Clinton Needs to Disavow Superdelegates

Hillary Trump

According to a Washingto Post article: Leading liberals begin new push to unify Democrats around Clinton, liberal groups must rally around Clinton because Trump’s policies would take us back 100 years. California’s Gov. Jerry Brown said, “This is no time for Democrats to keep fighting each other. The general election has already begun.”

Bullshit, Brown.

I don’t believe Washington’s Hillary Democrats think for a minute that now is the time to unify. This is just part of their strategy to get Hillary Clinton into the White House. They know people are supporting Senator Sanders in huge numbers. They are afraid of losing, afraid that Sanders will somehow win the nomination. They are desperate. In fact, polls are increasingly showing that Trump and Clinton are nearly tied in support. In fact Clinton could lose the general election to Trump as things stand now. They want their candidate to win the primary by acclamation, unopposed, so as to create the illusion that she has massive support, enough to defeat Trump. She does not. How many people are going to be totally disillusioned if she takes the primary only by using superdelegates? She could take the high road now, and appeal to all the Bernie supporters by refusing to use the votes of superdelegates at all. If she does so, she will have the support she wants. If not, then all those people who have been excited to participate, to vote, some of them for the first time, are going to lose heart. If they do have a chance to see their candidate make it to the convention, where, although some my expect miracles, they will accept the will of the voters: unity achieved. This morally bankrupt attempt to dangle Trump as the ultimate evil in order to rally a rebellious electorate will backfire unless Ms. Clinton takes the high road now herself. No, Sanders should not drop out before the primary convention. Get real. Clinton should disavow internal Party politics in order to clinch the nomination.

Even Elizabeth Warren has stopped short of endorsing Hillary Clinton at this point.

//www.washingtonpost.com/video/c/embed/461deee6-2271-11e6-b944-52f7b1793dae

Power-hungry

 

Politics as a Feeling

Personally, I think the rise of Trump has been something easily predicted by the way we vote for people based on looks and personality. But voting for people based solely on party affiliation is not helpful to our country, ourselves or the ideals we claim to fight for. In fact, I would say that any voting machine rigged to allow people to vote a straight party ticket is rigged against democracy, against free thought, and against common sense. Why do politicians get elected who are straight-out crooks, liars, or hypocrites? It is not because they became corrupted after being elected, but because they weren’t evaluated critically, thoughtfully, and thoroughly. It is because people like a certain candidate for President or Congress or local office, and they vote for every candidate who is running on that same party ticket. If we don’t know much or anything at all about a candidate, we should never vote for them. Let some of them win with a handful of votes from close freinds and political party hacks. I’d be willing to bet that the ones who win with 1% or less of the votes cast will be unwilling to invade other countries or try outright theft and deceit, because they can’t count on enough support to claim any kind of mandate, or wiggle out of peronal responsibility.

The Politics of Writing

A 2003 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found something that, believe it or not, surprised nobody. The conclusion of the study found that “People vote with their party, not their personal beliefs.” As YaleNews later reported:

People vote on an issue based on the facts and their ideology, or personal beliefs, but they disregard both the facts and their personal beliefs when they are aware of their political party’s position

The premise of the study is that given a situation involving the issue of welfare, people artificially voted from their beliefs. But when informed of their party’s beliefs beforehand they often switched their own opinion to fall in line with the party. Again this is not very surprising. A simple talk with a stranger reveals how little people truly care about core issues, or when they do take an interest to them how little information…

View original post 619 more words

Hillary’s 2008 vs 2016 campaigns – Do as I say, not as I do.

twoface

Hillary Clinton should be called on her duplicity, in calling on Bernie Sanders to “stop attacking Hillary” or even to drop out of the race. Eight years ago, she was on the opposite side. Read the review of her 2008 campaign rhetoric by Chris Weigant of the Huffington Post.

To tell you the truth, I never thought I’d have to write this article. I fully expected someone else to dig this stuff out, if the calls for Bernie Sanders to drop out of the race (or “say nice things about Hillary Clinton”) began. Now that they have, I still haven’t seen any detailed reminders of how the 2008 Democratic primary race ended yet. So I went ahead and dug them out on my own.

What follows is a review of the last few weeks of the 2008 primary, for those who have forgotten what it was like. All of these articles come from the Washington Post (because it made the database search easier, mostly). I apologize for not providing links; this is due to the fact that I retrieved the articles from a commercial database (with a paywall).

All of the following articles were published from mid-April to the first week in June of 2008. In other words, exactly eight years ago. I’m going to present them with only limited commentary (to only provide any needed historical context).

One more thing before I begin, in the interests of fairness. While Hillary Clinton did fight hard until the end, she is to be credited for two strategic moves from roughly the same period of time. First, she largely refused to attack Barack Obama in the midst of all the “Reverend Wright” mudslinging. She easily could have piled on, along with the rest of the political universe. She didn’t. Secondly, during the time period below, Clinton had a stock line she threw in to most of her speeches (even the ones quoted below): “I will work my heart out for the Democratic Party and the party’s eventual nominee.” She signaled that she would work for Obama’s election if she lost, which was rightly seen as a big step towards party unity.

With those caveats firmly in place, though, let’s take a look at the end of Clinton’s 2008 campaign. Just before the Pennsylvania primary, from an article titled “Obama Sharpens His Tone; As Pa. Vote Nears, Clinton Criticizes Rival’s Negative Turn,” Clinton showed her displeasure at Obama’s attacks on her health care reform plan (which, at the time, had a mandate for coverage that Obama did not support):

Clinton, campaigning in Bethlehem, called her rival’s approach “so negative” and charged him with mimicking Republicans by attacking her plan for universal health care.

“He has sent out mailers, he has run ads, misrepresenting what I have proposed,” Clinton said. “I really regret that because the last thing we need is to have somebody spending as much money as he has downgrading universal health care.”

From an April 22 article entitled “Clinton in the Wilderness,” a previous and very personal slight towards Obama was noted:

But she [Clinton] has gone too far — too much disturbing stuff, some of it shocking in its coarseness. For instance, she added the coy “as far as I know” to her 60 Minutes statement that Obama is not a Muslim.

Clinton used some inartful language in an interview with USA Today, which Eugene Robinson pointed out on May 9 (“The Card Clinton Is Playing”):

From the beginning, Hillary Clinton has campaigned as if the Democratic nomination were hers by divine right. That’s why she is falling short — and that’s why she should be persuaded to quit now, rather than later, before her majestic sense of entitlement splits the party along racial lines.

If that sounds harsh, look at the argument she made Wednesday, in an interview with USA Today, as to why she should be the nominee instead of Barack Obama. She cited an Associated Press article “that found how Senator Obama’s support… among working, hardworking Americans, white Americans, is weakening again. I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on.”

As a statement of fact, that’s debatable at best. As a rationale for why Democratic Party superdelegates should pick her over Obama, it’s a slap in the face to the party’s most loyal constituency — African Americans — and a repudiation of principles the party claims to stand for. Here’s what she’s really saying to party leaders: There’s no way that white people are going to vote for the black guy. Come November, you’ll be sorry.

How silly of me. I thought the Democratic Party believed in a colorblind America.

On May 20, in an ironically-titled article “Democrats Observe A Fragile Cease-Fire,” the Clinton campaign tried to equate Obama with George W. Bush’s infamous “Mission Accomplished” photo:

Obama is favored to win the Oregon primary today, and Clinton is an even stronger favorite to win the Kentucky contest. But Obama will not celebrate primary night in either of those states. Instead, he has chosen to be in Iowa, where his victory in the caucuses in January turned the Democratic race upside down. There, at a rally in Des Moines, he is expected to declare that he has secured a majority of the pledged delegates currently eligible to attend August’s Democratic convention in Denver.

Obama and his advisers insist the event will stop short of a declaration that he has won the nomination. But it will be seen as another signal to superdelegates to climb aboard his bandwagon as quickly as possible.

The celebration, however, has rankled the Clinton campaign and the candidate herself. They see it as a highhanded effort to embarrass her and to generate renewed calls from others in the party for her to quit the race before anyone has achieved a genuine majority of pledged delegates and superdelegates.

In a signal of how fragile the detente between the two sides is, the Clinton campaign sent out a tart memo yesterday under the name of communications director Howard Wolfson calling the Obama rally in Iowa “a slap in the face of millions of voters in the remaining primary states and to Senator Clinton’s 17 million supporters.” Then, in language tying the Obama campaign to the Bush White House, the memo continues: “Premature victory laps and false declarations of victory are unwarranted. Declaring mission accomplished does not make it so.”

On May 23, Hillary Clinton said something downright despicable. There’s just no other word to describe her insinuation. From “Hillary Clinton Raises the Specter of the Unspeakable,” here is Hillary musing on a possible end to the Democratic nomination race:

Smart candidates don’t invoke the possibility of their opponents being killed. This seems so obvious it shouldn’t need to be said, but apparently, it needs to be said.

“We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California,” Hillary Clinton said yesterday, referencing the fact that past nomination contests have stretched into June to explain why she hasn’t heeded calls to exit the Democratic race. She was in an editorial board meeting with a South Dakota newspaper, and she didn’t even seem to notice she’d just uttered the unutterable.

The nation’s political science students, our future strategists and campaign managers, would do well to pay attention to this moment. There are taboos in presidential politics, and this is one of the biggest. To raise the specter of a rival’s assassination, even unintentionally, is to make a truly terrible thing real. It sounds like one might be waiting for a terrible thing to happen, even if one isn’t. It sounds almost like wishful thinking.

She had to immediately apologize, but within the apology article (“Clinton Sorry For Remark About RFK Assassination; Comment Was Made in Reference to Primaries”) were a few other slights she had recently made (there was an enormous battle over whether the Florida and Michigan delegations would count at the convention, since they had defied D.N.C. rules by scheduling their primaries too early):

Hillary Clinton’s reference to the shooting of Robert Kennedy on June 6, 1968, after he had just won the California primary, hardened feelings in the Obama campaign once more, following a brief thaw as it appeared that Clinton would seek to unite the party in the final weeks of the campaign. Her allusion came on the heels of two other comments over the past few days that the Obama campaign described as off-putting: her reference to the Michigan and Florida delegations as similar to the fraudulent elections in Zimbabwe, and her comparison of that dispute to the ballot recount in the 2000 presidential election.

Not mentioned in this article was the fact that she had also compared the battle over seating the delegations “with the abolition of slavery” (from a May, 25 article, “To Claim Popular Vote, Clinton Is Seeking Wins In Last 3 Primaries”).

On the very last day of primary voting, when Montana and South Dakota put Barack Obama over the top in the delegate count, Clinton essentially refused to concede his victory. From a June 3 article, “Obama Claims The Democratic Presidential Nomination,” the key line in the speech she gave:

Obama scored his final primary victory in Montana and was quickly endorsed by the state’s governor as well as the two Democratic senators. Clinton, meanwhile, claimed a come-from-behind victory in South Dakota, after trailing in the state for weeks.

Clinton, who spoke roughly 30 minutes before Obama at Baruch College in New York City, congratulated the Illinois senator for the “extraordinary race” he ran, although she did not acknowledge he had effectively won the nomination and stressed that “I will be making no decisions tonight” about her future plans.

For more context, from her speech transcript that night:

Now, the question is: Where do we go from here? And given how far we’ve come and where we need to go as a party, it’s a question I don’t take lightly. This has been a long campaign, and I will be making no decisions tonight.

But this has always been your campaign. So, to the 18 million people who voted for me, and to our many other supporters out there of all ages, I want to hear from you. I hope you’ll go to my Web site at HillaryClinton.com and share your thoughts with me and help in any way that you can.

And in the coming days, I’ll be consulting with supporters and party leaders to determine how to move forward with the best interests of our party and our country guiding my way.

From an article (“Obama Is Poised To Clinch Victory; Clinton Ponders Options at Finish Line”) filed the same day:

As Clinton made a final push for votes across South Dakota, her advisers said her options ranged from dropping out Tuesday night and endorsing Obama to making a final effort to convince uncommitted superdelegates that she would be a stronger rival to McCain.

Another, according to senior Clinton advisers, is what they dubbed the “middle option,” for Clinton to suspend her campaign, acknowledging that Obama has crossed the delegate threshold but keeping her options open until the convention in late August. Advisers said she is looking at historical precedent while weighing her recent victories, including her landslide win in Puerto Rico, in trying to sort out what to do.

Clinton has been angered by recent calls for her to quit, her advisers said, and the “soft landing” of suspending her campaign would allow her to move ahead on her own terms.

Speaking to reporters in Sioux Falls, S.D., spokesman Mo Elleithee was unequivocal, saying that Clinton intends to spend the next several days “making the case to undecided delegates” and adding: “She’s in this race until we have a nominee. She expects to be that nominee.”

On June 6, Barack Obama met with Hillary Clinton in Senator Dianne Feinstein’s house in Washington. The next day — a full four days after the last primary finished — she finally announced the end of her campaign (from “Clinton to Publicly Withdraw, Support Obama”):

After a tumultuous 17-month journey, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) will formally withdraw as a presidential candidate today, publicly declaring her support for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) for the first time since he secured the Democratic nomination.

Clinton drew the wrath of many Democrats when she did not acknowledge Obama’s victory in her speech on Tuesday night. Her farewell address to supporters, scheduled for noon today at the National Building Museum at Fourth and F streets NW, is intended to repair any lingering damage from the Tuesday speech and will close the door on an epic primary campaign that, after dividing Democrats, produced the first African American presumptive nominee of any major party in history.

The former rivals made progress in their search for common ground during a clandestine hour-long meeting at the home of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) on Thursday night. Details of the sit-down, held in Feinstein’s living room, began to emerge as Clinton aides turned in their cellphones, packed up their offices and put the finishing touches on her much-anticipated speech.

“Hillary will be holding an event tomorrow in Washington D.C. to thank all of her supporters, to express her support for Senator Obama, and to talk about the issues that have been at the core of her public service, the issues she will continue fighting for,” campaign manager Maggie Williams wrote in a letter yesterday inviting supporters to attend the gathering. The e-mail doubled as a fundraising solicitation — a reminder of the nearly $30 million in debt that Clinton will seek to retire.

Now, even with such a tumultuous end to the Democratic primary campaign, Hillary Clinton eventually made good on her promise to “campaign her heart out” for Obama. She personally put him over the top in the delegate voting on the convention floor (being a senator, she was also a superdelegate). Eventually, after winning the general election, Barack Obama appointed her Secretary of State (there were many rumors at the time that Bill Clinton was pushing hard for her to be named as Obama’s running mate, but obviously that didn’t come to pass).

Hillary Clinton worked for party unity, but only after a very hard-fought and contentious primary season. I offer these reminders up because now she finds herself in the opposite role. And it seems like everyone’s memory has gone fuzzy when recalling the final two months of the 2008 race. Hillary Clinton’s campaign team has no real leg to stand on now, in calling on Bernie Sanders to “stop attacking Hillary” or even to drop out of the race for her convenience. Because that’s definitely not what Hillary herself did, exactly eight years ago.

Two-faced woman

The Revenge of the Lower Classes and the Rise of American Fascism (from @Truthdig)

Now, I found this to be a very rational, but somewhat depressing analysis of current political events, but with enough truth and common sense to it to make it worth reading and pondering, so I urge everyone to read it.

trump-hitler

College-educated elites, on behalf of corporations, carried out the savage neoliberal assault on the working poor. Now these elites are being made to pay. Their duplicity has brought them—and the rest of us—Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. – 2016/03/02

Source: The Revenge of the Lower Classes and the Rise of American Fascism (from @Truthdig)

Hillary Dickory Dock, #WhichHillary

Hillary I don’t usually post negative things about people, but sometimes I make an exception for politicians. There’s too much negative about Donald Trump to go into right this moment, except to say that his campaign bears an eerie similarity to the German presidential elction of 1932. However, one of his opponents, Hillary Clinton, is getting on my nerves. I never liked her hawkish stand on the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, and, although I applauded her attempt to bring about a discussion on universal health care when she was First Lady, I didn’t like her sudden dropping of the issue when she faced heavy Republican criticism for daring to intrude into male-dominated politics. There were those who felt it wasn’t her place to propose policy, both because of her sex – there was a lot of misogynist talk at the time – and because it wasn’t appropriate for a First Lady to engage in politics.

Given that beating she accepted at the time, backing away from the issue completely, many feel like her time has come, and we should elect her now. I don’t think so. Democrats want to win, and they feel she is their best chance, given her celebrity status. However, there is another woman who would be 100 times better than Hillary Clinton, and that is Elizabeth Warren. However, she has chosen not to run, so Democrats are stuck with Hillary. Well, not stuck yet, since someone similar to Senator Warren is running against Hillary to represent the Democratic Party. I like Bernie Sanders, but I think it’s delusional to think that the majority of people in the United States understand the difference between Russian socialism (a military dictatorship with state ownership of the means of production), and a U.S. version of Democratic socialism (a democratic political system alongside a somewhat socialist economic system.) Hell, people accuse President Obama of being a Socialist, when he most definitley is not. He leans slightly left of center on some issues, but really, he’s a standard Democrat, as is Hillary Clinton. Both have come down on the wrong side of the use of military power as a solution to complex problems.

Hillary 2Hillary’s ties to the prison-industrial complex are troubling as well. If she wants to end private prisons, she really shoudn’t be accepting campaign money from them. She seems to like things both ways, and appears always ready to blow with the wind.

I simply don’t trust her, and I think a majority of U.S. voters don’t either. And, just as in the case with the Bush family, it does gall people that we’re often asked to elect someone whose father, or brother, or husband was President. It smacks of royal succession, and the United States was founded on principles firmly opposed to that. Whether the succsessor is elected or appointed makes little difference to my mind. It sucks.

So, although I have been happy with much of Obama’s political views, I am unhappy that things are going to take a turn for the worse. I’m not optimisitic that Bernie Sanders can overcome decades of Cold-War hysteria. I’m not optimistic that any Republican can overcome a wildly popular opportunist like Donald Trump either. So, it’s shaping up to be a contest between a reactionary, backward-thinking populist, and a middle-of-the-road party-faithful Democrat who is not committed to democracy.

So, I’m leaning back towards ennui (a feeling of listlessness and dissatisfaction arising from a lack of occupation or excitement).

Again.

Hillary Dickory dock,
“Why scamper?” asked the clock,
“You scare me so
I have to go!
Hillary Dickory – O, fuck.

DIE PATRIOT ACT, DIE. And your little dog, Section 702 too.

Patriot Act poster 1

Several provisions of the Patriot Act — including Section 215, which had been used to conduct bulk surveillance of our phone records — expired on June 1 at midnight.
In a special session on Sunday, the Senate voted to consider a House-passed reform package, the USA Freedom Act, which then passed on Tuesday afternoon. President Obama signed the bill into law on Tuesday night.
Though USA Freedom doesn’t go as far as it should, its passage marks the first time the government has reined in NSA operations since before the 9/11 attacks. It ends unchecked surveillance of everyone’s phone records under the Patriot Act; that data will remain with phone companies, and the government will have to seek a court order to collect it for specific targets: a particular individual, device or account. The government can no longer sweep up details about everyone’s communications without some justification and some specific criteria to gather that information.

patriotactposter2
MORE: There’s a little more: CONTINUE READING

Cold WAR. Again. WWIII Probable. Again.

War 3  nato-russia-war New-Cold-War HR 758 (Russia)

US – Russia relations have deteriorated severely in the past decade and they just got worse. That is not solely due to the actions and posturing of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In fact, many in the USA and Russia are warning that the recent passage of House Resolution 758 could lead to all-out war, especially if the Senate passes a similar resolution.

Tensions between Russia and the US are being fueled every day by players who would benefit financially from a resumption of the Cold War which, from 1948 to 1991 cost US taxpayers $20 TRILLION dollars (in 2014 dollars), an amount exceeding our $18 trillion National Debt.

With fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Syria a staging ground for an ongoing proxy war between the big powers, our US treasury is being drained for military adventures, our national debt is piling up, and we are less safe.

Dennis Kucinich writes: “… HR 758 is tantamount to a ‘Declaration of Cold War’ against Russia, reciting a host of grievances, old and new, against Russia which represent complaints that Russia could well make against the US, given our nation’s most recent military actions: Violating territorial integrity, violations of international law, violations of nuclear arms agreements.
“The resolution demands Russia be isolated and “… the President, in consultation with Congress, conduct a review of the force posture, readiness and responsibilities of United States Armed Forces and the forces of other members of NATO to determine if the contributions and actions of each are sufficient to meet the obligations of collective self-defense under Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, and to specify the measures needed to remedy any deficiencies….”

“In other words, let’s get ready for war with Russia.”    HR 758 (Russia)

Ron Paul, writing in The Inquisitr, believes that a “reckless” Congress has essentially declared war on Vladimir Putin and Russia based upon Resolution 758. Fears of World War 3 were stoked when Russian fighter jets faced off against NATO jets in a blitz designed to be a “show of force” by Vladimir Putin.

Russian media is already warning that the recently passed House Resolution 758 could lead to “all-out” war if the U.S. Senate were to pass similar legislation. Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich claims that supplying lethal aid to Ukraine would be a direct violation of the Geneva Agreements. In addition, Russian media funded by the government has published an editorial that attempts to refute House Resolution 758, and even goes so far as to claim that the United States is provoking World War 3 by bringing the United States one step closer to an “all-out” war with Russia.

Not War

UPDATE:

The Ukraine Freedom Support Act — HR 5859 and S. 2828 — increases sanctions on Russia’s main weapons exporter, the natural gas company Gazprom, and any company that exports weapons to Syria. HR 5859 was introduced (12/11/14) and passed by voice vote late that evening. The Senate bill also passed by a voice vote.

At the Cato Institute, visiting research fellow Emma Ashford writes about the military aid that would go to Ukraine: “The bill authorizes the president to make available defensive weapons, services and training to Ukraine, including anti-tank weapons, crew weapons and ammunition, counter-artillery radar, tactical troop-operated surveillance drones, and command and communications equipment.”