Category Archives: ALPHA

Why Are Minneapolis and St. Paul So Nice? Maybe It’s the Parks

The Trust for Public Land ranked 100 urban parks systems around the country, from Minneapolis to Fort Wayne, Ind. Originally posted here:  Why Are Minneapolis and St. Paul So Nice? Maybe It’s the Parks ; ; ;

View original post here:

Why Are Minneapolis and St. Paul So Nice? Maybe It’s the Parks

Posted in ALPHA, eco-friendly, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, Oster, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Are Minneapolis and St. Paul So Nice? Maybe It’s the Parks

Tornado Storms Through Kansas

At least one tornado touched down in central Kansas on Wednesday as severe weather swept through the area. Source:  Tornado Storms Through Kansas ; ; ;

See the original article here: 

Tornado Storms Through Kansas

Posted in ALPHA, eco-friendly, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Monterey, ONA, Oster, Safer, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tornado Storms Through Kansas

Coal workers get screwed, their bosses get bonuses

Coal workers get screwed, their bosses get bonuses

By on May 17, 2016Share

report released Tuesday by the consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen documents how executives at coal companies keep getting sky-high compensation packages, even while they maneuver to avoid paying for miners’ health care packages.

For example, Alpha Natural Resources CEO Kevin Crutchfield’s total annual compensation increased by more than $1.5 million between 2012 and 2014, just before the company laid off 4,000 workers, closed all but 50 mines, and filed for bankruptcy. Meanwhile, Alpha increased lobbying spending by 190 percent during the fourth quarter of 2015 while simultaneously petitioning the bankruptcy court to allow it to break contracts with the United Mine Workers in order to cut retiree health care packages.

Two other recently bankrupt coal giants have similar stories: The salary of Arch Coal’s CEO increased from $3.9 million in 2012 to more than $7.3 million in 2014. The company went bankrupt and laid off 230 workers in 2016. Its top executives even received $8 million in bonuses just three days before the filing. It happened again with the CEO of Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private coal company. Gregory Boyce saw a salary increase from about $9.4 million in 2012 to $11 million in 2014, the same year the company wanted out from its collective bargaining agreement with the United Mine Workers of America, which provided health coverage for retired mine workers.

Coal executives have been notoriously difficult to punish, famously overpaid even in tough financial times, and historically prone to shifting the bankruptcy burden to workers. They get the rewards, while workers who face the dangers of the job only get screwed once more when the company goes bankrupt.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

View article:  

Coal workers get screwed, their bosses get bonuses

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Coal workers get screwed, their bosses get bonuses

Silicon Valley Not Really Feeling the Bern

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Based on donor data, Brian Fung says that Bernie Sanders has a lot of fans in the dotcom biz:

This wouldn’t be worth mentioning except for the fact that Sanders appears to have a broad-based appeal among Silicon Valley workers compared with his rivals. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sanders’s campaign committee seems to be by far the biggest recipient of donations from employees of Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Apple, Microsoft, Amazon.com and Intel.

….This sets up a few possibilities. It’s conceivable, for instance, that Clinton’s support among tech companies is actually higher than what we can observe from her list….Another possibility is that tech-industry folks are donating to Clinton but in amounts too small to break into the lists we’re looking at….What we can say is that Sanders appears to have much more support than Clinton across a wider range of tech companies, even if the amount of that financial support is relatively small.

Nah. Google employees are split nearly evenly between Bernie and Hillary, and employees of the other four companies probably are too. We just can’t see them because their totals fall below the top 20 in Hillary’s donor list. But why guess about this? All we have to do is look at the overall industry numbers. Here they are:

Compared to overall fundraising, this represents a bigger tilt toward Hillary than average. And despite the size of this sector, it represents a dismal 0.43 percent of Hillary’s total campaign donations and 0.36 percent of Bernie’s. So we can draw the following conclusions:

Hillary has broader support in the internet sector than Bernie.
Hillary gets a bigger percentage of her donations from the internet sector.
Silicon Valley is full of cheapskates who don’t care much about politics.

So there you have it.

Read original article – 

Silicon Valley Not Really Feeling the Bern

Posted in ALPHA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Silicon Valley Not Really Feeling the Bern

Is It Finally Time For a UBI?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

UBI is having a moment. Not a big moment, mind you, but a moment nonetheless. Why?

UBI stands for Universal Basic Income, and it’s just what it sounds like. It guarantees everyone, rich and poor alike, a certain minimum cash income and replaces the alphabet soup of current welfare programs. No more food stamps. No more Section 8. No more unemployment compensation.

On the right, UBI got a boost a few years ago from Charles Murray, who championed the idea in his book In Our Hands: A Plan To Replace The Welfare State. On the left, the rise of Bernie Sanders has given it a bit of new momentum, even though it’s not part of Bernie’s campaign platform. It’s also gotten some attention thanks to planned experiments in Finland and the Netherlands, and a referendum for a national UBI in Switzerland this summer. On his Freakonomics podcast last week, Stephen Dubner suggests it’s “an idea whose time finally may have come.”

So what are the pros and cons? Here’s a quick, extremely non-exhaustive rundown.

THE GOOD

#1: A UBI eliminates bad work incentives.

There’s a problem inherent with all means-tested welfare benefits: they phase out as you make more money. Suppose you make $15,000 per year, and above that point you lose 50 cents of welfare benefits for every dollar you earn. This means that working more hours or taking a more challenging job doesn’t pay much. On net, a raise of $5,000 per year only gets you $2,500 of actual compensation. This reduces the incentive to work harder in order to escape poverty. But a UBI is different: Since you continue to receive a UBI no matter what your income, it has no effect on work incentives.

#2: A UBI reduces admin costs.

Means-tested programs all have to be administered, and that costs money. A UBI reclaims nearly all of that. The government just sends out a monthly check to every citizen, and that’s it. Admin costs are minuscule.

#3: A UBI allows the poor to live freer lives.

Poor people no longer have to endure a demanding gauntlet of welfare offices and complicated forms. They don’t have to prove their income is low, or that they have kids, or that they’re actively looking for work. Nor do they have to accept only the specific forms of welfare the government feels like giving them. They just get a check every month, and they can spend it as they please.

THE BAD

#1: It costs a fortune.

A reasonable UBI would probably amount to about $10,000 per year, which works out to a total cost of $3.2 trillion. Of course, we’d also eliminate lots of welfare payments, so the net cost would be less than that. But even accounting for that, it would probably require the federal income tax to be doubled or tripled. That’s a pretty tough sell.

#2: It can’t replace everything.

You can—barely—live on $10,000 per year. But that won’t pay for health care. It won’t pay for public schools for our kids. We’ll still have to keep some welfare programs around even with a UBI. On the plus side, as long as these programs are universal, they generally retain the benefits of a UBI: low admin costs and no bad work incentives.

#3: What about children?

This is tricky. Option A is to simply include them like everyone else. But this provides a substantial incentive to have children in order to get their UBI, and that’s not something most voters are likely to accept. Option B is to give children a smaller UBI than adults. But would that be enough to provide for them properly? Nobody wants kids to suffer because their parents are poor. How do you ensure that?

#4: What about the elderly?

Should retirees be folded into the UBI? If so, their pensions would be quite a bit lower than they are now. If not, we’d basically be guaranteeing a higher UBI for old people than for young people. Would that seem fair to most people?

#5: Money is a sadly vulnerable commodity.

It’s an unfortunate but painful truth that poor people are often vulnerable to having cash taken away from them. It can be stolen, of course, but more likely it’s simply confiscated by someone they’re living with. This is obviously a problem with earnings of all kinds, but one advantage of existing welfare programs is that it provides a minimum floor to this. A drunk and abusive husband can’t take away your Section 8 voucher or your food stamps or your Medicaid in order to blow it on beer and smokes.

This is just the briefest outline. And it may be that in the near future we no longer have much choice about this anyway. As robots take away more and more jobs, a UBI may be the only realistic answer to a nation full of robots that can replace low-skill workers at almost no cost. If we get to a point where a substantial number of people flatly don’t have the skills to perform any job for any wage, what are we going to do? The most likely answer is that we’ll end up with a UBI whether we like it or not. And that makes it worth thinking about right now.

See original article: 

Is It Finally Time For a UBI?

Posted in ALPHA, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is It Finally Time For a UBI?

How to make coal companies pay to clean up their messes

How to make coal companies pay to clean up their messes

By on 6 Apr 2016commentsShare

Peabody Energy, the world’s largest private-sector coal company, is not in great financial shape. Last month, it casually skipped a $71 million interest payment, and analysts are speculating that it may be edging toward bankruptcy. Standard and Poor’s recently downgraded Peabody’s credit rating to a “D.” The company has $6.3 billion in outstanding long-term debt.

If you’re cheering for the death of coal, that might sound like good news. But there’s a nasty catch: Peabody’s financial troubles mean it might not be able to pay to clean up its messes, and restoring landscapes and repairing streams and rivers can be expensive. The company has “self-bonded” to pay up to $1.4 billion in reclamation costs at its mines in the United States — and self-bonding means we’re trusting it to do so.

While coal companies usually offer up collateral or contract out in order to guarantee that cleanup will be paid for, it has become common in recent years for companies to simply pledge that they’re going to deal with the costs. These self-bonds (as opposed to, say, surety bonds, which rely on third-party insurers) only rely on the name and financial stability of the company itself. In other words, they’re basically billion-dollar IOUs, written on fancy letterhead instead of Post-it notes.

At this point, you’re probably wondering why a demonstrably financially unstable company is able to get away with just promising to pay $1.4 billion in cleanup costs. That’s because the federal government and many states have loose rules that allow self-bonding instead of a more reliable mechanism to ensure that reclamation is paid for. And even troubled companies like Peabody can often meet requirements for self-bonding by applying through subsidiaries that look fine on paper.

“These rules were created in a different era, when nobody thought that coal companies could go out of business,” Clark Williams-Derry, director of energy finance at the Sightline Institute, told Grist. With Arch Coal and Alpha Natural Resources both having recently filed for bankruptcy, that era is clearly behind us. “The only solution at this point is to recognize that self-bonding has completely failed, and that the only way forward is to completely change the rules.”

State mining authorities could change those rules and instead require companies to post surety bonds or set aside cleanup cash in an escrow account. Or they could continue to allow self-bonding, but not through 100-percent-owned subsidiaries. Some states already don’t allow self-bonding at all, like Kentucky, Maryland, and Montana, according to a survey conducted by the Interstate Mining Compact Commission.

The federal government could help too by updating its rules. Right now it allows self-bonding if a coal company is “financially healthy,” but that definition is riddled with loopholes.

Credit ratings firm Fitch argues that Peabody’s recently announced risk of defaulting on its debts could prompt regulators to change their rules. “Citizen complaints, scrutiny from the attorney general of Illinois and congressional calls for investigation follow a record number of financial defaults in the U.S. coal sector foreshadowing even tighter self-bonding rules,” wrote the firm in a press release. With many coal companies on their last legs and taxpayers ultimately on the line, here’s hoping Fitch is right.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading: 

How to make coal companies pay to clean up their messes

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How to make coal companies pay to clean up their messes

Even Saudi Arabia doesn’t want to be dependent on oil any more

Even Saudi Arabia doesn’t want to be dependent on oil any more

By on 1 Apr 2016commentsShare

If you thought the world’s biggest company was Apple or Alphabet, you were off by a factor of two to twenty. Saudi Aramco, Saudi Arabia’s state-owned oil and gas company, is worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 trillion to $10 trillion — a megalith next to Apple’s $650 billion valuation. And Saudi Arabia, recognizing the end of an era for oil, is looking to sell it off.

In an interview with Bloomberg, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman confirmed a January rumor that Saudi Arabia would begin to open up foreign investment in Aramco as early as next year and establish a gigantic sovereign wealth fund with the new cash. The fund, called the Public Investment Fund (PIF), could eventually control something on the order of $2 trillion in total assets. The primary goal of the PIF is to move Saudi Arabia beyond its dependence on oil as its only economic driver.

“What is left now is to diversify investments,” bin Salman told Bloomberg. “So within 20 years, we will be an economy or state that doesn’t depend mainly on oil.” Aside from reeling in some much-needed cash to the Kingdom, bringing Aramco to public markets is also a sign that Saudi Arabia may be open to reform, both politically and economically. Floating shares of Aramco on international markets will also require clearer reporting standards and greater transparency for the notoriously secretive company.

The Kingdom has been hit hard by the global fall in oil prices and has already spent billions of savings to keep its economy running. With oil prices hovering around $40 a barrel and only sluggish growth in prices in sight, the Saudi story looks a lot like a microcosm (albeit a comically large microcosm) of the argument that an investment strategy focused on fossil fuels simply does not make sense anymore — at least not in the long run. Banks and pension funds in the U.S. and the U.K. have been needled for the losses they’ve incurred due to continued investment in the fossil sector.

So who’s expected to invest in a massive oil conglomerate in 2017? Aramco is not by any means an unprofitable company, and it does a whole hell of a lot more than drill for oil: It has its fingers dipped in just about every segment of the energy sector, in addition to swathes of the chemical and healthcare sectors. Still, oil is its core business, and it’s looking like that business might not be a good long-term play, especially in an undiversified portfolio. If the international community gets more aggressive about climate policy and moves toward a “keep it in the ground” approach to fossil fuels, an investment in an oil giant could wind up unprofitable and unsellable: stranded.

So while Aramco’s IPO will surely find interested parties, they’ll likely be investors looking for short-term gains and ones with portfolios that are already fairly diverse — otherwise the risk calculation really wouldn’t make any sense. The smart long-term move will not be betting on dirty energy.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

From:  

Even Saudi Arabia doesn’t want to be dependent on oil any more

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Crown, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Even Saudi Arabia doesn’t want to be dependent on oil any more

Coal company paid its execs $8 million in bonuses just before filing for bankruptcy

Coal company paid its execs $8 million in bonuses just before filing for bankruptcy

By on 18 Mar 2016commentsShare

Arch Coal, the second largest coal company in the U.S., filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in January in an effort to reduce its debt, currently valued at $5.2 billion. Three days before, according to bankruptcy filings, Arch awarded company executives with $8 million in bonuses.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Arch executives and directors collected $29.17 million in wages, benefits, bonuses, director fees and other payments between January 2015 and this past January, according to papers filed this week in the St. Louis bankruptcy court. The payments included $8.12 million in bonuses paid out to seven executives on Jan. 8. Some $2.78 million of that amount went to Chairman and Chief Executive John Eaves. Arch sought chapter 11 protection on Jan. 11.

An Arch spokeswoman declined to comment.

However, a person familiar with the payments said the bonuses were awarded under longstanding, companywide incentive plans that had been approved by Arch’s board of directors. Some of the bonuses were earned over 2015, while the remainder was paid based on the company’s performance over a three-year period ended 2015.

Since 2012, Arch has laid off 3,000 employees.

While this may seem like an act of corporate malfeasance to anyone who is not an coal exec, Arch is hardly the only fossil fuel company to lavishly award the bosses even as the business founders. In 2014, Alpha Natural Resources, the third largest coal company in the U.S., was required to pay a $27.5 million fine for water pollution and spend $200 million cleaning up facilities. Soon after, amid tumbling stock prices, the CEO and president of Alpha were each given $2 million bonuses. The next year, Alpha filed for bankruptcy.

Clearly, the coal industry is in trouble. Prices are down, companies are going bust, banks are pulling their support, and workers are losing their jobs. But even as Big Coal dying, its CEOs are doing just fine.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading here – 

Coal company paid its execs $8 million in bonuses just before filing for bankruptcy

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Coal company paid its execs $8 million in bonuses just before filing for bankruptcy

Now Even Tofurky Has a Lobbyist

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

When the giant companies that dominate US meat, dairy, and egg production want something in Washington, they lean on armies of lobbyists, which are financed by flush trade groups like the North American Meat Institute, the National Pork Producers Coalition, the National Chicken Council, and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. But who speaks up for seitan chops on the Hill?

Until recently, essentially no one, says longtime food industry critic and researcher Michele Simon. And so she has launched the Plant Based Foods Association, which exists to “ensure a fair and competitive marketplace for businesses selling plant-based foods intended to replace animal products such as meats, dairy, and eggs.” The brand-new trade group already has a part-time lobbyist, the longtime vegan and organic-food advocate Elizabeth Kucinich, wife of former US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio).

Simon, a committed vegan, told me two factors inspired her to organize the group: a recent spate of alt-protein companies coming on the scene, and the struggle they face “just to name their products.”

California upstart Hampton Creek, for example, had to fend off challenges from processed-food giant Unilever (the maker of Hellmann’s mayonnaise), the American Egg Board, and the US Food and Drug Administration to call its eggless mayo product “Just Mayo,” she noted. She also cited the case of another California company, Miyoko’s Kitchen, which was ordered by the California Department of Food and Agriculture to market its products not as nut-based cheese, but rather as “cultured nut product.”

“Doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue,” Simon says. “It’s ridiculous.”

After years studying Big Meat trade groups and how they operate, she learned how effective they are, not just at shaping public policy to “promote more harmful foods,” she says, but also at communicating with consumers, serving as a go-to source for reporters, and nudging retailers on how to market their products. And so the Plant Based Foods Association aims to conduct those services and develop a “collective voice” for companies that offer animal-free meat, dairy, and egg alternatives.

Now, in our age, enormous food companies don’t respond to new threats to their market share just with lawsuits and appeals to federal overseers like the FDA, as Unilever did with Hampton Creek. They also respond by imitation and acquisition—they have the deep pockets needed to launch new products or just buy the companies that make them. Indeed, just last month, Unilever rolled out its own eggless mayo-like spread.

So what’s to stop big-food conglomerates like Unilever from taking over the Plant Based Food Association and using it to their ends? Right now, the PBFA’s membership list consists of companies that deal solely in vegetarian products, from nut-milk upstarts Califia and Malk to lesser-known firms like Tofuna Fysh. (Vegan tuna salad, anyone?) Simon said any purveyor of vegetable-based protein products, including Unilever, is welcome to join the trade group, but the bylaws state that a majority of its board of directors will represent pure-play vegetarian companies.

I’ve long been ambivalent about elaborately processed plant-based meat, dairy, and egg substitutes. I’ve puzzled over why people looking to eat less animal product just can’t just gravitate to deliciously cooked beans and grains, and even called for a falafel revolution as an alternative to soy and pea protein tweaked in a factory to taste a lot like chicken. Why do we need prepackaged vegan tuna salad?

Simon responded that she herself eats mainly whole vegan foods (she mentioned quinoa and kale), and that she’d “love it if everyone just adopted my way of eating.” Meanwhile, though, animal products loom large in most Americans’ diets, and the “environmental destruction from industrialized animal production” continues piling up, she said. (Here‘s the eminent ecologist Vaclav Smill on industrial meat’s footprint.) “We need every tool in the toolbox,” and conveniently packaged, high-protein vegan products play a crucial role in the effort to convince people to eat less meat, she said.

In other words: Quit being such a food snob, Philpott.

Visit link:  

Now Even Tofurky Has a Lobbyist

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Bragg, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Oster, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Now Even Tofurky Has a Lobbyist

How Hillary Clinton Found Religion in South Carolina

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Hillary Clinton couldn’t beat Barack Obama in South Carolina, so she did the next best thing. She worked for him.

The networks declared Clinton the winner of Saturday’s South Carolina primary as soon as the polls closed on Saturday night, handing the former secretary of state a crushing victory in a state that her opponent, Bernie Sanders, had tried hard to win over but then mostly ignored in the final week of the race. Eight years after her 29-point loss to Obama here signaled the beginning of the end of her campaign (even if she didn’t know it at the time), her victory over the Vermont senator was meant to make a broader statement about her opponent’s viability in states that aren’t solidly white.

Just days away from Super Tuesday, Clinton poured her resources into the South’s first primary state, dispatching her husband, Bill, back to the campaign trail. But her most powerful surrogates were the mothers of five African Americans who died in police custody or as a result of gun violence; they spoke to small groups at black churches in counties where Obama had run up some of his biggest margins. Clinton’s strategy was obvious: She won by doing everything she didn’t do the last time. Clinton wrapped herself in the legacy of the man who defeated her. She talked relentlessly about gun control and systemic racism. And she tried to ease voters’ lingering distrust by couching her message in deeply spiritual overtones here in the heart of the religious left. Hillary Clinton found religion in South Carolina, in the most literal sense.

Introducing the former first lady at a crowded black church in Florence on Thursday, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker mentioned “faith” 16 times in the final 90 seconds of his speech. Clinton picked up right where he left off. “I couldn’t help but think about the many, many hours of my life that I have spent in a church like this one,” she said.

“Somebody once asked me a long time ago when my husband was president if I was a praying person,” she added, drawing a murmur from the crowd. “I said, ‘Well, I am, but if you’ve ever lived in the White House you know you have to be—there’s just no alternative to it.'” That got some laughs.

“And I think our country right now needs faithfulness, doesn’t it?” said Clinton.

“Yes it does!” shouted an audience member.

The mothers’ stops at churches in Holly Hill and Sumter began with prayer and delved into biblical understandings of trial and grief. Lucia McBath, the mother of the slain Florida teen Jordan Davis, told one audience that “we’ve turned away from God, and that is the reason why we’re seeing what’s happening in this country.”

It was part of a pattern. A Clinton campaign ad airing in the state in the final week of the primary began with a lingering close-up shot of a church, as Morgan Freeman explains, “Her church taught her to do all the good you can for all the people you can, for as long as you can.” A radio ad featured a black pastor who recalled reading his Bible at a bakery when Clinton walked in. “She gently asked me what was I studying,” he said. “I said ‘1 Corinthians 13.’ And what happened next, I’ll never forget. She said, ‘Love is patient, love is kind,’ and went on to recite the rest of the verses by heart.”

You find the voters where they are, and you speak to them in the language they speak, and in South Carolina, it means you go to a lot of churches. It helped, though, that Clinton is a Methodist who can recite 1 Corinthians 13 from memory, while Bernie Sanders is Jewish and doesn’t like to talk about it. It wasn’t pernicious, but it was real. On Sunday, Sanders made an unannounced visit, accompanied by former NAACP president Ben Jealous, to the historic Brookland Baptist Church in West Columbia. He delivered a version of his stump speech and was greeted politely but unenthusiastically. Three days later, Clinton received a series of ovations at the same church while speaking to a luncheon of Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority sisters. She wanted to talk about second chances.

“At a CNN town hall, the poet laureate of South Carolina asked me about forgiveness,” Clinton said. “I don’t know if any of you were able to see it, but it may have been one of the more important questions I’ve been asked over the course of this campaign. What, she asked, could we do to try to promote the idea of forgiveness in our country? I told her I couldn’t have been standing there without having been forgiven and learning how to forgive over the course of my life.”

Clinton got some amens for that, but her biggest ovation, there and elsewhere, came when she talked about her good friend, President Barack Obama. Eight years ago, after Obama had won the overwhelming majority of African American voters in the state that she’d been counting on as a firewall, she shifted gears, making a protracted but doomed argument that her black opponent couldn’t win white working-class voters like she could.

This time around, Clinton is intimating that her opponent’s coalition is too white to win. She’s casting herself as the natural follow-up to the Obama administration, pledging to back him up 100 percent on whomever he nominates for the Supreme Court and to protect the Affordable Care Act against Republican attacks. “We all worked hard to elect President Barack Obama eight years ago,” an African American woman said in a radio ad paid for by Clinton’s super-PAC. “We need a president who will build on all that President Obama has done. President Obama trusted Hillary Clinton to be America’s secretary of state.” Voters seemed to buy that argument; the most common explanation I heard from Obama backers as to why they’d moved to Clinton was the fact that she’d worked with him.

Sanders’ campaign had worked for months to chip away at Clinton’s lead in the state by exploiting a generational divide, as he had done with great success in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. He courted young, activist-minded African American voters at the state’s historically black colleges, and in the final weeks he criticized his opponent’s past support for welfare reform and the 1994 crime bill. But he seemed to recognize the long odds.

At Sanders’ only South Carolina campaign rally of the week, a team of surrogates, including the rapper Killer Mike, told students at Claflin University, a historically black college, that Clinton had enabled a “genocide” of black youths and had told Black Lives Matter activists to “shut up.” Killer Mike reminded them about an incident on Wednesday at a Clinton fundraiser in Charleston, where Clinton backers chided a young African American woman who had asked the candidate about her past use of the racially charged term “super-predators.” When it was Sanders’ turn, he told them that the Clinton administration’s welfare reform efforts in the 1990s had doubled the number of Americans living in extreme poverty.

The voters Sanders was seeking were out there. Several I spoke with at Claflin brought up Sanders’ embrace of Black Lives Matter and his civil rights activism in the 1960s. Another was leaning toward Sanders because the black academic Cornel West had come to Orangeburg to campaign on his behalf. Everyone wanted to hear more about Sanders’ plan to make public universities free. There just weren’t enough of those voters. As Sanders and his surrogates talked down the Clinton record and railed against money in politics and mass incarceration, the floor at Claflin was half empty, and the handful of students in the bleachers looked like they were killing time before dinner.

One reason for the poor showing? There was another rally happening across campus, at neighboring South Carolina State University—for Hillary Clinton.

Visit source:  

How Hillary Clinton Found Religion in South Carolina

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Hillary Clinton Found Religion in South Carolina