universal healthcare plan."

Chelsea went on the attack against Sanders by saying she "can't believe that there would be someone in the Democratic party arguing against Obamacare".  

Really? How about the 35 million uninsured, most of whom are Democratic voters and for whom Obamacare did nothing because Obama sold out the public option to the corporate interests of the health insurance lobby who actually wrote the insurance part of the bill and who's lowest end bronze plans designed  for the previously uninsured are such junk that less than 3% of the uninsured have bought them since the 2013 implementation of the Unaffordable Care Act. 

 For the record and as will be shown in great detail in a future piece, Obamacare is an unmitigated failure in what healthcare reform was supposed to do -- get healthcare coverage for the 35-40 million Americans who have no healthcare coverage and bring down the obscene cost of healthcare in America for those who do.  Obamacare is the product of Obama's sell out to the insurance companies by willingly dropping the government run public option  when it had already passed the House and had the votes to pass in the senate. 

Even the White House admitted in a New York Times article last year, that the low end policies offered by insurance companies on the exchanges designed for those who couldn't afford healthcare insurance were garbage. Their word was " substandard".  To say the least.

Those policies had expensive monthly premiums , as high as $600 a month, high deductibles, high co-pays and in most instances people who have them have had to travel as much as 100 miles one way to find a doctor or clinic who will accept the low end policies. Which is why Obamacare enrollment, miniscule to begin with among those who were uninsured, despite the White House lies about the numbers, dropped by 2/3 the second year of Obamacare from the first.

The only positive part of the ACA is the expanded Medicaid, which would have been unnecessary under a public option,  and left up to the governors of each state to implement so that in a state like Louisiana where Jindal rejected it,  270,000 eligible for expanded Medicaid didnt get it.

The  White House and political arms of the Democratic party fund raising machine controlled by Obama have lied about Obamacare more than Nixon lied about Watergate. Especially about the numbers. Obama even lied again during the State of the Union trying to move the goal posts of what healthcare reform was actually supposed to do by trying to make  the policy fit the reality when he said that the purpose of Obamacare was  to "fill in the gap of employer based health insurance when someone lost their job so they didnt have to be without insurance". Really? Since when?  Since Obama decided to lie about it for the umpteenth time to cover up its massive failures.That was never the purpose behind what healthcare reform was supposed to do.

Chelsea Clinton said Sanders would " dismantle Obamacare". Let's hope so.  But Chelsea only told a half the truth without saying what Sanders would replace it - a Medicare for all type policy that is far superior to the failed Obamacare based on the idea that healthcare should be a right which the public option would have provided and not a privilege. 

You have to feel for Chelsea. She is just trying to help her mother and is saying what she's been told to say almost of all of which is factually untrue. And given the falsity put out by Brian Fallon, Clinton's new press secretary on CNN recently,  he might be the villain putting lies in Chelsea Clinton's mouth.

Chelsea Clinton also said Sanders policy would end the Children's Health Insurance Program. A lie. She said Sanders would dismantle Medicare and strip millions of their coverage. A lie. 

What Chelsea  also doesn't say is that the sign ups for Obamacare on the state exchanges have been so anemic, something Obama has lied about repeatedly mostly because the low end policies are the equivalent of junk bonds, the Inspector General issued a report that 22 of the 23 state exchanges are going to close because they are awash in red ink because of low sign ups and can't sustain themselves. Only the Maine exchange has its head above water and not by much.

Sanders has proposed a Medicare for all type single payer system that would extend Medicare to everyone, not dismantle it. What it would dismantle is the failed Obamacare law that not only hasnt helped the uninsured despite the lies being propagated by Obama and the phony numbers being put out but, in April of this year, when those 35 million who are mostly Democratic voters and still uninsured get hit with a $700 reduction in their expected tax refund, the penalty they are going to pay for  not buying the garbage insurance policies Obamacare is trying to force them to buy, Clinton's support of Obamacare could  insure the nomination for Sanders.

Unfortunately what we're seeing now from the Clinton campaign is the kind of misstatements and outright lying about Sanders that Republicans usually level against Democrats.

But Clinton won't be able to rewrite history. At the time the Unaffordable Care Act was passed Bernie Sanders who was a staunch supporter of the public option was asked what he thought about the Affordable Care Act. His answer then? "It's better than nothing". Now Sanders has a better idea thats not just better than nothing, it's better than Obamacare.

When even the usual timid CNN points out that what Chelsea Clinton was saying about Sanders healthcare proposals wasn't true, you have a big problem. Clinton has also been playing fast and loose with the truth about Sanders on gun control when Sanders has said repeatedly he supports expanded background checks including those for gun shows.

Even Clinton supporters have to feel disappointed and even embarrassed over the recent dishonest attacks  and misrepresentation of Sander's policies and positions on healthcare and guns.  If they aren't, they ought to be. If its not a sign of desperation it feels like one.

 Obamacare is a disaster, an Obama betrayal and sell out to the health insurance companies and an abject failure, maybe the worst sell out of a government policy to a special interest group in history  and Clinton's support of Obamacare and attacks on Sanders wanting to replace it, just promises more of the same. And that isnt going to work.

And while Clinton is resorting to half truths about the tax increase for a middle class family that would pay for the single payer system without mentioning the $5,000 at least that  would be a net saving for a middle class family in insurance premiums and put the money back in their pockets as income, it might be a good idea to refer back  to a CBS/New York Times poll in June of 2009 on the health care debate and promised public option where 72% said they wanted the public option and incredibly, 66% said they were willing to pay higher taxes to get it.

Trump Wants Clinton Not Sanders.

Donald Trump is clearly hoping for Hillary Clinton to be his opponent in a presidential election if he gets the nomination. Trump has been pushing the idea that if the presidential election is between him and Hillary Clinton it will produce a record turnout.

Trump, an experienced promoter, who has a lot more in common with PT Barnum than George Washington and more in common with Don King than Martin Luther King,  seems to be doing what he can to promote the idea that the election will be between him and Hillary Clinton, possibly trying to instill that match up into the minds of Democratic voters and influence them.

And for good reason. Recent polls shows that in a head to head match up , Clinton beats Trump by 1 point, easily within the margin of error which means Trump could also be ahead.

But the same poll shows Sanders beating Trump by 13. No margin of error for Trump.  In other head to head match ups against other candidates,  Sanders outperforms Clinton by a wide margin. Clinton actually loses to Rubio and Cruz. Sanders beats them both handily.

In another analysis of a national poll by Glenn Greenwald's The Intercept, looking at the national poll of Clinton vs Trump and Sanders vs Trump, Sanders beats Trump by a much wider margin than Clinton.  But when eliminating voters who identify as either Democrat or Republican,  looking only at independent voters in the same polls, Sanders beats Trump among independent or non-affiliated voters  16-11. Clinton is in a statistical tie. The head to head match ups of Sanders versus Trump and Clinton versus Trump or match ups against any other GOP candidates has Sanders  doing substantially better than Clinton with both Democratic and independent voters.

The most recent polls in New Hampshire show Sanders  thumping Clinton even more decisively among Democratic voters and in every demographic group. He even beats Clinton 50-44 with women voters.  The most  recent New Hampshire poll shows Sanders beating Clinton among all Democratic voters 53-39.

This reflects the results of Democratic straw polls in October and November reported here but ignored by the mainstream media . These polls while unscientific, were conducted by Democrats.com,  and had a substantial number of voters -- almost 400,000 that showed Sanders landsliding Clinton among Democrats. The mainstream media also ignored a recent Democracy For America vote , the Democratic group founded by Howard Dean,  inwhich  members were asked to vote via email to select who they wanted DFA to endorse for the Democratic nomination, Clinton, Sanders or O'Malley. Sanders won with a staggering 88% of the vote, beating Clinton 88-9.

There are a lot of good reasons why. Not the least of which has been Clinton's embrace of Obama policies and Sanders suggesting polices that refute them and are much more appealing. And clearly more effective.

The problem for Clinton is that no one, not even Democrats want a third Obama term. And with Clinton not just supporting those policies but in some cases promising to continue them,  which seems to clearly be a trade off between Clinton and Obama and the Obama run DNC where in return for Clinton's fealty and public support of Obama policies ("president Obama doesn't get enough credit"  said Clinton) the DNC is doing what many including the esteemed David Gergen has already pointed out  -- that the DNC is in the tank for Hillary Clinton and will do everything it can to tilt the playing field in her direction.

So will Donald Trump.

How The Clinton Campaign Can Shut Up Trump On "Sexism" and Bill. If They Want To.

Maybe the best thing for anyone to do who is a political opponent of Donald Trump is just let him talk.    There is a case to be made that the more Trump talks the more he is in the process of destroying the Republican party in the next election.  But lately Trump's comments about Bill Clinton and his accusations of "sexism" have, not surprisingly, gotten the most coverage by the news media which many find obnoxious. Both the statements and the coverage.

While there is a school of thought that says just ignore Trump politically,the "sexism" attacks has gotten so much air play and the media has gotten so obsessed with it, shutting up Trump up for good over his recent attacks on Bill Clinton and "sexism" might not be a bad thing. And there is a way to do it. If the Clinton campaign or a surrogate wants to. And it might be the best thing to do. 

One thing Trump or almost any media savvy person knows is that for the most part mainstream journalists are no more than a collection of trained seals . They'll swallow whatever you throw them if everyone else is. And so Trump will continue  to bring up Lewinsky et al because he knows the media, especially cable news will keep swallowing. 

About  a year ago Rand Paul tried the same thing. It started with his wife attacking Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky nonsense in an interview in Vogue and soon after, Rand Paul picked it up and ran with it accusing Clinton of "sexism" over Lewinsky and took up the Republican mantra which at the time was that Bill Clinton engaged in sexual harassment in the work place with " a female subordinate" and all they, the Republicans, were doing was standing up for moral principles and defending women's rights.  Which is a lot like the Republicans trying to close down Planned Parenthood and stop free mammograms and Pap smears by closing clinics and calling it the Women's Health and Safety Act.

I wrote a piece when Paul starting attacking Clinton over the Lewinsky thing making a couple of  points about the accusations Paul was making (all political obviously in trying to undermine Hillary Clinton's candidacy disguised as phony moral principle) and in the piece I dared Paul to address those points,  make some admissions and either put up or shut up. He shut up.

I can't claim with any certainty that it was the piece and the points I made that shut him up. After all I'm not MoveOn.Org who likes to take credit for the sun coming up , ("thanks to you,  MoveOn member because of our petition of 28,000 signatures even if it is out of a membership of 8 million,  demanding that the sun come up at 7:12 am on Thursday which we left on a beach in East Hampton, the sun did  come up at 7:12 which shows  what we can accomplish by sticking  together".)  So I have no proof that it was the piece that shut him up. Only that he did shut up soon after publishing the piece and he hasn't brought it up since.

The points were these:

The "sexism" attack on Clinton which is what Republicans used against Bill to impeach him along a party line vote in the House and which Trump has decided to run with,  and which Rand Paul used was that as a White House intern, Lewinsky was "a female subordinate in the work place" and that Clinton having an affair with her amounted to workplace sexual harassment and sexism. Never mind that it was Lewinsky who started it and made all the overtures.  Republicans said it was sexism and harrassment because Clinton was a man in a powerful position taking advantage of a female subordinate in the workplace to go along with the moral lapse of being unfaithful to his wife. Which according to them and Rand Paul a year ago, and now Trump, made Bill Clinton morally "unfit" to be in the White House.

But if Trump, like Paul, is going to attack Bill over Lewinsky, for "sexism" based on having

an affair with "a female subordinate in the workplace" and the moral lapse of being unfaithful, making Bill morally "unfit" to be in the White House (thereby disqualifying Hillary) then Trump has to say the same thing about General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who, when he was Supreme Allied Commander during WWII and planning the D-Day invasion in London had a long time affair affair with Kay Summersby, a  female British military attache who had the rank of Captain,  who was assigned to Eisenhower as his aide, and personal driver.

Since morality makes no distinctions Trump should be forced  by a Clinton campaign surrogate  to apply the same moral principle to Eisenhower and Eisenhower's workplace affair with a female subordinate  and force Trump to state that it made Eisenhower unfit to be Supreme Allied Commander, unfit to been involved in the planning of the D-Day invasion, unfit to have ordered the D-Day invasion and unfit to have been elected president of the United States because of his affair with Summersby, a "female subordinate in the workplace" and force Trump to also call Eisenhower  an " abuser" based on Trump's idea of morality that he wants to apply to Bill Clinton.

And as uncomfortable and campaign ending as it would be, Trump also has to make the same charge against Martin Luther King. We know, thanks to the FBI illegally wiretapping hotel rooms where King stayed, that King also had an affair with a young civil rights worker, " a female subordinate". So  Trump should be forced to apply his principle of "sexism"  to King too and and be forced to state that it made King unfit to lead the civil rights movement, unfit to have a memorial in Washington D.C.  and while he's at it let Trump criticize the New York City School Board for naming a public school after King. And lobby congress to rescind Martin Luther King Day and call King an "abuser".

The moral principles that Trump and other Republicans have tried to use against Bill Clinton to define someone as being "unfit"  for office and according to Trump an " abuser" is the same that can be applied to Eisenhower and King (and throw in FDR and JFK for good measure ) . And force  Trump to say so.  If Trump won't,  accuse Trump of being an intellectually dishonest moral hypocrite and political opportunist whose word and principles are worthless and are designed only for his own political ambitions. 

Let Trump be the one who needs to be very careful. If he keeps up the sexism attacks on Bill someone needs to  challenge  him to either put up or shut up on Eisenhower and King. 

It shut Rand Paul up. It will shut up Trump.

Clinton Crafts a Dodge Over Obama Deportations.

The Immigration Service announced on Thursday that a few hundred illegal immigrant families identified by courts as being illegal are going to be hunted down and deported starting next month.

 

The Republican response was to wonder whether Obama is doing it as a political ploy in response to Trumps caustic comments on illegal immigrants, and while they applaud it, they are cynical as to Obama's motives.

 

On the Democratic side both Sanders and O'Malley expressed their clear opposition to it.

But Hillary Clinton issued the kind of dodgy politically crafted non-committal  statement that tends to always leave her open to criticism that everything she does is politically motivated.

She released a statement essentially saying she " has real concerns about the reports".

 

First, what were her "concerns"? She didn't say. What does "concerns" mean? She didn't say. Secondly  they were not "reports". It was a statement released to the media by Immigration about a new Obama policy that is going to be implemented next month. 

Clinton calling it a "report" seems to  be a hedge to buy time to figure out what exactly Clinton is going to say given her new found public embrace of most of Obama's failed policies, which to many smacks of a backroom deal with Obama where  the DNC which is run by Obama as president will  do everything they can to tilt the playing field in her direction ( just as they did against her in 2008 ) which as David Gergen observed seems to already be the case when he said the DNC has clearly " gone in the tank for Clinton" , and Clinton in return will  publicly support and defend Obama policies. Although in this case it's obvious Clinton was caught by surprise and unprepared. So by calling it a "report" it's pretending that it's not official. Except that it is.

 

Obama's decision to deport these illegal immigrant families seems to put Clinton between a rock and a hard place to either support Obama's policy as she has all other Obama polices as per the agreement ( a huge political mistake)  or find a way to not support it without sounding like it so she can  support Obama and continue to trash Donald Trump for his statements on illegal immigrants at the same time. Sound confusing? Imagine what it's like for Clinton. 

 

The statement of "real concerns about reports" sounds like language trying to walk a political tightrope in being  " concerned " about it while not  looking like she is opposing it as part of the deal for the Obama controlled DNC pulling strings for her candidacy ( like debates scheduled at times when people are least likely to see them and the heavy handed one sided approach by the DNC over the Sanders data breach).

 

But as if trying to clarify it, another  statement put out soon after by a Clinton campaign spokesman made it worse.

The statement read: 

 

"Hillary Clinton has real concerns about these reports especially as families are coming together during this holiday season.  She believes it is critical (here comes the caveat) that everyone has a full and fair hearing and that our country provide refuge for those who need it". 

 

First, why is Clinton not saying that herself? Why is it being issued by someone else in her name? Wiggle room?  Secondly why continue to call it "reports" as opposed to a statement of policy when Clinton knows it's not "reports" but reality?  Third, what does the holiday season have to do with anything? If they deported the same families in August it would be okay?  

And that's exactly what could happen since the announced deportations aren't begining till next month.  And finally the major hedge as italicized earlier-- "she believes it is critical that everyone has a  full and fair hearing.." 

 Well that's nice since those families already had those hearings.All of them. And Clinton undoubtedly  knows that too.   It was part of the statement of policy put out on Thursday by the Immigration Service. So it's a red herring.  The families that are to be deported already  had their " full and fair" hearings in front an Immigrations judge and were found to have entered the country illegally and met other criteria that supposedly justified their deportation.  Clinton calling for "full and fair hearings" is calling for something that already happened. 

 

So what Clinton did in her statement was in reality support the Obama decision to deport  while trying to sound like she isn't.  It's both defending the Obama policy and illegal immigrant families at the same time by putting conditions on it that already exist. In contrast to Sanders and O'Malley who have both trashed it in no uncertain terms. While Clinton seems to still be  looking for terms. The  right ones.

The news media's juvenile minds over Trump's "schlong" and comments about Clinton.

Always leave it to the news media , especially CNN to miss the point and go for what's cheap meaningless and dishonest.

Donald Trump in responding  (or retaliating in his juvenile way) to Hillary Clinton's lie about Isis using Trump in recruitment videos ( irresponsible and untrue without a shred of evidence to back it up), said something about Clinton taking a bathroom break as being "disgusting", as one more  memorable moment that showed how asinine Trump can be. Maybe Trump doesn't have bathrooms in any of his homes or luxury apartments. Renters or condo buyers should check. But what the news media really focused on ,what really caught their attention, was Trump saying Clinton was" schlonged" by Obama in the 2008 primaries.  

And on CNN and elsewhere they've been snickering and giggling over "schlong" ever since.

First, the real point they missed and what really mattered  is that what Trump said  about Clinton was false.  But the media has been so wrapped up in the word "schlong" that part has been ignored. Instead they kept harping on Trump's comment as " vulgar". 

 CNN was so enamored with the word " schlong" all they focused on in their political segments was Trump's use of the word which naturally, in their grown up way,  they related to a penis. Which shows where their minds are. And their knowledge and accuracy.

When I was 14 and growing up in Brooklyn my friends and I used the word "schlonged" all the time.  And we never used  "schlonged" in any way that  had anything to do with a penis.  No one did. We had enough other words to use for that. And we did.  What "schlonged" meant to us and to everyone else in the neighborhood was getting beat really badly.  Destroyed. No contest. Slaughtered.  Schlonged. We usually used it in the context of sports, professionally or in games between ourselves.  It never had anything to do with a penis which CNN and Wolf Blitzer kept obsessing over (no wonder Blitzer went after Anthony Weiner) regardless of whatever eastern European origins the word might have. No one, at least in Brooklyn (which is all that matters when it comes to the word "schlong")  ever used the word to mean anything other than getting beat badly by your opponent.

Which is what Trump meant. Only it was a lie. As false as Clinton's lie about Isis using Trump in recruiting videos. Which makes Trump a little like the pot calling the kettle black.

But leave it to CNN and others in the news media, first to show the same level of accuracy in journalism and reporting they did in Ferguson and other news stories they get all wrong,  and second to show they have less maturity than my 14 year old friends as they snickered through a 24 hour news cycle at CNN and other places constantly referring to Trump's use of the word "schlonged" in what he said about Clinton and making the penis connection.

What they could have done had they not been so Freudianly obsessed, was  point out that the substance of what Trump said was a lie.  Because  the assertion that Clinton was badly beaten by Obama or even actually beaten at all by Obama in the primaries is false.

The reality is that in 2008 Clinton actually won the popular vote over Obama during the primaries, and a significant  majority of Democratic voters (when you include the votes gotten by lesser candidates ) didn't want Obama to be the Democratic  nominee at all.  Neither Obama nor Clinton finished the primaries with anywhere close to the two thirds majority of delegates needed for the nomination.

It is also a fact that  during the 2008 Democratic primaries Clinton didn't just beat Obama in 15 of the 17 largest states in the country, she landslided him in those states, schlonged him you might say,  by more than 10 points in each state and beat him in the 16th. The only large state  Obama won was his home state of Illinois. 

It shows that Trump can't get his information right and what he thinks is true, isn't.  And when it comes to judgement how can you be president and make good judgements about anything when you don't know what's true?

And that was the story.  How false and badly false Trumps statement was. Which isn't exactly the kind of characteristic and  good judgement most people want in a president.   Especially since we haven't had it for 16 years .But that wasn't the story. "Schlong" was. Which shows how knowledgeable reporters are. And how bad they are at what they do.

Maybe its because no one in the news media including CNN wants to touch the truth or point it out because it  was the news media who aided and abetted Obama during the Democratic primaries and the general election by looking the other way when Obama was constantly caught in a lie. Which was constantly. And the last thing they want to do now is bring that up.

The point is when Trump said "schlonged" he meant beaten badly and the real story is that was a lie.  Clinton won more votes than Obama did. And Trump's comment was as much  of a lie as Clinton's lie about Isis and Trump in recruitment videos.   (Can't anybody here tell the truth about anything?)

So the real point is that Trump showed again he doesn't know what he's talking about and gets his facts wrong,  not exactly what anyone wants in a president.

Trump said that his comment wasn't vulgar. His bathroom comments went beyond vulgar to disgusting. But his " schlonged" comment wasn't vulgar. It was false. 

But despite Trump's statement being false on its face,  CNN for one,  throughout the 24 hour news cycle ignored face value to go for penis value.  Which made CNN vulgar.  And might explain why CNN keeps getting schlonged in the ratings.

Poll: Sanders Beats Trump by Bigger Margin Than Clinton. News Media:Bernie Who?

A new Quinnipac poll, for whatever its worth ( and no one really knows) shows that in head to head match ups against Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders beats Trump by a wider margin than Clinton.

But even though the poll shows Sanders a more popular candidate nationwide against Trump than Clinton,  Sanders is a virtual non-entity  to the news media compared to Trump showing again just how professionally and morally bankrupt the overwhelming majority of those who currently work in journalism at all levels really are.

The Intercept ( the news organization started by Glenn Greenwald of Edward Snowden fame) ran a Nexis report on news media mentions and headlines over the last 30 days comparing Trump to Sanders. There were 20 hits for Sanders 690 for Trump.

Following Trumps statement about a temporary ban on Muslim immigration ( keeping in mind that Trump is still one of 12 Republican candidates and nothing he says has any force of actual policy) the Nexis comparison of Trump headlines to Sanders was 100-5.

Comparisons made using only  the New York Times and Washington Post revealed that Trump had 145 headlines and Sanders 22. In the Washington Post the headline mentions were 64 for Sanders, Trump 535. 

In addition to the Quinnipac poll, an analysis of a recent NBC/Washington Post poll made by The Intercept showed Sanders had more national support ( subtracting those identifying themselves as strictly GOP or Democratic voters) than Trump, 16%-11%

If anyone still has any doubt about what drives the national news media from their completely dishonest, slanted and destructive Ferguson coverage a year ago to national policy and presidential politics, none of which ever has anything to do with presenting truth or facts but pandering for ratings and profits,  the Intercept reported that Les  Moonves, the CEO of CBS at a recent CBS investor presentation on CBS' bottom line cheered " Go Donald. Keep getting out there !"

He wasn't  supporting Trump as a candidate just a gold mine.

Sanders landslides Clinton in 3 Democratic Straw Polls.

No doubt the headline is either going to come as a shock to many Democrats especially Clinton supporters or they arent going to believe it and write it off as something  invalid that can be just ignored.

Well, okay, if you want to.

But Democrats.com, a Democratic web site that's been around since 2003 as been conducting straw polls on Democratic candidates for president. It's not some fly by night political site and there is no ax to grind.

Unlike the polls that use a sample of 500 people, (Quinnipac) none of whom by the way can ever be verified as not being aardvarks much less actual voters, while clearly not scientific, the number of people casting votes in the Democrats.com straw poll are considerable. And the results no matter what you think of the validity of the polls, still come as a shock. To some. But not all. 

The national polls are just that --  national extrapolations based on small random samples from all over the country  with no way of knowing if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent, if they've ever voted at all, will vote or will vote in a Democratic primary.

It can be argued the same is true for the straw poll at Democrats. com. But what no one can argue against are the raw numbers which speak for themselves. Which seem to reflect, if not political science, passion.

The most recent Quinnipac  national poll shows Clinton beating Sanders 60-35 based on a sample of 550 people nationwide. The Democrats. com straw poll results are just about opposite. CNN which everyone knows are the most unreliable and rigged polls with the lowest standards in polling also have Clinton with an almost 2-1 lead. 

The results of the Democrats. com straw poll conducted between 10/3-10/9:

From  155,111 votes cast:

Bernie Sanders, 50% Clinton 21%, 17% either Clinton or Sanders. The rest was divided between Biden, O'Malley et al.

The second poll conducted 10/14-10/19:

From 91,082 votes cast:

Sanders 49%  Clinton 32% and 14% saying either.

In the third straw poll conducted 11/6-11/12:

From 126,121 votes cast:

Sanders 46% Clinton 32% with either getting 17%.

Even if unscientific and the possibility of some ballot stuffing ( though ballot stuffing could be just as possible for Clinton as Sanders) the numbers are still unexpected. Though possibly predictable because many of Clinton's recent positions have seemed to have a new found loyalty to Obama's failed presidency and may be the result of the Clinton campaign making a serious political miscalculation.

The landslide numbers for Sanders over Clinton in the straw polls may have deep roots.

Clinton seems to have changed her views recently to be more in keeping with Obama and has been praising what most Democrats know is a failed presidency. It could be a calculated political decision thinking that praising Obama and not just defending but embracing his presidency is going to go over well with most mainstream Democratic voters. Its not.

 The Clinton camp seems to be totally oblivious to a lot of  palpable disgust most Democrats --  Democrats in congress and Democratic voters feel towards Obama. And for very good reasons.

Obama's sell out of healthcare reform to the insurance companies by agreeing to drop the public option which became known as Obamacare is something Clinton has been enthusiastically embracing. Democratic voters do not.  And it's singularly responsible for Democrats getting wiped out of the House in 2010 ( as I predicted it would months before the 2010 election if the public option was dropped) and again in the senate in 2014 which I also predicted. Obamacare has been a total failure in helping the people healthcare reform was supposed to help the most - the 35 -40 million uninsured, 97% of whom are still uninsured 2 years into Obamacare because they can't afford the insane premiums of even the cheapest policies.  Which is what happens when you let the insurance companies write the bill. Which Obama did. 

It's probably safe to assume the vast majority of the 35 million who are still uninsured and who will now face stiff financial penalties for not buying the junk forced on them by Obamacare are Democratic voters. 

Obamacare has also been a complete failure at the second thing healthcare reform was supposed to do - lower the obscene cost of healthcare and insurance for people who have it . Instead premiums and healthcare costs keep rising thanks to Obama's dropping of the public option. 

Sanders is campaigning on replacing Obamacare with a Medicare for all type program. 

On Wall Street,  8 figure a year bank executives who admitted to criminal fraud which caused the financial crisis were allowed by the Obama administration to buy their way out of prison by agreeing to record fines that didn't even require them to use their own money -- in other words Wall Street criminals -- real criminals not rhetorical criminals were allowed to get off scott free.  And that isnt going over well with Democratic voters either. That is in contrast to Sanders  constant attacks on Wall Street.

And then  there is Obama's terrible judgement with Isis and his failed foreign policies and now his grudging acknowledgement that its going to take U.S. ground forces (with other countries) to defeat Isis so is starting to deploy them in dribs and drabs. There was Clinton's own statement after the Paris attacks supporting Obama's now defunct Isis policy of not sending ground troops when she said "It's not our fight". Which didn't sound too good to begin with and is even worse after San Bernadino. And Clinton's staunch defense of Obama policy of never sending U.S. ground troops to destroy Isis has not only been undercut by Obama's decision to send commandos and special forces but almost 60% of Americans now support the use of U.S. ground troops to destroy Isis. 

Praising or supporting Obama's weak, tepid, disengaged  and failed foreign policy from the Ukraine to Syria and Isis  and the failing Iran deal doesn't figure to win many votes outside of Daily Kos. 

Yet Clinton has embraced all of it and almost incredulously said Obama doesn't get enough credit for the economy improving.

Clinton's embrace of Obama policies, if that's how she really feels is misguided and out of step with mainstream Democrats.  Her positions on Isis, Edward Snowden, Obamacare, the economy, and foreign policy all are embracing failed Obama policies  which doesn't seem to acknowledge them as failures and instead look politically calculated.

The term "Democratic strategist" since 2000 has been an oxymoron and if Clinton is taking bad political advice to embrace Obama and not run from him because she thinks she has to appeal to Obama supporters it will play right into Republican hands of trying to portray her as a third Obama term which, whether she realizes it or not, or likes it or not, nobody wants. Nobody. And that includes the majority of Democrats. 

Which may very well explain Sanders swamping her in the straw poll at Democrats.com.