Tag Archives: democratic

Democrats Have Wasted No Time Trolling Marco Rubio for His Debate Malfunction

Mother Jones

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

Following last night’s debate, when Marco Rubio seemed to experience a malfunction as he uttered the same line four times, Democratic activists were gleefully awaiting Florida’s junior senator this morning to say “Domo origato Marco Roboto!”

Dressed in cardboard and tinfoil robot costumes, two reps from Democratic super-PAC American Bridge greeted Rubio fans at his first rally of the day, a pancake breakfast in Londonderry, New Hampshire. The two Rubio-bots handed out broken gaskets and mechanically repeated barbs about Rubio’s repetition of the line, “Let’s dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing.” As Rubio sparred with Chris Christie during last night’s debate, the New Jersey governor finally called him out for reciting the same talking point. “There it is,” Christie bellowed. “The memorized 25-second speech.” By night’s end, the Rubio-as-robot-meme was born.

“We weren’t planning to do any stunts, but Chris Christie gave us a good idea,” said one of the bots, Kevin McAllister, deputy communications director for the super-PAC. “We could all see last night that Marco Roboto has lots of talking points but there’s not a lot of substance.”

Rubio’s staff eventually shooed the robots off, but as they left an angry Rubio fan stomped past with his own repetitious message: “Why don’t you do something positive? You’re a loser. A loser.”

Originally posted here:  

Democrats Have Wasted No Time Trolling Marco Rubio for His Debate Malfunction

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Democrats Have Wasted No Time Trolling Marco Rubio for His Debate Malfunction

The 7 Must-Watch Moments From the Democrats’ New Hampshire Debate

Mother Jones

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

Explosive would be an understatement. Sen. Bernie Sanders and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton didn’t waste any time in Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire before jumping into a heated exchange over whether Clinton is a true progressive—a subject that continued to emerge in various forms for most of an hour.

The stakes going into this debate were high, particularly for Clinton, with polls showing her far behind Sanders in the New Hampshire just four days before the first-in-the-nation primary. Clinton eked out a very narrow win in the Iowa caucuses on Monday, but underperformed her polling there, setting up what could be a long slog for the Democratic nomination.

The debate itself was the product of a dramatic back-and-forth between the two campaigns and the national Democratic Party over the number of debates scheduled. The tensions that went into scheduling it were evident in the fiery debate.

Here are the must-watch highlights:

Continue Reading »

This article: 

The 7 Must-Watch Moments From the Democrats’ New Hampshire Debate

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The 7 Must-Watch Moments From the Democrats’ New Hampshire Debate

We Are Live-Blogging the Democratic Debate in New Hampshire

Mother Jones

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

As debates go, this one was pretty good. The moderators generally did a good job, allowing the candidates to argue when it made sense, but ending things when it looked like there was nothing useful left to say. This is a lot easier with two people than ten, of course, and also easier when both candidates are relatively civil.

Hillary was more aggressive than I’ve seen her before. He complaint early on that Bernie was slandering her with innuendo and insinuation (and “artful smears”) was tough but, I think, also fair. And I have a feeling Bernie felt a little embarrassed by it. He was certainly careful to pull things back to a civil tone after that. Hillary is not a natural campaigner, but she’s a good debater, and this was Hillary at her pugnacious best.

Obviously foreign affairs are not Bernie’s strong point, but I was still a little surprised at just how poorly prepared he was to say much of anything or to draw much of a contrast with Hillary’s views. Either he really doesn’t know much, or else he thinks his dovish views are losers even among the Democratic base. I won’t pretend that Hillary was a genius on this stuff—almost nobody is on a debate stage—but at least she sounded well briefed and confident.

On financial issues, Bernie was surprisingly weak. This really is his strong point, but he continues to have a hard time getting much beyond platitudes. I get that it’s a debate and 90 seconds isn’t much, but it’s still enough time for a little more detail than “the system is rigged.” Hillary didn’t do much better, but she held her own and gave a strong response to the two (!) questions about her Goldman Sachs speeches.

Overall, I doubt this debate changed many minds. Bernie insisted that we can dream. Hillary insisted that we figure out what’s doable. I’d score it a clear win for Hillary based on her aggressiveness and generally solid answers compared to Bernie’s platitudes and obvious reluctance to attack hard. But I admit this might just be my own biases talking, since Hillary’s approach to politics is closer to mine than Bernie’s.

Debate transcript here.


11:06 – And that’s a wrap.

11:04 – Hillary: We need to “come up with the best answers.” That’s her campaign in a nutshell.

11:02 – No, neither Hillary nor Bernie will pick the other as VP. Come on, Chuck.

10:58 – But Bernie will happily get suckered! It’s campaign finance reform for him.

10:55 – Hillary isn’t going to be suckered into setting a top priority, thus throwing all the others under the bus. Come on, Chuck.

10:47 – I thought this was a 90-minute debate. What’s the deal?

10:44 – Regarding Flint, I will not be happy until either Hillary or Bernie mentions that we now know lead poisoning leads to higher crime rates, “as brilliantly set out in an article by Kevin Drum a couple of years ago.” I will vote for whoever says this first.

10:42 – Bernie on the death penalty: In a violent world, “government should not be part of the killing.” I have to admit I’ve never really understood this particular bit of reasoning.

10:31 – Ah. Hillary now gets to use Colin Powell as backup for her email problems.

10:29 – Hillary is thrilled about all the young people supporting Bernie. OK then.

10:25 – Bernie loves the caucus process? Seriously?

10:17 – Bernie: “Pathetic” that Republicans refused to support VA reform.

10:12 – I hate to say this, but Bernie on North Korea sounds about as well briefed as Donald Trump. Very strange situation. Handful of dictators—or, um, maybe just one. Gotta put pressure on China. “I worry very much about an isolated, paranoid country with atomic bombs.”

10:10 – Bernie does himself no favors on national security. I’m closer to his position than Hillary’s, but Bernie honestly sounds like he’s never given this stuff a moment’s thought. At least Hillary has some views and sounds confident in her abilities.

10:08 – Bernie wagging his finger again. I’m pretty sure the hosts will call on him regardless.

10:06 – Bernie really needs to have a foreign policy other than “I voted against the Iraq War.”

10:05 – Why is there bipartisan loathing of being “the policeman of the world”? What does this even mean?

10:03 – Hillary: we have a very cooperative government in Afghanistan. You bet. Wildly incompetent and corrupt, but pliable.

10:01 – Everyone agrees that a Muslim civil war is the right way to handle the Middle East.

9:59 – Hillary frequently insists on responding even when Bernie hasn’t really left a mark. Leave well enough alone!

9:58 – Hillary provides Shermanesque answer about not sending ground troops to Iraq or Syria.

9:46 – Oh FFS. Is “Release the transcripts!” going to be the next big Hillary “scandal”?

9:44 – Unfortunately, Hillary doesn’t really explain her more complicated financial regulation plan very well. There’s probably no help for that, especially in 90 seconds.

9:42 – I’m with Hillary on reinstating Glass-Steagall. To me, it’s the Democratic equivalent of raising the retirement age to save Social Security: easy to understand, but not the best answer by a long way.

9:41 – Hillary defends her Goldman Sachs speeches competently, but Bernie doesn’t really fight back. He just provides a generic answer about the pernicious power of Wall Street.

9:31 – Hillary is attacking very hard tonight. Bernie voted to deregulate derivatives! Not that there’s anything wrong with that. You think she’s played this game before? Bernie responds by telling people to look up a YouTube.

9:29 – Bernie answers with generic criticism of special interests and money in politics. Not a strong response.

9:27 – Hillary criticizes Bernie for claiming to run a positive campaign, but constantly attacking her “by innuendo, by insinuation.” Then she asks him to stop the “artful smear” he’s been carrying out against her. This is a tough hit on Bernie.

9:26 – Hillary: “I won’t make big promises.” Not sure that came out as well as it should have.

9:23 – I think Hillary missed a chance to say that of course Bernie is a Democrat and he shouldn’t have to defend himself on that score. It would have been a nice moment for her with no downside.

9:19 – Hillary refers to Bernie as “self-appointed gatekeeper” of who’s a progressive. Ouch.

9:17 – Bernie: Obama was a progressive by 2008 standards.

9:15 – Bernie: none of his ideas are radical. True enough, by non-American standards.

9:14 – Good answer from Hillary on whether she’s progressive enough: Under Bernie’s standards, no one in the party is truly progressive.

9:07 – Hillary: “The numbers just don’t add up” for all of Bernie’s proposals.

9:01 – I see that Rachel Maddow is as excited as I am that Martin O’Malley has dropped out.

9:00 – And with that, on with the debate!

8:58 – This is the second election cycle in which I’ve liked both of the Democratic frontrunners. In 2008 I ended up leaning for Obama, which I don’t regret. This year I’m leaning toward Hillary. Both times, however, I’ve been surprised at how fast things turned ugly. But ugly they’ve turned.

8:53 – Last night on Twitter I said that Hillary Clinton had given a terrible answer to the Goldman Sachs speech question. I was immediately besieged with outraged comments about how I was just another Beltway shill who’s always hated Hillary. This morning I wrote that Bernie Sanders was disingenuously pretending not to criticize Clinton over her Wall Street contributions even though he obviously was. I was immediately besieged with outraged comments about how I was just another Beltway shill who’s always been in the bag for Hillary. Welcome to the Democratic primaries.

Taken from: 

We Are Live-Blogging the Democratic Debate in New Hampshire

Posted in alo, American Standard, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Are Live-Blogging the Democratic Debate in New Hampshire

That Time Bernie Sanders Said He Was a Bigger Feminist Than His Female Opponent

Mother Jones

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

A few days before the 1986 Vermont gubernatorial election, Bernie Sanders held a rally in downtown Burlington. Sanders, then the independent mayor of the state’s largest city, was trailing badly in a three-way race with Democratic Gov. Madeleine Kunin, the state’s first female chief executive, and Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Smith, and he was running out of time.

So, as Kunin recounts in her 1994 memoir, Living a Political Life, Sanders leveled a tough attack against her. At that rally, Kunin wrote, Sanders declared that “he would be a better feminist than I.” According to her account, Sanders shouted that Kunin had “done nothing for women.” And, she recalled in her book, “When my husband, there as my surrogate (I was scheduled to speak elsewhere), rose to speak in my defense, he was booed by the crowd. Arthur’s red-faced anger became the children’s horror story of the campaign, which they embellished in the retelling—our private macabre joke.” Kunin was already coming under attack from the right for her vocal support of the Equal Rights Amendment; now she was being hammered for not being feminist enough.

Continue Reading »

Original source: 

That Time Bernie Sanders Said He Was a Bigger Feminist Than His Female Opponent

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on That Time Bernie Sanders Said He Was a Bigger Feminist Than His Female Opponent

Ted! Ted! Ted!

Mother Jones

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

Here are tonight’s big messages as we all fondly say “Goodbye, Iowa”:

Ted Cruz: I will have the shortest name of any president in history.
Marco Rubio: Benghazi!
Donald Trump: Finishing in the top ten is a great victory.
Jeb Bush: I have a short name too. And hey, I beat Carly.
Republican Party: We count votes a lot more efficiently than those loser Democrats.
Hillary Clinton: A win is a win. Let’s get out of here.
Bernie Sanders: Hmmm. Maybe we’re not that tired of Hillary’s emails after all.
Democratic Party: We may be slow, but we make up for it with a stereotypically cumbersome and complex voting process.

Iowa is historically so unpredictive of anything that I honestly didn’t have a lot of interest in tonight’s results. I was mainly curious about how Donald Trump would somehow spin his second place finish as a victory. The answer, it turned out, was to drone on about how “they” told him to skip Iowa because he wouldn’t even break the top ten. I assume this is the same “they” who repeatedly told Marco Rubio that he was too much of a schmuck to win. Whoever “they” are, they’ve been busy.

And now on to New Hampshire, a state inexplicably in love with Donald Trump. What’s that all about, anyway?

Read original article:

Ted! Ted! Ted!

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ted! Ted! Ted!

Sanders Talks Up His Small Game on the Eve of His First Big Test

Mother Jones

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

For a presidential candidate aiming to come away with a big upset in Monday’s Iowa caucuses, Bernie Sanders closed out his final night before the the first votes are cast by wholeheartedly embracing his small-ball approach to campaigning. His final Iowa rally, to a crowd of 1,700 at Grand View University in Des Moines on Sunday, was introduced by a string of not-quite-A-list actors and musicians: Richmond Arquette (apparently there are as many Arquettes as Baldwins), Connor Paolo (Serena’s obnoxious younger brother on Gossip Girl), Josh Hutcherson (Peeta in The Hunger Games), and Foster the People.

The crowd played along, but didn’t really perk up until Sanders himself showed up. The senator from Vermont rolled through a 50-minute stump speech tackling the full range of his usual points—Walmart should pay a fair wage, health care should be run by the government, banks should have to pay for free public colleges—but took a little time early in his spiel to boast about how much less money he raised from big outside donors than his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

“My opponent yesterday announced that she had received some $45 million for her super-PAC,” Sanders said. “We announced that we zero dollars for our super-PAC.” (He didn’t mention the money that unions have spent on his campaign.) He continued, “We announced that we have received throughout this campaign—and this is so unbelievable, never in a million years would I have thought it possible—that we have received up to now 3.2 million individual contributions. That is more contributions than any candidate up to this point of a campaign in the history of the United States of America.”

Small ball does often win big games. Monday will reveal whether it’s sufficient to give Sanders the first big win of the race to the Democratic nomination.

View original article: 

Sanders Talks Up His Small Game on the Eve of His First Big Test

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sanders Talks Up His Small Game on the Eve of His First Big Test

Hey, Have You Heard About the Top Secret US Drone Program?

Mother Jones

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

Via the AP, here’s the latest on Hillary Clinton’s email woes:

The Obama administration confirmed for the first time Friday that Hillary Clinton’s unsecured home server contained some of the U.S. government’s most closely guarded secrets, censoring 22 emails with material demanding one of the highest levels of classification….The 37 pages include messages recently described by a key intelligence official as concerning so-called “special access programs” — a highly restricted subset of classified material that could point to confidential sources or clandestine programs like drone strikes or government eavesdropping.

Special access programs are the most secret of all secrets, so this sounds bad. But wait. What’s this business about drone strikes? That’s not much of a secret, is it? Maybe you need a refresher on all this, so let’s rewind the Wayback Machine to last August, when we first heard about top secret emails on Clinton’s server that turned out to be about drone strikes:

The drone exchange, the officials said, begins with a copy of a news article about the CIA drone program that targets terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere. While that program is technically top secret, it is well-known and often reported on….The copy makes reference to classified information, and a Clinton adviser follows up by dancing around a top secret in a way that could possibly be inferred as confirmation, the officials said.

Hmmm. A news article? Here’s a Politico piece from a couple of weeks ago, when we heard that the inspector general’s office was concerned about some of Clinton’s emails. Politico’s source is a “US official”:

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said some or all of the emails deemed to implicate “special access programs” related to U.S. drone strikes….The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added….The source noted that the intelligence community considers information about classified operations to be classified even if it appears in news reports or is apparent to eyewitnesses on the ground.

OK then: the emails in question discuss a news article containing information that’s widely-known but nonetheless top secret because…um, why not? Here’s more from the Ken Dilanian, formerly of the AP and now with NBC News:

The classified material included in the latest batch of Hillary Clinton emails flagged by an internal watchdog involved discussions of CIA drone strikes, which are among the worst kept secrets in Washington, senior U.S. officials briefed on the matter tell NBC News. The officials say the emails included relatively “innocuous” conversations by State Department officials about the CIA drone program.

So what do you suppose the “closely guarded secrets” in the latest batch of 22 emails are? Drones? That’s a pretty good guess. Most likely, this all started with someone sending around a news article about the drone program in Pakistan or Yemen, and then several other people chiming in. It wasn’t classified at the time, and most likely contains nothing even remotely sensitive—but the CIA now insists on classifying it retroactively. That’s why Clinton’s spokesperson calls this “classification run amok” and says, once again, that they’ll seek to have all these emails released to the public.

Of course, this could just be a clever ruse on Clinton’s part, because she knows the emails will never see the light of day. But there are other people who have seen the emails. How have they reacted? Well, nobody on the Republican side has leaked or even “characterized” any of them, and nobody on the Democratic side has withdrawn their endorsement of Clinton. This suggests pretty strongly that this whole thing is, indeed, just a stupid bit of interagency squabbling.

Excerpt from: 

Hey, Have You Heard About the Top Secret US Drone Program?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hey, Have You Heard About the Top Secret US Drone Program?

What Flint’s Dirty Water and Detroit’s Angry Teachers Have in Common

Mother Jones

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

Michigan is having a rough year, to put it mildly. Flint is reeling from the news that its water supply was contaminated with lead for 17 months. In Detroit, teacher “sick-outs” have been shutting down schools; 88 of the city’s 104 schools were closed on January 21. These two seemingly unrelated episodes are joined by a common policy: Both Detroit’s school system and Flint’s water system have been under the control of emergency managers, unelected officials who are empowered to make sweeping decisions and override local policies in the name of balancing budgets.

What’s an emergency manager? Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder was elected in 2010 on a platform of fiscal austerity. Snyder, the former head of Gateway computers and a darling of the American Legislative Exchange Council and the Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity, promised to run the state like a company, complete with “outcomes” and “deliverables.” In 2011, he introduced a signature piece of legislation, Public Act 4, which expanded the state’s authority to take over financially troubled cities and school districts. Similar laws exist in about 20 states, but Michigan’s is the most expansive: Emergency managers picked by the governor have the power to renegotiate or cancel city contracts, unilaterally draft policy, privatize public services, sell off city property, and even fire elected officials.

Since 2011, 17 municipalities or school districts in Michigan have been assigned emergency managers. The majority of them are in poor, predominantly African-American communities that have been hit hard by depressed economies and shrinking populations. Some EMs have worked with communities to generate local buy-in, but their outsider status, lack of accountability, and propensity for cutting public services to save money have generated harsh criticism. As Michael Steinberg, the legal director for the Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said a recent statement, “Flint is Exhibit A for what happens when a state suspends democracy and installs unaccountable bean counters to run a city.”

So what does this have to do with Flint? Flint was one of the the first cities to be assigned an emergency manager, in 2011; it would have four EMs in as many years. In 2013, its city council voted to build a pipeline to Lake Huron that would free the city of its dependence on Detroit’s water system by 2017. Ed Kurtz, the then-emergency manager, signed off on the plan, and the question became where Flint would source its water in the intervening years. According to a recent Daily Beast investigation, Kurtz rejected the idea of using Flint River water based on conversations with Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality. Longtime Flint residents were also skeptical of the idea: General Motors, which calls Flint home, had used the river as a dumping ground for years.

Yet in 2014, under emergency manager Darnell Earley, the city switched water sources to the Flint River. It remains unclear what led authorities to believe that Flint River water was safe to drink; Earley maintains the decision was supported in a vote by the city council, though there is no record of such a vote. Howard Croft, the former director of public works for Flint, told the ACLU that the decision was financial, had been reviewed by state authorities, and went “all the way to the governor’s office.”

In March of 2015, after months of residents reporting unusual health symptoms and foul-smelling, tainted water coming from their taps, the Flint City Council voted to “do all things necessary” to switch back to Detroit’s water system. Then-acting emergency manager Jerry Ambrose nixed the vote, calling it “incomprehensible.”

And what about Detroit? For the past few weeks, Detroit teachers have been protesting with coordinated sick days that have caused dozens of temporary school closures. The sick-outs, the teachers say, are in response to disgraceful school conditions, from black mold and dead rodents in classrooms to class sizes of more than 40 students.

The Detroit Public School system has been under the authority of an emergency manager since 2009, when the beleaguered system of roughly 100,000 students was mired in debt. Today, after six years under four emergency managers, the number of students has shrunk by about 50 percent while the system’s debt has ballooned to $515 million. It risks going bankrupt by April. Over the past five years, every public school employee has taken a 10 percent wage cut.

“Emergency management is not working,” Ivy Bailey, the president of Detroit Federation of Teachers, told CNN. “If the goal was to destroy DPS, emergency management has done an excellent job.”

Governor Snyder’s latest pick for DPS emergency manager was Darnell Earley, the same official who oversaw Flint’s transition to corrosive river water. On January 21, the day 88 schools were shut down, the school system filed a restraining order against the protesting teachers meant to stop them from calling in sick. The motion was denied. On January 23, Earley posted new rules requiring teachers to submit a written report to him if they learn about their fellow employees organizing a strike. “Failure to immediately comply with this order may be grounds for discipline up to and including termination,” the rules read. Earley’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

What’s next for Michigan’s emergency managers?

There are currently no Michigan cities with emergency managers, though three school districts still them. But they remain unpopular with many Michiganders. Democratic legislators say they will introduce a bill to repeal the EM law. Voters already overturned the EM law in a November 2012 referendum, but a month later, the Republican-led state legislature passed a nearly identical law attached to an appropriations bill that is immune to voter referendum.

“Appointing an emergency manager is the last thing I ever want to do,” wrote Snyder in a 2012 blog post entitled “Why Michigan Needs Its Emergency Manager Law,” written just before the voter referendum. “But if worse comes to worse, the state has a responsibility to protect the health, welfare and safety of its citizens. We can’t stand by and watch schools fail, water shut off, or police protection disappear.”

Link: 

What Flint’s Dirty Water and Detroit’s Angry Teachers Have in Common

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, Free Press, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What Flint’s Dirty Water and Detroit’s Angry Teachers Have in Common

Why Do So Many People Believe Bernie Sanders?

Mother Jones

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

OK, now for the Democrats. It’s really hard to get excited about the state of the race, isn’t it?

The Clinton campaign’s focus on gun control is absurd. Hillary has an NRA grade of F and Bernie gets a D-. That’s what we’re arguing about? For chrissake. How dispiriting can you get?

On health care, Bernie wants single-payer. Me too. And I’ll bet Hillary does as well. She’s just decided that it’s not politically useful to say so. And since neither one of them is going to get it anytime soon, does it really matter much?

The same is true on nearly every other domestic issue. Bernie is off to Hillary’s left—either genuinely or rhetorically—but in office they’d both be constrained to the same place. Neither one could accomplish even what Hillary wants, let alone what Bernie wants.

The one place where they have real differences and those differences might matter is national security. But for reasons of their own, neither of them really wants to talk much about that. Hillary doesn’t want to highlight her relative hawkishness in a Democratic primary, and Bernie doesn’t really want to highlight what his dovishness would mean in practice. Besides, it just gets in the way of the only message he really cares about: plutocracy and income inequality.

Bottom line: given the realities of American politics, they’d both be highly constrained in what they can accomplish in the White House. It doesn’t matter what’s in their hearts. What matters is (a) whether they can win in November and (b) what kind of deals they can broker with Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell.

Anybody who’s read my blog for a while can guess where I fall on this. I think Bernie has done a great job of pushing Hillary a bit to the left and demonstrating that she can expect continued pressure on that front. But the truth is that Hillary wins on both points A and B. She’s not the most charismatic politician in the world, but as we all like to say, we’re voting for president, not someone to have a beer with. What’s more, I’ve long admired her tenacity; her ability to withstand decades of crude invective and political destruction derby; and her very obvious, lifelong commitment to using politics as a way of improving people’s lives. There have been a million noxious compromises along the way, but that’s how politics works in the real world. Plus I’d love to see a woman in the White House.

I like Bernie. I like what he says. If I believed he could do all the stuff he talks about, he’d have my vote. But I don’t.

Read article here: 

Why Do So Many People Believe Bernie Sanders?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Do So Many People Believe Bernie Sanders?

Raw Data: State Abortion Restrictions Over the Past Three Decades

Mother Jones

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

Here’s what’s happened to abortion restrictions since the Republican landslide of 2010. After decades of passing a couple dozen laws each session, the number of new restrictions has skyrocketed. In the aftermath of the Democratic midterm debacle, states have averaged over a hundred per session. The moral of the story is: Midterms matter. States matter. If this doesn’t stop, the year 1950 is coming soon to a state near you.

Link to original:  

Raw Data: State Abortion Restrictions Over the Past Three Decades

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Raw Data: State Abortion Restrictions Over the Past Three Decades