In the debate last night. If you missed it, Google it.
In ’08 HRC subjected us to smearing Obama through Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and “birtherism.” Then her campaign went full Southern Strategy and it wasn’t subtle.
“You know, there was just an article posted that found how Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans — white Americans — is weakening again, and how the whites in both states (Indiana and North Carolina), who had not completed college were supporting me,”
“These are the people you have to win, if you’re a Democrat, in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that.”
~ Hillary Clinton, 2008
And Democrats defended that racist, gutter politics from HRC. Something they would have been up in arms about if McCain or Romney has said it. That was then and this is now — HRC has been forgiven and DEMs that supported Obama in ’08 are now “With Her.” (I don’t forgive nor forget that easily. Certain things should just never be done by anyone that has any pretense of not being a Republican.)
HRC fans defend her Iraq War vote (various gyrations to get them there), support for the Honduran coup, Libyan disaster, and endless flip-flopping. They don’t even know which version of Hillary they’re supporting.
Last night she went to places older Democrats never expected to see from a DEM presidential candidate. In another attempt to smear Benie Sanders, she endosed Reagan’s policies in Central America. It fits entirely with her Honduran and Libyan acts which for some mysterious reason doesn’t bother self-styled progressive DEM pundits and bloggers. Glenn
At Wednesday night’s Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders for praising Fidel Castro in the 1980s, as well for standing with Central Americans governments and rebel groups targeted by Ronald Reagan’s brutal covert wars. “You know,” said the former Secretary of State, “if the values are that you oppress people, you disappear people, imprison people or even kill people for expressing their opinions, for expressing freedom of speech, that is not the kind of revolution of values that I ever want to see anywhere.”
It was practically an article of faith among progressive Democrats of that time to totally reject and opposed Reagan’s dirty wars in Central America. It also formed the backbone of the outrage over the Iran-Contra scandal. Perhaps for those too young to have personally experienced those days, it’s been sufficiently buried to exist in a zone of ancient and irrelevant. Much as the McCarthy era was for those of my generation, but we excavated that tomb and it informed our politics. Never, ever would we have excused, much less defended, a liberal politician that spoke highly of Joe McCarthy and his claque of rightwinger. It was one of the reasons why we loathed Nixon and Reagan because they too were red-baiters.
Glenn again:
To defend her remarks, Clinton’s faithful Good Democratic supporters began instantly spouting rhetoric that sounded like a right-wing, red-baiting Cold War cartoon; in other words, these Clinton-defending Democrats sounded very much like this:
Democrats trust a guy who praises Castro & honeymooned in USSR more than Clinton. Says a lot about Clinton & current Dem party #DemDebate
— Reince Priebus (@Reince) March 10, 2016…As my colleague Jeremy Scahill, observing the reaction of Clinton supporters during the debate, put it in a series of tweets: “The US sponsored deaths squads that massacred countless central and Latin Americans, murdered nuns and priests, assassinated an Archbishop. I bet commie Sanders was even against Reagan’s humanitarian mining of Nicaraguan waters & supported subsequent war crimes judgement vs. US. Have any of these Hillarybots heard of the Contra death squads? Or is it just that whatever Hillary says must be defended at all costs? The Hillarybots attacking Sanders over Nicaragua should be ashamed of themselves.”
Every HRC fan/supporter needs to own this NOW. This is so fundamental to who HRC is that not owning it is not an option for her fans/supporters. Stand With Her. So that others may choose never to forget nor forgive what you support.
—-
Two of my favorite works of art about that period are:
The Best Movie You Never Saw: Oliver Stone’s Salvador
Joan Didion’s Salvador
Stone and Didion at their finest.
UPDATE Oh dear. O/T – different victims but same time period – the 1980s.
[MSNBC] Hillary Clinton: The Reagans, particularly Nancy, helped start “a national conversation” about HIV and AIDS.
As Billmon has said:
Even for HRC, this is a) cynical beyond believe, b) a stick in the eye of HIV activists, c) total bullshit.
…
Don’t have to read books about how Reagan admin ignored a mass epidemic for years: Heard it from the people who were dying.…
Beyond shameful. An absolute Orwellian “fuck you” to the victims of the AIDS epidemic. May she rot in fucking hell.
Michael Curry:
MOTHERFUCKING PIECE OF SHIT. This like saying George Wallace “started a conversation” about segregation
Mark Ames:
The world acc to Hillary: Sanders a Koch-supported border vigilante Communist gun-nut; Nancy Reagan was Mother Theresa to LGBT AIDS victims
Pedinska:
This HIV researcher says, what a complete and utter crock of bullshit.
Ryan Grim:
From every angle — moral, factual, political — this is just an appalling statement from Hillary Clinton.
Seems to be pandering to the Reagan voters. With no fear that the LBGT community will be insulted enough to abandon her. Shit — they didn’t mind that she didn’t come on board with same sex marriage until SCOTUS ruled that it was okay — so, why would they mind this bit of historical revisionism?
UPDATE #2 As bad as the HRC quote in the Update is, it’s not half as bad as her complete comment. It’s almost as if she’s as much of an empty vessel get stuff poured into as Rubio. She sits there speaking total garbage with absolute confidence.
…
…
She should scare the shit out of liberals.
Should add the collective “meh” from HRC fans/supporters to her embrace of Kissinger (she vacations with him) hits liberal old-timers the same way this latest embrace of Reagan’s Central American policy. Yes, I have long loathed Reagan and Kissinger for their foreign policy “adventures.” And loathe anyone that approves of their policies — Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ollie North, et al. I’m proud to be a Cheney-hater and had there been more people like me in this country he wouldn’t have inhabited the WH and we wouldn’t have squandered trillions of dollars and imposed untold suffering in Iraq.
Some of us are into learning to prevent repeating bad things we let happen in the past.
She really is an antique Republican at core, imo. Millennials be going….what?
And older DEMs have been seduced for so long with GOP policies that an extremely high percentage of them have lost the capacity to recognize them (and those that advocate for them) for what they are.
Not sure how well millenials see through the curtains, but they don’t seem to be struggling to recognize that they are paying the price for economic policies (must censor myself and not call them “neoliberal economic policies since that word drives our host nuts) and they are hurting. If all of them grasped the whole picture, they could take down both parties and smash them into so many pieces that they wouldn’t rise again for fifty years.
Surprising nobody that all the vocal, passionate HRC advocates at the Pond haven’t come near this diary.
Never forget!
Amanda Marcotte:
Billmon:
A mash-up of the Nixon-Reagan presidencies that liberals will love and defend for the rest of their days.
LOL Feminism can be its own trap of irrelevance.
Not feminism, but the appropriation of the symbols of feminism by an elite upper-middle and upper class (mostly but not exclusively women) to sustain their privilege and power without that being seen by the larger public.
More Billmon (glad he recovered quickly from his bout of heartsickness):
Billmon and Mark Raffalo are my kind of feminists.
Indeed.
More (because there’s so much blank space that the HRC supporters are too chickenshit to occupy and defend being with HER):
(Long list of despicable people that were involved in Reagan’s Central American policy. For those that have forgotten or are too young to know, google is your friend.)
The neocons reassemble.
Never been disassembled. They merely have to take a step to the right or left depending up who is elected to remain among the DC VIPs.
I heard that climate change did come up in this Florida debate, finally. Duh?
How long before we see climate refugees from the Keys? Meanwhile, bread and circuses.
LOL Poor Bernie. I am seeing Clinton use the Gish Gallop on him in the Miami debate. Chaffing so much, he is buried. I recognized it from seeing it here. LOL
Wasn’t as effective as usual last night. So, then she played her most reliable pity card (I’m not a natural politician like my husband and Barack); so, you all have to cut me a lot of slack because I so deserve to be POTUS because I’ve been working hard for twenty years to claim this crown. Never has it fallen flatter.
Came across this gem …
Cross-posted from my follow-up diary – War On The Rocks – McCain Surrogate/ PNAC/AIPAC .
In BooMan’s fp story – Neoconservatives Begin the Long March Back – not once was the magic word ISRAEL uttered … just unbelievable. Look at the crowd of the first 93 signatories: the worst of the worst of interventionists, warmongers, pro-Israel, anti-Iran crowd over the past decades. Most worrisome if they see the Democratic Party under leadership of Hillary Clinton as their vehicle to extend Pax Americana.
○ Will Trump’s Rise Leave Neocons Homeless?
Some Neocons already pledged to vote for neocon lite Hillary Clinton … great stuff for Bernie Sanders to exploit. The Israel lobby group has flocked to Floridian Marco Rubio for now … just a short stopover looking at his failed campaign. Some billionaires like Adelson is still sitting on the fence … and his fortune to support a winning ticket and earn influence in Washington DC.
Didn’t seem like a tough call to me in ’08. Not much difference in their years of experience. One biggie — he got it right and she got it wrong. Should also throw in years he had no objection to same-sex marriage and she was preaching some about marriage as a sacred bond between a man and a woman from the Senate floor. Again wisdom.
Might as well throw this up as well (for HRC supporters justifying their choice as a continuance of their more enthusiastic support for Obama):
I’m With HER because she’ll do more stupid shit.
Tin foil hat warning. I don’t think much of any of that Arab Spring business in Syria was genuinely organic, frankly. The “middle” was eyelash deep.
Her organizing principle is probably teh New American Century Project or a close facsimile. Sure looked like that in Ukraine.
IMHO the Arab Spring only happened in Tunisia, Egypt, and Bahrain. Was crushed directly in Bahrain. The crush in Egypt after the initial success was done more slowing. First by the MB that was organized to exploit the opening that the Arab Spring had created followed by the military crushing the MB.
All the others were fake and organized covert operations Primarily the US in Libya and primarily KSA and Qatar in Syria (with weapons transfers facilitated by the US). Not tin foil at all. Quite obvious in real time for anyone that knew what to look for.
The Brotherhood. Still in play.
The Egyptian Arab Spring protesters (except for those behind bars or dead) are also still around. Neither are in charge and have strict boundaries within they can operate.
There was also movements in (at least) Yemen (the prelude to todays war), Algeria and Morocco. The Moroccoan government answered with a new constitution, strenghtening parliament and civil rights. Not all they wnated, but a step in the right direction.
I think an often overlooked dimension of promoting civil war in Libya and Syra is that it undermined the civil demonstrators in other Arab nations, proving the dictators motto of “me or chaos”.
Hmmm, someone running for president sees things in similar ways. I wonder who it could be…
I follow several African countries on BF pages. Lord help those people cause their leaders are useless kleptocrats who have sold them out to BIG AG and wrecked subsistence agriculture just in time for climate change.
Clinton DEMs — All I want is to leave behind a world where my granddaughters and great-granddaughers can see that a woman became POTUS.
Sanders DEMs/INDs — What about the world you will leave behind?
Clinton DEMs — I don’t care about the world!
Sanders DEMs — Trust you’ll pass down the message to your female descendants, “First, marry the right man. That’s the ticket to the Oval Office.”
I wish I had a transcript of this interview of Sanders about the Sandinistas…it’s clear he has foreign policy, and knows what the hell he’s talking about. I wonder if there’s one lying around.
And he invited the press to come talk about it, and only one took him up on it — negatively, of course.
Thanks, Hillary Clinton! I knew about his opposition to what Reagan was doing, but I didn’t know this 25 minute interview was out there. My respect for him has increased a lot as a result of having seen it.
Here’s the full video (note it was published June 27, 2015)
Yeah I saw it about an hour ago. I was just fishing around for the transcript. Good for posting it so others can see as well, however. Very enlightening.
I’ve been trying without success to find any statements from Hillary Clinton about Central America that were actually made in the 1980. I haven’t found anything.
I sincerely doubt she ever made any remarks approving of US intervention in Central America in that era. But I am happy to be corrected if someone can find evidence to the contrary.
This diary and none of the comment make any charge/claim as to anything HRC said or didn’t say in the 1980s wrt US Central American policy. It would be unusual for any First Lady of any state to make a public statement about US foreign policy much less have such a statement recorded either in writing or video.
The official position of the DEM party at that time was the Boland Amendment. And during his administration a few years earlier, Carter didn’t pal around with Kissinger.
I remember the Boland Amendment. I was involved in anti-intervention politics in those days, until the group I was involved with was destroyed from within by sectarian cranks from the Revolutionary Communist Party. Or maybe it was the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party. Or the People’s Liberation Front of Judea.
Hillary Clinton was of course not First Lady in the 1980s, unless you meant spouse of the sometimes governor of Arkansas. I’m going to assume she was supportive of the Boland Amendment. As you noted, there’s unlikely to be a public record of this, of course.
Or maybe the cranks were FBI agents. (Not that there aren’t ever plenty of ordinary cranks that show up whenever people organize for anything. The tea party is almost nothing other than cranks.)
Guess I needed to state: “a First Lady of Arkansas or any First Lady of any state” instead of simply “any First Lady of any state.” Since we were discussing the 1980s and the then Hillary Rodham, who was the FL of AR for all but two of the years in the 1980s, didn’t occur to me that such precision (and all the extra words) were necessary to understand exactly what I was saying. (It’s this sort of unnecessary nitpicking that has been driving me nuts at the Pond of late — so pardon my slightly heated response.)
I have no interest in speculating about whether or not HRC had an opinion about the Boland Amendment during the 1980s. Relevant is what she’s done and said while running for and in public office and as FLOTUS.
That should read in the 1980s.
The quotation in the original posting is part of a longer story published May 7, 2008 in USA Today. I’ve pasted in below much more for context.
I don’t support Hillary Clinton for the nomination now, nor did I in 2008. I just think the quotation needs proper context.
—
“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”
“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.
Clinton’s blunt remarks about race came a day after primaries in Indiana and North Carolina dealt symbolic and mathematical blows to her White House ambitions.
The Obama campaign, looking toward locking up the nomination, stepped up pressure on superdelegates who have the decisive votes in their race.
In both states, Clinton won six of 10 white voters, according to surveys of people as they left polling places.
Obama spokesman Bill Burton said that in Indiana, Obama split working-class voters with Clinton and won a higher percentage of white voters than in Ohio in March. He said Obama will be the strongest nominee because he appeals “to Americans from every background and all walks of life. These statements from Sen. Clinton are not true and frankly disappointing.”
Clinton rejected any idea that her emphasis on white voters could be interpreted as racially divisive. “These are the people you have to win if you’re a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that.”
Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, said Clinton’s comment was a “poorly worded” variation on the way analysts have been “slicing and dicing the vote in racial terms.”
—
In terms of the 2008 campaign, a Clinton-supporting blog that I read occasionally back then still has an archive of commentaries that condemned the Obama campaign for smears against Clinton. Here it is. I just took a look. As an example, the 3/23/08 entry refers to the Obama campaign’s characterizations of Sen. Clinton as “dehumanizing”. The author was righteously pissed off. And this blog was hardly unique.
Really tired of people denying that the ’08 Clinton campaign used race. Teddy Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and many AA politicians and writers heard and saw it for what it was. And it’s long been known that it’s a go to place for Bill.
I know what I heard — and it was unmistakable enough to me in NH that I wrote a diary about it.
Odd that so many DEMs/liberals over the decades have had no trouble hearing GOP racist dogwhistles but become deaf when done from this side of the aisle.
nothing can seem foul to those that win…the bard was very astute, if not prescient, eh.
WRT to HRC’s comment about the Reagans — her team is now saying she got the diseases mixed up and meant to say Alzheimer’s. That makes zero sense from her recorded interview that was very specific to the 1980s and the fear of AIDs.
This is on the order of her claim to have evaded sniper fire in Bosnia. These are words beyond that of a congenital liar. She borders on delusional — getting closer and closer to Nixon everyday.
And half or more of registered Democrats want to put her finger on the nuclear button? I’d rather trust Trump, who is a cheesy promoter but, hopefully, has survival skills and enough grasp on reality (barring his own self importance) to not do something crazy. Cruz, I’m not sure of. I distrust all those religious fanatics. As to those who compare Trump to Hitler, I’d rather elect Hitler than Torquemada or Jihad John or Joan of Arc. Does Hillary hear voices? oh, yes, I remember now, the ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt.
BTW, have you seen the excellent PBS series, The Roosevelts?
On reflection, figured out why this latest HRC “faux pas” infuriated. It brought up my visceral experience of reading Randy Shilts And The Band Played On. I picked it up shortly after it was published and there weren’t many pages that didn’t enrage me. A few other books have had the same impact on me, but none so relenting. By that time, I knew/had known many gay men but none with AIDs; so, I didn’t have any direct and personal connection to the epidemic (that came later). But the dereliction of our government, politicians, and institutions was nothing short of criminal. And for someone praised for being so smart, etc. to be so stupendously uninformed is mind-boggling and not acceptable.
It did occur to me that HRC doesn’t exhibit the general knowledge grasp of someone that reads books. Still, even if one has only read magazines and newspapers, it’s not possible not to know the role the Reagans played in the crisis. Maybe she only reads/studies “think tank” and USG policy reviews and briefs. That would be a more generous interpretation of her seeming cognitive lapses than that she has troubling cognitive deficits. However, why would we want to elect such a person POTUS? Hasn’t worked well in the past when we tried that.
Prefer not to rationalize why Trump or Cruz are in any way acceptable. Both are horrible. We at least have a decent enough sense of how horrible HRC would be (far worse than her fans are able to acknowledge). Does the possibility that Trump would be less horrible in certain areas outweigh the possibility that he could be horrible squared in others? I don’t want any of these people to have their finger on the button and that would mean that we would be dependent on the Pentagon not to follow orders and very bad place for a democracy to be.
How do we break through the consciousness of DEM primary voters while we still have time to prevent putting ourselves in such a bad box? Those nearest and dearest to you are With Her.
“Still, even if one has only read magazines and newspapers, it’s not possible not to know the role the Reagans played in the crisis.”
Remember Sarah Palin? She couldn’t NAME two newspapers?
“Those nearest and dearest to you are With Her.”
At least my daughter and her three boys voted for Bernie. Well, two boys. The third lives in Washington (state) and I don’t think they have voted yet. the rest live in Alabama. From the crushing defeat there, I guess they were the ONLY Alabamans to vote for Bernie.
(I shouldn’t have said boys, the youngest is almost 22. NONE have jobs, but one has six figure college loan debt.)
“How do we break through the consciousness of DEM primary voters while we still have time to prevent putting ourselves in such a bad box? ” Sorry to be such a defeatist, but I think there is no way. She IS inevitable, like Hitler and Julius Caesar. If not her, then a clone. The End of Democracy has come.
Voice — I’ve been grinding through some numbers and have a question for you. Would your saint of a sister ever lie about who she voted for?
If you and your wife have yet to vote, what would she answer if the question were Nixon or JFK?
Oh, everybody supported JFK back then.
My sister really is a saint, impoverished, and worried about everyone else, but she has the past blinders on. I’ve rarely agreed with her on a Presidential candidate. When I did, it was Bill Clinton!
YOU have, I’m sure, agreed with her on President more than I, starting with McGovern.
No meanness in her, none at all. No wonder she’s poor. She’s like our father. He had an enemy at work that almost got him fired. He kept his job because everyone in his department went to personnel and said they would quit if he was replaced by her. Then personnel started looking at her and he was worried that she might lose her job! I told him, “Dad! When your enemy is down just kick them. Keep kicking until they don’t move!” He said he couldn’t do that. He was always strong, popular and a good fighter. I was weak, unpopular and a dirty fighter. Mean keeps you alive. Only the strong can afford to fight Marquis of Queensbury. I’m reminded of a letter that one of the WW II Admirals sent to the Commandant of the US Naval Academy regarding sportsmanship. “The Fleet doesn’t need good losers. We need tough S.O.B’s that will win!”
Oh, everybody supported JFK back then. Like in 1974 nobody voted for Nixon. Actually, 1960 was 49.7 to 49.6 and it’s probably not unreasonable to assume that in your good state of IL that a few of the dead showed up.
But my question wasn’t about then, but given who one is today, JFK or Nixon? I pulled that one out because it was the last time in Presidential general elections when men were more astute than women. Men got real “dumb” after that and generally have remained “dumb.” Women less so, but they don’t have much to brag about.
There are multiple gender gaps in the primaries and they are fairly significant. But there’s something else going on that I suspect is one reason why the pollsters have been performing poorly.
“Oh, everybody supported JFK back then.” I should have said “everybody our age”. i was 15, she was 18 and voting for the first time. (At that time in IL it was 18 for girls, 21 for boys, later 18 for all then back to 21, don’t know where it is now, I think 21, but 18 year olds can serve as election judges, weird).
No, no one voted for Nixon in 1974 (thought you got me that time, didn’t you?).
My wife says men are always dumb, but sometimes clever at fixing cars and computers. There’s an element of truth in that. Most men that I know are better at dealing with inanimate objects than people. But most men that I know are either blue collar workers or engineers.
Fascinating that a state had a younger voting age for women than men. Wonder what prompted that as boys were often allowed to do things at a younger age than girls. FYI — Twenty-Sixth Amendment — states can legislate a voting age lower than eighteen but not higher.
Wasn’t a gotcha. My point was that by late 1974 far fewer than near 60% of the electorate admitted to having voted for Nixon in ’72; just as far more than 50% claimed to have voted for JFK in ’60. And in both cases, I suspect that personal revision was higher among women than men. In ’60 Nixon won among women and the post ’72 revelations about Nixon (particularly his potty mouth) more easily disgusted women.
Men and women tend to be dumb in different ways. And it’s easier for a woman to recognize male dumbness than female dumbness and vice versa. Doubt there’s much innate/biological reason for the difference and most of it is cultural.
I was merely looking for some anecdotal personal insight from you about the two women in your life to help me understand what from the numbers to date seem to be going on in this election.
Ah yes, 26th amendment. I recall a lot of up and down, the 26th amendment explains how we wound up at 18 again.
Girls could not only vote and 18, they could marry without permission, but boys had to get permission. I recall one boy from our graduating class who married a freshman girl. Two guesses what that was all about.
Maybe it’s just a male perspective, but it seems that what women, including otherwise very smart women, are usually dumb about is some worthless man.
Maybe it’s just a male perspective, but it seems that what women, including otherwise very smart women, are usually dumb about is some worthless man.
Yes it is a male perspective. Quite dumb women fall for a “worthless man,” but smart or dumb and rich or poor men fall for arm candy if they can get it.
Suggest you lift yourself out of your cynical plenty. At least until June when it may be warranted.
You are correct about men. We are like a bloodhound following a hamburger.
Can’t help being cynical. Think of everything I’ve seen between 1945 and now. Last time I really believed in something it was Howard Dean and you see how that turned out. Also worked my butt off in 1992 for Bill Clinton, but I don’t feel so bad about that because my primary motivation was getting the man with four names out and Clinton seemed the best bet. The last campaign I was involved in was Credo’s effort to oust Joe Walsh. Again, it was anti-Walsh more than pro-Duckworth, but she turned out rather good. Too old for any more campaigns.
Voice — check out the latest IL polls. These aren’t outliers. Bernie has broken through in IL. If my read of the polls and actual results in other states is correct, the IL polls are conservative (in favor of HRC). The gross population demographics are quite quite different among FL, OH, and FL and not similar enough to states that have already voted to make data based projections from these polls, but Bernie’s in very shape in IL. Need some more tipping in FL and OH but the trends are looking good.
Dissing Rahm probably helped.
So far not any help with the AA community. Numbers similar to the MI pre-election polls among AAs and in MI Clinton wasn’t identified with a loathsome DEM politician. Expect Bernie will do better with IL AAs when the actual votes are counted but even if he doesn’t, it’s probably good enough. That isn’t the case with OH and FL. There he needs a split closer to 65/35 (MI was 68/28).
Hmm. Ohio “Thousands switching party affiliation on eve of primary”
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/03/13/capitol-insider-thousands-switching-party-a
ffiliation-on-eve-of-primary.html
“Capitol Insider: Thousands switching party affiliation on eve of primary”
By Darrel Rowland…The Columbus Dispatch…Sunday March 13, 2016…4:57 AM
“Here’s a key reason that predicting the outcome of Tuesday’s Ohio primary is risky: Voters are switching their political affiliations at a high rate in this volatile presidential election year.
Through Friday, Franklin County had about 39,000 requests for absentee ballots, and roughly 17,000 came from voters changing their party registration, according to statistics compiled by elections board data wizard Carolyn Gorup.
Most of the tide represents unaffiliated voters requesting a partisan ballot. About 5,700 of those so-called independents wanted to vote in the Republican primary while almost 10,000 asked for a Democratic ballot.
Nearly 700 previously registered Democrats decided they wanted to vote in the GOP primary this time, while just more than 400 Republicans switched to the Democratic side.”…
IND switch to DEM primary broke 66/33 (Bernie) in MA and 71/28 in MI. Not enough GOP to DEM to measure. To win, however, Sanders can’t leave any demographic group behind. His team knows exactly what they have to accomplish and it’s not anywhere near as out of reach as the polls, HRC supporters, etc. are screeching.
This twitter thread might interest you.
Man the machine is busy concocting bizarro meme. HRC ’16 — “Bernie cyber bullies” — HRC ’08 — “Obama boys.”
Plenty of good responses (mostly appear to be people that once supported Dean) ripping into him. (The HRC supporters posting fan notes are easy to quickly ID and skip and doubt any of them were with Dean in ’04 or Obama in ’08.)
VERY disappointed in Dean. I bought his book “Dr. Dean’s prescription for Healthcare for all Americans”, I think the title was. Couldn’t finish it. It was a paean to Obamacare and refuted everything he said in his campaign. Will Bernie do the same? Support Hillary’s public-private partnership’s. Write a book about Goldman-Sachs’ latest venture, plugging it as exactly what America needs? Start lying about Warren when she opposes some Hillary initiative? I have already heard he say that banking regulations went overboard and need to be “adjusted”.
We had a neighbor when I was a boy. He knew all the village officials, having gone to High school with them. He told my Dad and I that “They ought to take every politician, from President to the lowest dogcatcher out and shoot them, then start over.” When he died, someone entered the house, trashed the place, opening drawers, ripping mattresses, even tearing walls open. He had something on somebody, I’m sure.
“heard her (Hillary) say “
I trust Warren and Bernie to be on the same page re:banks, don’t you? Maybe he will get Kaufman back, too.
Well, it’s not as if Dean supporters mistook him for a progressive. But he did seem to exhibit a better than the usual politician to be guided by facts and evidence than DLC-think in reaching conclusions. However, I did way underestimate the ease with which DLC-think can seduce him. I personally think that he was devastated by being exiled by Obama after the ’08 election and he’s been groveling ever since to get back in favor with the DEM-elites. Groveling does a number on one’s integrity.
My little woo-woo take is that he’s under the impression that it was Obama that kicked him to the curb. An impression that was quite possibly facilitated by little QT messages. That may be correct, but there’s no obvious reason why Obama would have any animosity towards Dean. But sometimes like and dislike aren’t rational. OTOH, the Clintons undoubtedly blamed Dean for impeding HRC’s ’08 run by playing fair as DNC chair. Whatever deal(s) they made with Obama could have included punishing Dean and there’s no way that Obama would violate such a deal by disclosing any of that in any way shape or form to Dean. And it’s not as if either Clinton would refrain from getting word to him that they love him and it was all Obama’s doing. They do shit like this all the time. But that wouldn’t absolve Dean for being a sucker.
Well, I did.
Referring to your other comment, we wanted GWB out of office and Dean was the best on offer that had a chance to beat him. On a left to right scale, he was to the right of Kerry, but Kerry didn’t have anything to run on, and therefore, it would all come down to OH and there was little chance that he could beat the GOP ballot box stuffing spread. By 2002 Dean may have convinced himself that he’d become a progressive and that combined with his authentic persona style was enough to convince others. It don’t think he was cynically set out to dupe people. So, I’m critical of him at that time or his supporters.
Edwards, OTOH, was as cynical and phony as a three dollar bill. For both men, voters had to scratch the surface. What and where were their political roots. When did they come to define the stances they took in 2002 and how consistent is that with their past record. Easy to read wrt Edwards; so, he was a fail. Dean was more curious. “The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” sounded good, but it was new to him and therefore, not deeply known nor consolidated within his person. Such a change takes time to become integral to the person. Under the right conditions, that’s the person he could have become. But he wasn’t that person in 2002.
Hillary’s political orientation and investments were completely knowable in 2008. Obama was unknowable other than he didn’t have a bunch of hinky financial dealings in his past. Both probably equally electable in ’08; so, the choice was DLC or possibly not DLC but no worse than DLC.
Bernie has never been like Dr. Dean. He’s completely knowable and have never wavered from his principles except in those difficult and unavoidable situations where a tough call has to be made. Getting the big tough calls right and only occasionally erring on complex legislation is too close to call is fine.
Check this out. Chalian isn’t being ironic or cynical — he thinks it’s a great picture. (try not to barf)
Interesting.
BTW, I don’t fault Bernie on the auto/bank vote. When you have a kitchen sink bill you have to prioritize the good and the bad and much as I sympathize with the auto workers, bailing out the bankers was enough to vote “no”. Won’t blame those who voted “yes” for the workers, either. It was a judgement call. I DO blame those who voted “yes” on the first TARP bill.
Isn’t about time to drop “He/she voted 5000 times against …” ads where they count every procedural and amendment vote?
Yes. And stop counting bills introduced to name a post office, highway, etc. as a legislative accomplishment.
Howard backed Hillary in the beginning, but DFA membership voted overwhelmingly to support Sanders. So then they tried various gimmicks; they were going to have Howard and his brother Jim, who administers DFA, “debate” Sanders vs Clinton. Anyway, they went with Sanders for a while but I guess they figure Hillary needs them now.
Suggests that Dr. Dean is completely clueless as to what makes his supporters tick.
Confirmation of what I postulated: It did occur to me that HRC doesn’t exhibit the general knowledge grasp of someone that reads books.
From InteGritty
A steady diet of best-seller series and ghost-written politician vanity books doesn’t make one well-informed or astute. I so rarely read such books that it difficult to recall those that I have, and even then more often than not don’t bother finishing them.
Billmon. Click on the link. Amazing. Apparently HRC doesn’t remember the 1990s either.
Fits with fladem’s discussion on deliberate designed dysfunction.
Back in the GWB era we simply called it fake historical revisionism. Propaganda for the rubes.
C-Span clips for those doubting the authenticity of the photo.
Seen this? Thomas Frank is doing a heck of a job.
http://www.salon.com/2016/03/13/bill_clintons_odious_presidency_thomas_frank_on_the_real_history_of_
the_90s/