Recent Updates Page 2 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 9:31 pm on April 21, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: bernie superdelegates, Clinton superdelegates, Superdelegate List   

    Clinton groupies are gloating about locking in even more unearned superdelegates 


    Okay, y’all – here’s how this goes:  Since Clinton and her supporters are clearly not interested in democracy or fairness (after all, as noted here, many superdelegates cling to Clinton even in states where Bernie creamed her), and are gloating about the 33 superdelegates Clinton has recently picked up, then they surely won’t mind if Bernie goes to the convention and does his level best to flip those same folks to his column.  Of course, that’s not exactly how the Clinton camp sees it:  They call it not playing fair, a threat to “party loyalty,” that Sanders will destroy the party if he takes his fight to the convention, that those are her superdelegates and he better not try to “poach” them, that, according to Clinton’s campaign manager, Sanders must decide if he wants to “make casualties” of Clinton and the Democratic Party.  Shit, the party is already a casualty – a casualty of Clinton greed and avarice and ambition and a ruthless single-minded quest to win, at whatever cost.  If anyone has cost the party loyalty and support – and money – it’s been Clinton and her campaign, her dirty campaigning followed by a wide-eyed “who me” when busted.

    As we noted earlier tonight, the Clinton camp isn’t concerned a whit with “party unity” – they just want the legions of Bernie Sanders supporters to support her, and the sooner the better.  They’re furious and frustrated that Bernie isn’t going to run out of money and isn’t going to run out of loyal supporters and she’s drowning in negative poll ratings and he gets 25000 at rallies when she’s lucky to get 250.

    So they want to snatch all the superdelegates, regardless of how these supers’ states voted – okay by me.  Just don’t be surprised at the convention when Bernie and his people run a full court press on elected officials who kind of depend on millions of voters to keep their jobs – voters who are with Bernie and have an enormous amount of clout via social media and grassroots activism.  When superdelegates ignore the voting power of their states and vote for the candidate who better greases their palms, they in actuality are permitted to cast two votes in the primary.  Call us crazy, but we don’t think that’s a good look.

    I ask you this:  What has the DNC or the Democratic Party done for Bernie lately that would encourage him to abandon his supporters and his progressive ideals to lend a hand to an over-the-hill hack whose list of accomplishments inure only to her own benefit?  Here’s the real talk on this:  Establishment Dems have done nothing to support Bernie Sanders, and will continue to try to drive him out of the race.  Game’s on, and all bets are off.




  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 7:29 pm on April 21, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    So much for Clinton party unity: Senior aide says Sanders should tone it down or “fuck him” 


    Axelrod Unity

    Well, David, it appears that “destructive” was just a very mild way of saying what Clinton & Co. actually thought:  Fuck party unity.  An “anonymous” Clinton senior aide was a little more blunt – and did quite a bit more damage to that whole “party unity” thingy they pretend to be working on (and this from the same people who told Bernie to “watch his tone” or they wouldn’t agree to a New York debate).  As reported by TalkingPointsMemo:

    Reflecting on Clinton’s double-digit victory, the anonymous senior aide told Politico: ‘We kicked ass tonight . . . I hope this convinces Bernie to tone it down. If not, fuck him.’

    Well, Clinton, stay classy (and this from the people who condemn Bernie supporters as rough and tumble thugs and street brawlers).  The Clinton camp may be gloating today after her New York win, but there are still quite a few roadblocks ahead.  Let’s start with the obvious one:  That a New York win in this election cycle doesn’t mean a hell of a lot, considering the voter purging, voter irregularities, voting locations opening hours late, voting locations changed without notice, and a lawsuit filed against the Board of Elections that the judge is permitting to go forward.  There were just a host of things that got our spidey senses tingling.  As Ben Norton at Salon reported,

    Sanders won the vast majority of New York state, but Clinton won the densely populated urban areas, particularly New York City. In Buffalo, Rochester and Syracuse, the candidates were neck-and-neck, but Clinton pulled just ahead.  Voting day was plagued with enormous problems, leading to widespread accusations of voter suppression and disenfranchisement.

    Since last fall, the New York Board of Elections mysteriously purged more than 125,000 Brooklyn Democrats from the voting records without their knowledge.  Mayor Bill de Blasio acknowledged that there had been ‘purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists.’  The New York City watchdog, Comptroller Scott Stringer, said all of this happened ‘without any adequate explanation furnished by the Board of Elections.’

    There were also countless reports that residents were given wrong voting information, people were sent to wrong polling locations, voters were forced to fill out affidavit ballots that may not count, poll workers did not know how to operate the voting machines and voting machines were broken.

    So yeah, I wish Bernie had won New York – but given Clinton’s iron grip on the establishment, her old boy network in New York, and her willingness to play fast and loose to win, I’m more angry than sad today.  And Clinton, despite calls for unity in her victory speech, isn’t likely to practice what she preaches.  What “unity” means to her is control of Bernie Sanders’ supporters, and their millions of $27 donations.  What “unity” means to her is for Sanders to bow out, hand his people over to her, and let her take a nice little stroll to the nomination.  What “unity” means to her is for Bernie Sanders to quit contrasting their astonishingly polar opposite visions for America and quit making quite so much noise to quite so many people about her many, many flaws and vulnerabilities as a candidate.

    “Unity” my ass.  That’s about as real as the hot sauce in her bag.  Or her contrived southern accent when talking to black voters.  Or playing dominoes in Harlem.  Or caring about Flint, Michigan, water victims until she lost the state.  But Bernie’s not bowing out and he’s not going to be encouraging his supporters to support Clinton – because for one thing, we won’t, and for another, he knows she’s bad for this country.  As Lucia Graves over at The Guardian noted (in a snarky kind of “I’mwithher” way that I’ll ignore, because she makes some points I’ll address in a moment),

    . . . [H]e’s not ready to give up on his revolution because as soon as he throws his support behind Clinton, the movement he’s fought for is over.

    So instead, he’s blasting out statements about winning through adversity. He’s decrying the politics of closed primaries and talking up his chances in the upcoming primaries of Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware and Maryland. He’s unleashing his campaign manager on national television, to say things like that they’ll fight all the way to the Democratic convention in July, working to flip superdelegates rather than unite behind the Democratic nominee.

    These are not the noises of a man or campaign preparing for a hearty and imminent embrace of Hillary Clinton . . . Clinton has been desperately trying to pivot toward the general, but at this critical juncture anyway, Sanders seems utterly unconcerned with helping her do that. And while it may be a bad look for Democrats, that’s hardly been Sanders’ concern. Until he ran for president, he wasn’t even a Democrat. In fact, throwing her his support would be at odds with the ideological purity he stands for.  Sanders prefers not to get nasty, but he’ll go there to defend his revolution . . . Some would argue he’s already been heard. That he’s already pushed Clinton left on everything from Keystone to trade policy and the minimum wage. That he’s already helped fire up a grassroots movement that will continue to push for his message long after he’s ceased to be a viable candidate. But Sanders still isn’t satisfied. It’s part of his charm, and also, why he’s so dangerous for Clinton and the party – he’ll never, ever be satisfied.  He’s a good revolutionary that way.

    Here’s the thing:  Ms. Graves can mock Bernie’s revolutionary ideas all she wants, but she’s right on that Bernie doesn’t care about being a loyal Dem (what have they done for him lately?) and isn’t eating humble pie because of the loss of one state. All the blows that Clinton has aimed at Bernie have not landed because we don’t care that he’s not a Democrat – most of his supporters feel strongly that the Democratic Party has abandoned us, we embrace his “ideals” as the only way to aim high and get anywhere close to what this country needs, and we reject the establishment as something out of the old politico days where back rooms were filled with cigar smoke and deals were cut by 1%’ers without voter input – a place Clinton would feel right at home.  As Ben Norton at Salon wrote, Hillary Clinton represents the very worst of the Democratic Party:

    A new strategy has emerged in the Hillary Clinton camp: No longer even try to match Bernie Sanders’ left-wing politics — which the Wall Street-backed multimillionaire war hawk Clinton is fundamentally incapable of doing. Instead, appeal to authority and accuse the democratic socialist of disloyalty to the corrupt Democratic Party.

    Clinton’s campaign did just that this week, condemning Sanders for ‘trying to convince the next generation of progressives that the Democratic Party is corrupt.’  The notion that Sanders had to try to convince progressives of this in the first place is ludicrous. The warmongering, corporate-funded, pro-privatization Democratic Party leadership has long made it loud and clear that it is thoroughly corrupt and reactionary.  Yet Clinton and her supporters happen to be correct about one thing; they are just right for the wrong reasons.  Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. And this is a good thing.  What the Clinton camp appears to be incapable of understanding is that the Democratic Party is less and less popular among progressive Americans.

    And while Amanda Terkel and Sam Stein over at HuffPo would love to think that Bernie Sanders’ plan to capture superdelegates at the convention by convincing them he’s the stronger candidate will put his “progressive” voter base in a bind, that’s about as valid as saying Bernie was finished after Super Tuesday.  We’re not a “progressive” voter base, by common definition.  We are millions who want to see the status quo overturned, the establishment and everyone in it busted apart, the Democratic machine grinding to a halt, and the people who run all that and who benefit from all that driven out of town.  The HuffPo article implied that Sanders supporters are hypocrites – on the one hand saying that the superdelegates should support the winning candidate, and on the other saying that if Bernie can convince them to flip at the convention, even if he’s not winning in pledged delegates or popular vote, good for him.  It’s not a contrary position.  We know the system is rigged – against him.  We know Clinton had hundreds of superdelegates locked up the minute she declared, if not before.  We know that the DNC and mainstream media has done everything in its power to diminish Bernie Sanders as a candidate, and we know that Clinton and her groupies have worked hard to make sure he doesn’t get any benefit of what the establishment Dems offer her.  We know that, even in states he’s won by a landslide, superdelegates still cling to Clinton.  Given all that, we don’t care if he rocks the boat at the convention.  We want him to rock the boat at the convention.  We want him to make her sweat every second until July.  We want him to put pressure on the superdelegates who ignore their states’ voters and are in the bag for her regardless.  We don’t care if it sounds unfair, because there is nothing fair about this cycle and there has been nothing fair about the way Bernie Sanders has been treated by the Democratic establishment, from undermining his civil rights record to accusing him of all manner of dishonest and offensive policy positions (like supporting vigilantes).  We don’t care what the establishment thinks.  We want him in, we want her gone, and that’s the long and short of it.

    Millions of us won’t support her in the general if she gets the nomination – and no, we won’t budge.  Millions of us are no longer feeling any loyalty to the Democratic Party – and no, it’s not just “spoiled, petulant millennials.”  Millions of us are no longer willing to vote for the lesser evil out of party loyalty – we don’t have any.

    So let Clinton’s camp muddle about, courting Bernie supporters with one hand and insulting with the other.  We don’t care about that either.  We’re Bernie or Bust, and the verbal blows are just fly specks to him and to his legions of full-throated supporters.

  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 10:19 pm on April 16, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Clintons gave $15 mil to charity since ’07 – $14.8 mil went to the Clinton Foundation 

    2013 Clinton Foundation

    Bernie Sanders and his wife Jane released their 2014 tax returns today.  No sweet investments, no stocks, a couple of hundred thousand in income, the usual this and that for a family making a comfortable but not high-end living.  They gave $8,350 to charity.

    In the same USA Today story, I read about the Clintons’ tax returns:

    . . . They show the couple earned just over $28 million in 2014 and $27 million in 2013, more than double the $13 million they earned in 2010, when she was still serving as secretary of state. The 2014 total included $10.5 million in speaking fees for Hillary Clinton, $9.8 million in speaking fees for the former president, and $6.4 million he earned from ‘consulting.’

    In a statement, Hillary Clinton noted the family had given $15 million to charity since 2007. The tax returns show $14.8 million of that went to the Clinton Family Foundation . . . .

    What?  I mean, there are rescue shelters for pets to donate to, foundations for missing children, there’s pretty much a charity for everything.  But these people – they took their “charitable donation” out of one pocket and put it in the other.

    There’s a lot to talk about with the Clinton Foundation, but here’s a quick sum-up from in August 2015:

    While the Clintons do not receive direct compensation from the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, they do benefit from travel, and many of their longtime aides have served on its payroll.

    The foundation has come under fire for its unusual structure. Charity Navigator put the Clinton Foundation on its ‘Watch List’ earlier this year because it said the organization did not meet its criteria due to its ‘atypical business model.’

    The group is also under review from the Better Business Bureau, after failing to meet its transparency standards in the past.

    The Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation was put on the Charity Navigator’s Watch List, designed to warn potential donors about the charity, but was later removed.  But as the Washington Post noted,

    Even so, the Clinton Foundation’s ranking on the list served as a black eye on the time, coming in the weeks just after Hillary Clinton announced she was stepping down from the charity’s board to run for president. Increased scrutiny showed overlaps between Bill and Hillary Clinton’s personal and political supporters and donors to the charity. In addition, The Washington Post revealed in February that the foundation had accepted millions of dollars in donations from foreign governments while Clinton was secretary of state, including one donation that came in violation of an ethics agreement with the Obama administration.

    Does it ever end with these people?  Hillary Clinton is running for President – President! – and yet there are email servers in the basement leading to an FBI investigation, Wall Street speech transcripts that she absolutely refuses to release, the Clintons giving the lion’s share of their charitable donations to their own foundation which directly or indirectly benefits them, Hillary Clinton ties to the Panama Papers.  This resume would keep you from getting a job interview at Macy’s, let alone qualify you to be President of the United States.

    This is just crazy, unbelievably crazy, that she seriously thinks she can be President and that her supporters don’t seem to care about all this garbage they have to step gingerly around.


  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 9:54 pm on April 16, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    George Clooney agrees Clinton’s $350,000+ fundraiser is an “obscene” amount of money 


    There’s not much I can add to this.  In an interview with Chuck Todd, scheduled to air on Meet the Press on Sunday, George Clooney agreed that the amount of money involved in this fundraiser, and politics in general, is, as Bernie Sanders noted, “obscene”:

    The Sanders campaign, when they talk about it, is absolutely right.  It’s ridiculous that we should have this kind of money in politics. I agree completely . . . Yes. I think it’s an obscene amount of money . . . I think that, you know, we had some protesters last night when we pulled up in San Francisco and they’re right to protest. They’re absolutely right. It is an obscene amount of money.

    While this statement put George Clooney squarely back in the “good guy” category in my mind, the question remains:  Then why?  If it’s obscene – and it truly is – then maybe the better bet is to join forces with the guy next door, Howard Gold, whose family founded the 99 Cents Only store chain, who’s hosting the “99% Party” for Bernie Sanders, with tickets going for, yes, $27 each.  It would seem that, if you truly feel sad about the obscene amounts of money in politics, you might take a stand and try to push money out of politics, instead of inviting it in.

    Here’s how democracy should work:

    An email invite sent to Sanders supporters Saturday reads: ‘Swimming pools, Movie Stars, and merriment for all! This is happening right next door to Clooney’s party for Hillary!’

    The invite also notes that ‘no-one (will be) turned away for a lack of funds.’

    Once again, Bernie Sanders and those supporting him are on the right side of economic issues, while Hillary Clinton and her supporters are again on the side that says it’s perfectly okay for rich folks to buy elections.


    • Denice Smith 7:44 am on April 17, 2016 Permalink | Reply

      Clooney just said that to try to stay in the good graces of his fans. Well sorry Bucko, as Tony Soprano would say ” you are dead to me”. He is no longer on my list of actors to see in movies. Bye

  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 8:21 pm on April 13, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Bernie stands, literally, with striking Verizon workers, Clinton and her foundation take Verizon’s cash 


    New York is Feeling the Bern.  Bernie got the endorsement of the 60,000-strong New York Transit Workers union, and he also visited Verizon workers’ picket lines to lend support to striking Verizon workers.  As always, his words boosted the energy and momentum of these striking workers who are standing up to a rich corporation that thinks it’s being slick:

    Today, you are standing up not just for justice for Verizon workers; you’re standing up for millions of Americans who don’t have a union . . . On behalf of every worker in America, those facing the same kind of pressure, thank you for what you are doing. We’re gonna win this thing!

    Clinton’s response was a little less, well, heartfelt, and she didn’t hang out at picket lines.  Get back to the negotiating table, was about all she said.  After all, what’s she gonna do, bite another hand that feeds her?  As Salon reports,

    The Hillary Clinton campaign, meanwhile, has received tens of thousands of dollars from Verizon executives and lobbyists.  That’s not all. For a May 2013 speech, the corporation paid Clinton a whopping $225,000 honorarium, according to her tax records.  Verizon has also given between $100,000 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation, which investigative journalist Ken Silverstein has referred to as a ‘so-called charitable enterprise [that] has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.’  Moreover, the Clinton Foundation has partnered directly with Verizon, which is notorious for its vehement opposition to unions. The corporation is a partner in the Clinton Health Matters Initiative, and said it is ‘proud to partner with the Clinton Foundation’ . . . Journalist Zaid Jilani reported in AlterNet in October, when Sanders spoke in support of a Verizon strike, that the corporation’s executives and lobbyists had poured money into Clinton’s campaign or PACs.  Three Verizon vice presidents each donated $2,700 to Hillary for America. They were joined by a senior vice president and another vice president, who gave an additional $1,000.  A former Hillary Clinton operative who now lobbies for Verizon donated $2,700 as well, along with another Verizon lobbyist who pitched in $1,000.

    It’s no coincidence that Verizon’s CEO and Chairman, Lowell McAdam, is channeling GE’s Immelt and frantically publishing a push-back against Bernie Sanders.  As notes,

    The CEO of Verizon is not feeling the Bern. Lowell McAdam, who serves as both CEO and chairman of the telecommunications giant, posted an article to LinkedIn titled ‘Feeling the Bern of Reality — The Facts About Verizon and the ‘Moral Economy” on Wednesday.  In the piece, McAdam takes contention with Vermont Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ claims the company does not pay its fair share of taxes and doesn’t use its profits to benefit other Americans, as well as Sanders’ meeting with some of the 36,000 Verizon workerswho launched a major union strike this week.  ‘The senator’s uninformed views are, in a word, contemptible. Here’s why,’ McAdam wrote, noting Verizon paid $15.6 billion in taxes over the past two years.

    I suppose it’s possible that Verizon paid $15 mil over the past two years.  On the other hand, as Americans for Tax Fairness noted, between 2008 and 2011, Verizon paid nothing on profits of almost $20 billion (that’s with a “b”).

    Bernie Sanders will always get it right because his net worth is half of what Clinton made giving speeches to Wall Street and he doesn’t care.  Hillary Clinton will always be unwilling and, therefore, unable to get it right because her hand is always going to be shoved deep into the pockets of big corporations and Wall Street and every move she makes is going to forever reflect that largesse.

    This, folks, is what is commonly known as a no-brainer.


  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 7:55 pm on April 13, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    No mystery why Hillary’s camp took this video down: Watch 

    This week is Clinton’s one-year anniversary of the launch of her presidential run – and given that her opponent is drawing tens of thousands to rallies, has energy to burn and has his people pounding the streets on his behalf, you’d think she’d add a little spice to the self-congratulatory video.  But it’s Hillary.  Her idea of fun is delivering a diatribe on how a diesel engine works or the fine policy details that go into naming a post office.  Nah, I’m thinking the jack-in-the-box approach isn’t a keeper – and if she could be any more mundane, ridiculous and boring, I’m not sure how. But even her camp thought it was awful, because they took it down in about a minute.  Watch:



  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 11:35 pm on April 11, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Bernie Sanders represented our interests even when the whole world wasn’t watching 

    Bernie early lifeAll of the reasons the mainstream media and the political establishment have given us that Hillary Clinton is the “inevitable” candidate or the “most electable” candidate or the “most experienced” candidate are wrong.  Her unfavorable ratings are in double digits, second only to Donald Trump, while Bernie Sanders is the only candidate with a net positive favorable rating.  Her chronic and shameless inconsistency on her policy positions, from guns to gay marriage to trade deals, even to abortion, is legendary, while YouTube has an array of videos documenting Bernie Sanders’ fights against the “system” and on behalf of us for decades, long before the whole world was watching.  Whatever the outcome, Hillary Clinton is being investigated by the FBI for what is, at best, the worst judgment in the world for her use of a private, secret, shady email server, and what is at worst possible crimes.  Neither poor judgment nor criminal activity speak well for someone seeking to occupy our nation’s highest office.  That matters.  And despite Clinton’s dismissive attitude toward the FBI’s investigation into what she did with her emails, and despite her haughty confidence, it’s not, as she recently claimed, just a routine “security review,” not when people close to her are being granted immunity.

    Don’t vote for Hillary Clinton.  Don’t consign this country to four or eight years of business as usual, politics as usual, to the leadership of someone whose primary loyalty lies with those big players who financially fueled her rise to power.  Don’t give the Establishment what it wants, which is to maintain the status quo, where power brokers lobby for deals, politicians sign on, and we pay the price.  Don’t vote for Hillary Clinton, a candidate who’s so deep into the dark money, so entrenched in the nether regions of the upper echelon – a place you and I can’t even imagine, let alone ever reside in – that she can’t even envision what our lives are like, let alone take steps to alleviate our pain.  Don’t vote for a candidate who measures peoples’ worth based on what they can do for her financially or politically.

    Is there such thing as a perfect candidate?  No.  Do we largely pick our poison?  Sure – but not this time around.  This time, we have a chance, there’s actually a window of opportunity, to vote for Bernie Sanders, someone with rock solid integrity and commitment who has represented our interests behind the scenes for decades – even when the whole world wasn’t watching.  When he took to the Senate floor to rail against the Panama trade agreement, when he stood against the Iraq war, when he marched for civil rights and for workers’ rights, when he proposed legislation to protect our pensions and when he has fought to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour so millions can be lifted out of poverty, he was speaking for us, because it was right, and not because it made for a good sound bite.

    Hillary Clinton is by all measures the scariest candidate on either side of this election cycle.  The powers that be on the Dem side want to convince us that we have to vote for her, or we risk a Trump or a Cruz or a Kasich.  You know what?  I know what they stand for.  I don’t like it, but I know it.  With Clinton, there’s a constant question mark.  As she’s clawed her way up in politics, she’s left a trail of rule-breaking, rumors of corruption, the scent of dark and mysterious money flowing every which way, clear quid pro quo deals and a refusal to believe that facts and truth matter.  Hillary Clinton has no moral compass.  Her every act and word is calculated for either financial gain or gaining another rung on the power ladder.  She won’t release her Wall Street speeches because she knows they will simply reinforce every notion we have always had of her – that she says one thing and does another.

    Once Hillary Clinton lost Michigan, she also lost interest in Flint’s plight.  If she sees the black vote veering toward Bernie Sanders, and believes it’s lost to her, she’ll lose interest in the mothers of the slain young black men who she’s now using as political props.  Her deplorable Sandy Hook attacks on Bernie Sanders backfired, and she’s likely to distance herself from that lawsuit – and the parents of those slain children – as well.  We should judge her, ethically and morally, for her callous use of grieving people to score political points.  We should judge her, as a fellow human being, for viewing people as just so much flotsam and jetsam in her quest for power.

    Integrity and character aren’t fluid things, but Clinton missed that memo.  Every single move she makes is calculated for politics, to curry favor.  She wouldn’t even take a bite of a damn piece of cheesecake in New York because she was afraid of how it would play to those watching.

    Bernie Sanders says what he thinks – about Israel, about Wall Street, about the Sandy Hook parents’ lawsuit against the gun manufacturers, about how he views Hillary Clinton’s qualifications – even when it’s not popular.  He doesn’t stop, think, and stick a finger in the air to test the political winds before speaking.  He’s articulate and passionate and real.  He’s everything she isn’t, and she’s everything that he has spent a lifetime fighting against.

    We cannot let Hillary Clinton get the nomination.  This is our one shot to tell the Democratic establishment what we think of their efforts to decide for us who our nominee will be, to tell the media what we think of their slights to Bernie Sanders during this primary season, what we think of the corporations who own Hillary Clinton.  We have a chance, and we can’t blow it.

    Supporters of Bernie Sanders don’t believe he’s a perfect human being; instead, we know that he’s the perfect candidate for us, at this time, in this economic environment.  We know that he’s who he says he is and that two months, three months, six months into his presidency, he’s not going to be in the tank for Wall Street or making deals on behalf of corporate America.  We know this. Nobody – NOBODY, not even her most ardent supporters – can say the same thing about Hillary Clinton.

    We deserve our revolution.  We’ve suffered enough at the hands of those like Hillary Clinton who put politics before people.  We need to demand that we won’t accept less than we are owed, and that even if Wall Street got away with literal murder and crime, we won’t stand behind someone who has slithered behind the scenes, giving speeches to the tune of 3/4 of a million dollars, to assure them they’ll have a friend in the White House.

    Sanders bird

  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 11:54 pm on April 9, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    For Bernie, 8 wins in a row ain’t chopped liver – and it’s high time for the superdelegates to catch on 

    Bernie Sanders just won Wyoming tonight, making it eight straight victories, and not just by a couple of votes, either.  Wyoming Democratic Party executive director Aimee Van Cleave said that being a Democratic in red Wyoming is “electrifying.”  Bernie seems to have that effect on people.

    And then there’s the New York thing, where Bernie has whittled about 30 points out of Clinton’s lead – he’s within 18 points of her now.  In California, he’s only six points behind Clinton.

    Okay, sour grapes’ers, talk to me about the math – no, actually, don’t.  We won’t talk about the math until we get to the open convention, because that’s when it comes important because that’s when superdelegates vote.  Already there’s some movement in the superdelegate arena, the flipping from “inevitable” Clinton to the highly popular – and winning – Bernie Sanders. Uncommitted Minnesota superdelegate Rep. Rick Nolan has felt the pressure from Sanders supporters, with some querying whether he will be reelected if he pledges for Clinton when Sanders won over 60% of the state.  After rumors started that he’s in the Clinton camp, he squelched them in a big fat hurry, releasing a statement that he hasn’t endorsed anybody yet.

    I’m saying, screw the math, for now.  If you read the media headlines, you’ll catch the theme:  Bernie is in the process of trying to “poach” (definition: take or acquire in an unfair or clandestine way) Clinton’s superdelegates.  Odd phrasing, if you ask me:  What exactly makes them hers?  Sanders supporters are working hard to bring pressure to bear on superdelegates to flip from Clinton to Sanders, particularly in states where he’s won big.  They argue, and I agree, that a superdelegate can individually vote any way he or she likes, but when it comes to casting a vote as a superdelegate, it is incumbent upon them to follow the state’s lead.  I sit here, this election cycle, and wonder why the superdelegate thing hasn’t given me pause in the past; it seems odd.  When I read that Kansas City, Missouri superdelegate Sly James has pledged to Clinton regardless of the state’s vote, it made my spidey sense tingle.  As noted, “. . . [M]any of the superdelegates who have stated that the will of voters is inconsequential to who they will support at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia make it sound like they were appointed with the explicit purpose of supporting Clinton.”

    Here are a few particularly glaring examples of the failure of superdelegates to vote the way their electorate dictates:

    • Let’s start with Michigan, where Sanders won in an upset, 61-38.  How come none of the Michigan delegates are in the Sanders camp, with seven being in the Clinton camp and the rest still undecided?
    • In Minnesota, where Sanders beat Clinton 61-38, only two superdelegates are in his camp; twelve are for Clinton and one is undecided.
    • In Wisconsin, Sanders beat Clinton 56-43, and yet six superdelegates are for Clinton, one is for Sanders, and the rest are undecided.
    • Sanders creamed Clinton 79-20 in Utah, so it should be a no-brainer that Utah’s superdelegates would be on board – but alas, two are still in the Clinton camp, despite the clear message from voters.
    • Sanders beat Clinton 59-40 in Colorado, but none of Colorado’s superdelegates are on Bernie’s list – eight are pledged to Clinton, and four are still undecided.
    • Sanders won by a 78-21 landslide in Idaho, so you’d think that all of the superdelegates would get the hint.  You’d be wrong.  One is still in the Clinton camp, and one is still undecided.
    • 81-18 is what most people would call a definitive win – that’s what Sanders beat Clinton by in Alaska.  So someone explain why only one superdelegate has pledged to Sanders, while two are in Clinton’s pocket and one is still undecided.
    • Sanders beat Clinton 69-30 in Hawaii, again, a quite definitive statement about what the state’s voters think.  Explain, then, why six superdelegates are still pledging to Clinton, only two to Sanders, and why the others can’t seem to make up their minds.
    • All but one undecided superdelegate for Democrats Abroad are pledged to Clinton, despite Bernie Sanders beating her substantially, 70-30.
    • Sanders won 72-27 in Washington, but you couldn’t tell it by the superdelegate count:  Not one has pledged to Sanders, ten are pledged to Clinton, and the rest of the bunch are wishy-washs who can’t make up their minds.
    • 61-38 in Minnesota, that’s what Sanders won by.  And yet, here we are, with eight pledged to Clinton, three pledged to Sanders, and one still uncommitted.

    There’s more, much more, but that’s just a random assortment of blowout Sanders wins followed by incredibly undemocratic actions by superdelegates who refuse to follow the electorate’s lead.  I’d highly suggest that we all follow this website closely,, which is complete with contact information for the Clinton hacks, the reluctant or the fence-riders in the superdelegate arena.

    Sanders Supporter Creates Superdelegate ‘Hit List’; Superdelegates Not Amused

    To Bernie Sanders supporters the idea that Democratic superdelegates – elected officials and other party elites who can vote however they wish at the convention – could tip the nomination to Hillary Clinton seems terribly undemocratic. And so, they’re trying to convince superdelegates, officially known as unpledged party leaders and elected officials, to change their allegiance.

    The role of superdelegates is enormous, given that Clinton cannot win the nomination without them – and they need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that being bought by Clinton, acting out of fear of the Clinton thug brigade, or trading a vote for a favor isn’t going to play this time around.  We’re not going to allow them to decide for us who the best candidate is, when the voters have already spoken.



  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 9:06 pm on April 7, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    A charismatic, energizing speech by Bernie Sanders, a man with a vision 

    Sanders Victory

    We’re not satisfied with half a loaf, and we’re surely not satisfied when someone is telling us that our ideals are pie-in-the-sky, idealistic and unrealistic.  If you don’t have a vision, you stall – Bernie Sanders has a vision, and we’re with him.

    Thanks to U.S. Uncut for this:

    If we were here in this beautiful auditorium 5 years ago, not a long time from an historical perspective, and someone were to jump up and say, you know, I think the $7.25 minimum wage is a starvation wage and it has to be raised to $15 an hour.” If someone stood up and said that 5 years ago, the guy next to him would say, ‘You’re nuts! 15 bucks an hour? You want to more than double the current minimum wage. You’re crazy. Maybe, maybe, we can get up to 8 or 9 bucks an hour, but 15 bucks an hour? You’re dreaming. Too big.’ Sound familiar? ‘You are unrealistic. It can’t be done. Think smaller.’

    . . . But then what happened is fast-food workers went out on strike… and I was very proud to join with those workers in Washington. And they went out and told Americans we can’t live on $7/hour, you gotta raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour. And they fought and fought. Then Seattle, Washington, 15 bucks an hour. Los Angeles, San Francisco, 15 bucks an hour. Oregon, 15 bucks an hour. And in the last several weeks, in both California and New York, both governors signed legislation for 15 bucks an hour. My point is that, yes, we can change the status quo when we think big and when we have a vision.

    . . . I am not naive. I know the power of Wall Street, and their endless supplies of money. I know that corporate America will shut down plants in America and move to Mexico or China if they can make another $5 in profit… I know about the corporate media that will give us all the information we need, except what is most important for working families. I know about all of that.

    But this is what I also know. I know that history is about when people stand up and say that status quo is not acceptable, we will not have children working in factories, we will not have working people on the job who have no power over those jobs. We will not continue to have segregation, or racism, or bigotry. We will not have women unable to vote or go to the schools they want or do the work they want. We will pass gay marriage in 50 states across this country.

    So that is what I have learned from history, is that when we are prepared to think big, when we are prepared to take on the greed and recklessness of Wall Street, when we stand together and we don’t let the Donald Trumps of the world divide us, whether we are born in America or abroad, whether we are Muslim, or Jewish, or Christian, when we stand together, whether we’re gay or straight, male or female, yes we can create a government that represents all of us, and not just for a handful of wealthy campaign contributors.

    Bernie Sanders Just Destroyed His Critics Who Call Him ‘Unrealistic’

    After his decisive win in Wisconsin, Bernie Sanders delivered a fiery speech in Laramie, Wyoming, destroying all of his critics’ arguments. Throughout the speech, Sanders made distinctions between the message of his campaign and Hillary Clinton’s as one of vision and boldness vs. a continuation of the status quo.


  • Profile photo of Julie Driscoll

    Julie Driscoll 8:23 pm on April 7, 2016 Permalink | Reply  

    Clinton’s going scorched earth against Bernie, and the media’s her co-pilot 

    Hillary So Qualified I

    I started out wanting to talk about Clinton’s Sandy Hook comments about Bernie Sanders (which went all kinds of bad), but suddenly I was distracted with Clinton’s camp bemoaning the negativity of the Sanders campaign, and the media’s blazing headlines that Bernie was so very mean to her and that he will be so, so sorry that he called Clinton “unqualified.”  We’ll talk about the substance of that in a minute, but first, where was the media outrage when Clinton surrogate Chelsea Clinton said Bernie Sanders wanted to take healthcare and the CHIP program away from Americans?  Where was the media outrage when Clinton cavalierly trotted out Sandy Hook families to essentially paint Bernie as wanting to arm mass killers?  Where was the media outrage when Clinton accused the Sanders camp of lying about her record on fossil fuels?  Where was the media outrage when Clinton said that most of New York’s guns come from Bernie Sanders’ state of Vermont (which even a delegate admitted was a lie – in fact, according to the ATF, only 55 out of the 7,686 firearms recovered and traced in New York in 2014 were from Vermont), when she has tried valiantly to paint him as damn near an NRA enthusiast?  Where was the media outrage when Clinton said that Bernie was against the auto bailout?  Where was her media backlash for such completely unforgivable lies?  Right after Clinton lost Wisconsin by double digits to Bernie Sanders, after losing 6 prior primaries, the Clinton camp (after pledging party unity), decided that its patience was at an end with this dogged, persistent, winning opponent, and decided that party unity could be ditched until later so they could launch attacks now.  Sanders’ campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, warned Clinton about destroying party unity in order to satisfy her ambition to become president (and of course, that statement was met with cries of “sexist”).

    And here comes the media, with its headlines decrying Bernie Sanders for “going negative” by calling Hillary Clinton unqualified, despite the fact that (in a move similar to her 2008 camp leaking the rumor that then-candidate Obama was a Muslim and refusing to deny outright that he wasn’t) Clinton refused to say in a national interview that Bernie was qualified.  Although asked three times, Clinton refused to acknowledge that Bernie Sanders was qualified to be president – and yet, the Washington Post fact-checker dude insisted that Bernie was “putting words in Clinton’s mouth” by claiming she said he was not qualified.  Here’s the exchange:

    JOE SCARBOROUGH: We’ve been talking about Bernie Sanders’s New York Daily News interview. I want to start with that and ask you, in light of the interview, in light of the questions he had problems with, do you believe this morning that Bernie Sanders is qualified and ready to be president of the United States?

    CLINTON: Well, I think the interview raised a lot of really serious questions and I look at it this way. The core of his campaign has been break up the banks and it didn’t seem in reading his answers that he understood exactly how that would work under Dodd-Frank, exactly who would be responsible, what the criteria were. And you know, that means you can’t really help people if you don’t know how to do what you are campaigning on saying you want to do.

    SCARBOROUGH: So is he — so is he …

    CLINTON: And then there were other very …

    SCARBOROUGH: Is he — I know there are a lot of examples of where he came up short and the interviewers were having to repeat questions. So the question, and I’m serious, if you weren’t running today and you looked at Bernie Sanders, would you say this guy is ready to be president of the United States?

    CLINTON: Well, I think he hadn’t done his homework, and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions. And really what it goes to is for voters to ask themselves can he deliver what he’s talking about, can he really help people …

    SCARBOROUGH: What do you think?

    CLINTON: Can he help our economy? Can he keep our country strong? Well obviously, I think I’m by far the better choice and …

    SCARBOROUGH: But do you think he is qualified? And do you think he is able to deliver on the things he is promising to all these Democratic voters?

    CLINTON: Well, let me put it this way, Joe. I think that what he has been saying about the core issue in his whole campaign doesn’t seem to be rooted in an understanding of either the law or the practical ways you get something done. And I will leave it to voters to decide who of us can do the job that the country needs, who can do all aspects of the job, both on the economic domestic issues and on national security and foreign policy.

    For the cheap seats, refusing to acknowledge that Bernie Sanders is qualified, while simultaneously highlighting his perceived shortcomings, is another way of saying what she didn’t have the balls to say outright (and Bernie, in fact, did):  “No.”  But the media wasn’t having it, oh, no.  She didn’t really say that, therefore he shouldn’t blast her!

    Chicago Tribune:  “With charge of being unqualified, Sanders takes the wrong swipe at Hillary Clinton”

    Business Insider:  “Bernie Unloads on Clinton:  I don’t think you’re qualified”

    TPM:  “Not good, not good at all”

    CNN:  “Is Bernie Sanders taking the low road?”

    RealClearPolitics:  “McCaskill:  Calling Hillary Clinton unqualified is like fingernails on a black board to most women”

    As noted by the Washington Post,

    Warren Gunnels, a senior adviser to Sanders, justified the phrasing by pointing to two items: a Washington Post headline and a quote in a CNN article.

    The Washington Post article had this headline: ‘Clinton questions whether Sanders is qualified to be president.’

    The CNN report included this sentence: ‘The campaign’s deputy communications director, Christina Reynolds, argued that Sanders is unqualified.’ The sentence appeared before a description of a campaign missive that Reynolds had written, drawing attention to a problematic interview that Sanders had with the editorial board of the Daily News.

    ‘Senator Sanders believes there are serious differences in this race that show who is best qualified to be president,’ Gunnels said. ‘It’s remarkable that Secretary Clinton could suggest Senator Sanders isn’t qualified to be president in the morning and then fake outrage at her own statements that same evening.’

    Gunnels also expressed outrage at an email Reynolds sent to supporters drawing attention to Sanders’s ‘not qualified’ comments. ‘This is exactly why so many Americans do not trust Hillary Clinton or her campaign,’ he said.

    Hillary Clinton is one of the most devious politicians of our time.  She levels attacks then cries foul on her opponent.  She pretends to be a victim while hurling slings and arrows.  Her 2008 campaign against then-candidate Obama was a disgrace.  Her campaign, to date, against Bernie Sanders – despite his refusal to attack her on her email scandal or the Clinton Foundation and its trail of dirty money – has been rife with blatant lies, mocking taunts, and barely veiled innuendos designed to smear him while purportedly leaving her hands clean.  We are not fooled.  We know who she is.  And we’re cheering Bernie Sanders on, because it’s become glaringly apparently that he’s sick and tired of her.  She’s showing herself to be the snarling, vicious person we always knew she was – and when her back’s against the wall, she’s like a cornered possum.

    Nothing in her background qualifies her to be a progressive, people-minded president; Bernie Sanders is right.  She took oodles of Wall Street money, which has left her beholden, and refuses to disclose her speeches.  She has lied about fossil fuel money and refuses to take the pledge against it.  She feigns interest in the black community when her history screams the opposite.  She drags victims of tragedies around with her on the campaign trail to portray herself as caring.  She rushed to Flint, Michigan, and its cause until she lost the state and lost interest.  She’s a grifter, and unqualified to lead this nation.  Her unfavorability ratings are second only to Donald Trump, with good reason.  And, not surprisingly, she is, at least peripherally, tied to the Panama Papers through more than one cozy connection.

    Where there’s dirty money and dirty politics, there’s a bread crumb trail leading to Hillary Clinton’s doorstep.  “Unqualified” barely scratches the surface of this deplorably dishonest woman.

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Skip to toolbar