original video, in segments in sequence (additional related source references via http://www.msnbc.com/search/clinton%20town%20hall [with dates searched set to e.g. from April 25, 2016 to May 3, 2016]), at:
Clinton: ‘We are not a post-racial society’ The Rachel Maddow Show 4/25/16 Hillary Clinton discusses the fight to end systemic racism, and what more must be done to ensure equal rights and pay regardless of race or gender. Plus: Clinton explains how her administration would differ from President Obama’s. Duration: 13:14 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/clinton-we-are-not-a-post-racial-society-673610819594 (with comments)
Clinton: ‘We need to restore voting rights’ The Rachel Maddow Show 4/25/16 Hillary Clinton explains how she would help families who were negatively affected by the 1994 crime bill signed by her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, and how she would help ensure that all eligible Americans are able to vote. Plus, Rachel Maddow asks Hillary Clinton whether military experience is something she is considering in a potential running mate. Duration: 4:27 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/clinton-we-need-to-restore-voting-rights-673624131698 (with comments)
Sen. Bernie Sanders says he's not hurting the Democratic Party by staying in the race, why he doesn't believe there is no path forward for him and if Hillary Clinton is a hawk. Duration: 12:16
HUNTINGTON, W. Va. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Tuesday issued the following statement:
“I congratulate Secretary Clinton on her victories tonight, and I look forward to issue-oriented campaigns in the 14 contests to come.
“I am proud that we were able to win a resounding victory tonight in Rhode Island, the one state with an open primary where independents had a say in the outcome. Democrats should recognize that the ticket with the best chance of winning this November must attract support from independents as well as Democrats. I am proud of my campaign’s record in that regard.
“The people in every state in this country should have the right to determine who they want as president and what the agenda of the Democratic Party should be. That’s why we are in this race until the last vote is cast. That is why this campaign is going to the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia with as many delegates as possible to fight for a progressive party platform that calls for a $15 an hour minimum wage, an end to our disastrous trade policies, a Medicare-for-all health care system, breaking up Wall Street financial institutions, ending fracking in our country, making public colleges and universities tuition free and passing a carbon tax so we can effectively address the planetary crisis of climate change.”
Fresh off Tuesday primary wins in the Northeast, Donald Trump joins Morning Joe to discuss everything from why Ted Cruz and John Kasich should get out of the race to the relationship between his campaign top brass of Corey Lewandowski and Paul Manafort. Duration: 21:50
Bernie Sanders talks with MSNBC's Chris Jansing about the how his campaign has fared, and the current dynamic between him and rival Hillary Clinton. Sanders also explains why he feels GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump lacks judgment. Duration: 8:49
Jane Sanders joins Morning Joe to discuss her husband's campaign for office, news that the campaign will lay off hundreds following Tuesday and why attacks against Hillary Clinton aren't personal. Duration: 6:13
Bernie Sanders outspends other candidates on the campaign trail
The Rachel Maddow Show 4/28/16
Rachel Maddow speaks to Bernie Sanders’ wife and senior advisor Jane Sanders about the $166 million his campaign has spent so far and how he plans to revitalize the Democratic party. Duration: 9:53
In major shift, Clinton campaign gears up for general election...
The Rachel Maddow Show 4/29/16
Rachel Maddow and NBC Correspondent Kristen Welker discuss the Clinton campaign’s shift from a primary race against Bernie Sanders to a general election against Donald Trump. Duration: 13:57
The desperate scramble for Bernie's secret weapon Bernie Sanders is still behind in the delegate count with Hillary Clinton. The fate of Sanders' golden catalog of donors and volunteers — his email list — is the talk of the Democratic Party. 04/22/16 Updated 04/23/16 http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/bernie-sanders-fundraising-list-222342
A taste of what a localized Sanders 'revolution' would look like
When Sanders turns his gaze downballot, good things happen Getty Images
By kos Monday May 02, 2016 - 3:31 PM CDT
Bernie Sanders has gotten knocked by Democratic partisans for his weak embrace of down ballot races. What kind of “revolution” focuses only on the top? A real one would build a groundswell of support for multiple candidates, up and down the ballot, making it less a cult of personality and more an ideological upswell. God knows the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party could use the reinforcements.
Which is why it’s so disappointing that Sanders has done so little for candidates down ballot, because the few times he has, it’s been huge.
Candidate: Lucy Flores (NV-04) Before Sanders: $141K (Q1, Jan-Mar) After Sanders: $428K (1 month)
Candidate: Zephyr Teachout (NY-19) Before Sanders: $500K (Q1, Jan-Mar) After Sanders: $418K (1 month)
Sanders endorsed a third candidate, Pramila Jayapal, in Washington’s 7th Congressional District, but she hasn’t announced how much Sanders’ support meant. But with just the two examples above, we see that Sanders’ list can be used as a movement-building force for good. Half a million is real money! Not to mention those candidates can return to those donors and raise more over the course of the campaign. It’s tragic that this power hasn’t been wielded more regularly, but one can argue that Sanders really had to look out for himself first. His was always a quixotic bid, and he needed every last dime to keep it as close as he did. Fair enough.
But with the primaries winding down, he’ll be sitting on that list, with a core of supporters that will fight hard for everything Sanders stands for. Well, there are more candidates like Sanders running all over the country, and there’s a bench that needs to be built for 2024. Let’s hope we will see him more forcefully support good Democrats. It makes it far easier to marginalize and get rid off the bad ones.
This Is What a Republican Attack on Bernie Sanders Would Look Like
Bernie Sanders speaks during a campaign rally on Sunday in South Bend, Indiana. Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Sanders’ “superior electability” is still a myth.
By Michelle Goldberg May 2 2016 4:17 PM
Over the past year, Bernie Sanders’ supporters have repeatedly criticized the undemocratic role of superdelegates in choosing the Democratic presidential nominee [ http://www.slate.com/topics/d/dem_primary_2016.html ]. In February, for example, MoveOn, which had endorsed Sanders the month before, started a petition [ http://pac.petitions.moveon.org/sign/tell-the-democratic-superdel ] saying, “Democracy only works when the votes of the people—not the decision of a small number of elites—are what determines the outcome of elections.” The fear, then, was that Sanders would win the most pledged delegates but that Hillary Clinton would use her pull with insiders to trump the popular will.
It is more than a little ironic, then, that Sanders is now urging those same insiders to ignore the intention of the primary electorate—which has given Clinton an edge in both pledged delegates and raw votes—and bequeath the nomination to him instead. In a Washington press conference on Sunday, Sanders, who has no discernible path to a delegate majority, outlined a plan to force a contested convention, where he apparently believes some superdelegates will flip to his side on the basis of electability. “The evidence is extremely clear that I would be the stronger candidate to defeat Trump or any other Republican,” he said. Sanders reiterated this on Monday at a rally in Evansville, Indiana, saying, “We appeal to virtually all the Democrats, but we do a lot better with independents than Secretary Clinton. And I hope the Democrats at the national convention understand that while independents may not be able to vote in certain Democratic primaries, they do vote in the general election.”
I have no idea if Sanders is serious about this superdelegate plan. It might just be a rationale for him to keep fighting until the end of the primaries, garnering delegates that he could leverage to push Clinton and the party leftward at the convention. But if he is serious, then what he is proposing is a presumption based on a falsehood.
It is true, as Sanders pointed out, that polls show him doing better than Clinton against Republicans in November. But it is also true that Clinton has not hit Sanders with a single negative ad. Not one. Initially, her campaign didn’t take him seriously. Later, it couldn’t figure out a way to go after him where he’s weakest—on the flakier parts of his far-left past—without alienating his supporters. A source close to the Clinton campaign tells me that because Sanders has high favorability numbers with Democrats, Clinton would have damaged herself by attacking him, especially since she didn’t have to in order to win. The source points to the New York primary as confirmation of this view, arguing that Sanders hurt himself by going negative on his opponent.
The right, meanwhile, had no incentive to rough up Sanders, a candidate who, by all accounts, Republicans would love to run against in the fall. And the mainstream media often failed to treat Sanders as a plausible contender, which would have entailed a much greater degree of scrutiny than he received. As a result, issues that, fairly or not, would be obsessively scrutinized in a general election have gone almost entirely unexamined.
At this point in 2008, Barack Obama already had to account for his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, who sparked a nationwide epidemic of pearl-clutching over a 2003 sermon [ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4719157 ] in which he excoriated the U.S. for its legacy of racism: “Not God bless America, God damn America.” Hard as it is to remember now, there was a moment when some thought this would doom Obama’s presidential bid, until he delivered his famous speech on race and demonstrated anew his political virtuosity.
Perhaps Sanders is capable of this sort of virtuosity as well. Right now there’s no way of knowing, because there’s been only scattered excavation of Sanders’ radical connections. He has never been asked to account for his relationship with the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party, for which he served [ http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/bernie_sanders_radical_past_would_haunt_him_in_a_general_election.html ] as a presidential elector in 1980. At the time, the party’s platform called for abolishing the U.S. military budget and proclaimed “solidarity” with revolutionary Iran. (This was in the middle of the Iranian hostage crisis.) There’s been little cable news chatter about Sanders’ 1985 trip to Nicaragua, where he reportedly joined a Sandinista rally [ https://www.yahoo.com/news/bernie-sanders-radical-past-how-the-vermont-230255076.html ] with a crowd chanting, “Here, there, everywhere/ The Yankee will die.” It would be nice if this were due to a national consensus on the criminal nature of America’s support for the Contras. More likely, the media’s attention has simply been elsewhere.
The Clinton campaign has also ignored Sanders’ youthful sex writings. Republicans are unlikely to be so decorous. Imagine an ad drawing from the old Sanders essay [ https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2157415-sanders-revolution.html ] “The Revolution Is Life Versus Death.” First it might quote the candidate mocking taboos on child nudity: “Now, if children go around naked, they are liable to see each others [sic] sexual organs, and maybe even touch them. Terrible thing!” Then it would quote him celebrating girls who defy their mothers and have sex with their boyfriends: “The revolution comes … when a girl pushes aside all that her mother has ‘taught’ her and accepts her boyfriends [sic] love.” Finally, it would remind viewers that Sanders was one of 14 congressmen to vote against [ http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll089.xml ] the law establishing the Amber Alert system and one of 15 to vote against [ http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2003/roll088.xml ] an amendment criminalizing computer-generated child pornography. The fact that these votes were cast for entirely principled civil libertarian reasons is, in the context of a general-election attack, beside the point. (It’s also beside the point that lots of people, myself included, have no problem with either child nudity or teenage sex.) It takes no special political insight to see that Republicans will try to make Sanders seem like a sexual weirdo. Will it work? I have no idea, but there’s no shorter route to the frightened lizard brain of the American electorate than dark talk about children and sex.
The Sanderistas appear to believe they were treated unfairly, even viciously, in this primary. In fact, they’ve been handled incredibly gingerly. That might end up being to Sanders’ detriment: If we’d spent the past few months chewing over his glaring electoral weaknesses and he was still leading Clinton in head-to-head matchups against the GOP, he might have a case for a contested convention. It would be a cynical, anti-democratic case that contradicts the people-powered rationale of his candidacy, but it wouldn’t be as nonsensical as the argument he’s making now.
It’s understandable that Sanders, like anyone, would be carried away by the experience of hearing tens of thousands of people deliriously chanting his name. Perhaps it seems like the revolution might really be at hand, and thus any means are justified. But it’s not. He’s just losing.
There Is A Hole In Bernie Sanders’ Strategy For Winning The Nomination
Sanders has a difficult pitch to make to superdelegates. Charles Rex Arbogast/Associated Press
Just how democratic should the Democratic primary be?
By Sam Stein 05/02/2016 05:43 pm ET | Updated May 3, 2016
Sen. Bernie Sanders’ revamped plan for winning the Democratic presidential nomination suffers from an inconsistency that could complicate the case he makes to party insiders and allied groups.
The Vermont independent laid out the admittedly difficult path he plans to follow for the remainder of the primary season in a National Press Club address [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-superdelegates_us_57269509e4b01a5ebde5f91e?5nsqstm4l36wxko6r ] on Sunday. In many ways, it was a more forceful iteration of a proposal his campaign had offered several weeks ago: By doing well in upcoming primaries, he will close the gap in pledged delegates with Hillary Clinton, so much so that neither of them will have the necessary numbers to win the nomination outright without the help of the so-called superdelegates [absoluteloy typical in a contested primary]. At that point, Sanders will encourage those superdelegates — party insiders who also have a say in who becomes the nominee — to back him on the basis that he would be the stronger candidate in the fall election.
On Sunday, Sanders was more explicit about his view of the role that superdelegates need to play, arguing that those from states in which he had already beaten Clinton handedly had an obligation to switch their support to him now.
“If I win a state with 70 percent of the votes, you know what? I think I’m entitled to those superdelegates,” he said.
The word “entitled” is what complicates Sanders’ case.
At the same time he was arguing that superdelegates should reflect the will of the primary voters in their states, he continued to make the case that superdelegates did not need to reflect the will of the voters nationally [or more specifically/to the point, of the primary voters in their states in states Clinton won]. After the press conference was over, in fact, the Sanders campaign refused to agree that Clinton is “entitled” to a share of superdelegates proportional to her margin of victory nationally.
“I think we are saying that it is very important,” Sanders’ top strategist, Tad Devine, said of the overall primary results. “But I also think we have to take into consideration things beyond that.”
Sanders’ campaign has to make this argument. Right now, Clinton has commitments from an estimated 520 superdelegates to Sanders’ 39. And even if superdelegates were obligated to back candidates at the convention based on the results in their states, he’d likely lose since Clinton will have won more states, in particular states with larger populations and thus more delegates, pledged and super]. (Neither candidate will likely win the nomination without the help of superdelegates [again, absolutely typical in a contested primary].)
Devine, in a brief press gaggle, rejected the notion that the senator was essentially applying two standards for superdelegates: democratically distributed in states where candidates scored big wins (the threshold for a big win wasn’t stated), but not democratically distributed when all the voting is done.
First, Devine made the case that the popular vote in the nominating process was a faulty metric, owing to the different formats (primaries or caucuses) and rules (open or closed primaries) from state to state.
“When you say I’ve won X number of popular votes and your opponent has done stunningly well in contests which are different in nature than the ones where you racked up the popular vote advantage, I would submit that that’s somewhat less than a completely objective standard,” said Devine. “That number as a barometer of measuring support is weighted to one side and not the other. It is not a fair thing. And we should take that into consideration.”
On this front, Devine noted that some of the caucuses still hadn’t posted their final vote tallies, making it truly impossible to know just how big a popular vote lead Sanders had to overcome.
But in terms of pledged delegates, the race is not as muddled. Clinton currently has 1,645 of those to Sanders’ 1,318. The senator would have to win roughly 65 percent of the remaining vote just to catch up with her by the final contest.
No one on the Sanders campaign is pollyannaish about the size of that task. They aren’t fully ruling out a victory, but optimistically they believe he can be just “dozens” of pledged delegates short of Clinton when all the voting is done.
Here, again, the case to the superdelegates relies on some crafty salesmanship. Having previously argued that these officials need to reflect the results of their states, the Sanders campaign would, on the eve of the convention, make the case that the momentum and trajectory of the race should be overriding considerations.
“Let’s suppose that in the next six weeks, Bernie Sanders goes on a tear like he has gone on before. And let’s suppose in the 10 states and the four other contests that are out there, he wins the vast majority of them — he wins California by a huge margin, he racks up an impressive set of victories,” said Devine. “Should we then say the only benchmark is who has got more pledged delegates? Shouldn’t those superdelegates take into consideration a totality of the circumstances?”
Asked if he believed that later contests were more important than earlier ones, Devine didn’t flinch.
“I think they are,” he said, “You know why? Because they are closer to November, that’s why, you know. And what happened a year ago is not as important as what’s going to happen in June of this year.”
Rachel Maddow reports on Hillary Clinton shifting the focus of her campaign to general election strategy ahead of the Indiana primary as Bernie Sanders continues to insist he will contest the Democratic nomination at the national convention. Duration: 15:32
NBC’s Chris Jansing talks to Senator Bernie Sanders about Independent voters, the possibility of a Democratic contested convention, and the powerful role of superdelegates. Duration: 3:56
Clinton: ‘People have been dumping stuff on me for 25 years’
Andrea Mitchell Reports 5/3/16
In a MSNBC exclusive interview with Andrea Mitchell, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton addresses GOP front-runner Donald Trump’s tirades, recent friction with Bernie Sanders and the "extraordinary honor and historic responsibility" she sees ahead. Duration: 19:05
Jane Sanders is confident that Bernie Sanders' campaign has helped the Democratic party because it has gotten more people involved in the election process. She also responds to Hillary Clinton's latest comments about the Bernie Sanders campaign. Duration: 4:38
Sanders camp cries foul on Clinton fundraising with DNC
The Rachel Maddow Show 5/3/16
Jeff Weaver, campaign manager for the Bernie Sanders campaign, talks with Rachel Maddow about the tight race in Indiana and the Sanders campaign's criticism of how the Clinton campaign works with the DNC to raise money. Duration: 4:11
Sanders, an independent senator, has not organized any fundraisers for the party, nor has he raised any money through emails or ads. He has accused [ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article30242043.html ] the Democratic Party of favoring Clinton in the contest and, in recent days, has accused her of spending money she raises for the party to help herself.
“It's unfortunate that Hillary Clinton has benefited from tens of millions of dollars in cash transfers and advertising to campaign against us in the primary,” said Jeff Weaver, Sanders’ campaign manager.
The Clinton campaign pushed back on that accusation. “They're questioning our joint fundraising agreement with the DNC, which allows us to support Democrats running up and down the ticket – the same fundraising structure used by President Obama in 2008 and 2012,” Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook wrote to supporters.
Democratic National Committee officials say the money is spent to compile lists of voters, recruit volunteers, register voters and pay for digital ads, training, research and communications.
"The DNC offered to engage in the same joint fundraising efforts with all the major presidential candidates early in the cycle, and we welcome the efforts of the candidates to help raise money for the DNC and state parties now to ensure we can build out the infrastructure to win in November." -DNC Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach
Joint fundraising committees have been around for more than a dozen years, but the ones created this election cycle are the first since a Supreme Court decision and congressional action boosted the amount that donors could give to federal campaigns in a single year.
Campaign finance watchdog groups fought the changes, arguing that raising the caps could allow presidential candidates to essentially raise money for themselves.
“This is exactly what we worried about,” said Stephen Spaulding, policy counsel at Common Cause [ http://www.commoncause.org/ ], a nonpartisan group. He said massive contributions had allowed some money to be returned to the candidate that solicited the money in the first place.
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump has not yet opened a joint fundraising committee this year, though he is expected to do so soon. The party’s 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney, raised $142 million.
In 2008, the leading candidates for the Democratic nomination, Clinton and Barack Obama, together raised $10 million for the party. After securing the nomination, Obama raised $198 million for the party. In 2012, as president, Obama raised $452 million.
This election cycle, Clinton opened the Hillary Victory Fund [ https://www.opensecrets.org/jfc/summary.php?id=C00586537 ] in September, the earliest start of such a committee. Thirty-two states’ parties – including Florida, North Carolina and Texas – signed on. Eighteen states – including California, Washington and Kansas – did not.
"I don’t think it is ever too early to start preparing to win the general election. State parties can sign such a fundraising agreement with each of the candidates, and I’ve told them all I’m willing to sign one for them." -Raymond Buckley, chairman of the New Hampshire Democratic Party
Officials at several states’ parties declined to say why they did not join, but Democrats say some of them were concerned it would appear as if they were endorsing Clinton or that it would hurt their own efforts to raise money.
Individuals can contribute $2,700 to Clinton’s campaign for the primary election and another $2,700 for the general election.
Her joint committee, on the other hand, can accept donations of up to $356,100 each year. The first $2,700 goes to the campaign, the next $33,400 to the DNC and the remainder – up to $10,000 – to each participating state party.
The setup means Clinton can benefit from low-dollar contributions through the committee. The Hillary Victory Fund raised nearly $61 million through the end of March, according to reports filed with the Federal Elections Commission. About $22 million was allocated to the Clinton campaign prior to expenses, according to the reports. The remainder minus expenses is expected to go to the parties. Millions of dollars are spent on raising more money.
A total of about $46 million has been allocated to the parties through the end of April, according to Clinton’s campaign. Updated reports have not been filed with the FEC.
“It’s yet another pocket for you to put money into,” said Meredith McGehee, policy director at the Campaign Legal Center [ http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/ ], a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. “These are the vehicles for big donors. It makes a mockery of the contribution limits. It undermines it.”
Campaign finance records show that much of the money sent to state parties was transferred to the DNC, which is gearing up for the general election up and down the ballot.
Kenneth Pennington, Sanders’ campaign digital director, said the campaign was not critical of all fundraising agreements. But it is critical of Clinton’s because state parties aren’t keeping much money and because it raises money from donors who have already contributed the maximum to Clinton’s campaign.
Clinton has collected money for the account primarily at the fundraisers. On April 16, 150 people attended events at the Los Angeles homes of Clooney and film producer Jeffrey Katzenberg. On April 10, 525 attended a fundraiser at the home of Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe that featured a performance by singer Carole King. On March 2, 6,000 people attended an event at Radio City Music Hall that included appearances by movie stars Jamie Foxx and Julianne Moore and singers Perry, Elton John and Andra Day.
She received money from billionaire investor George Soros; Alice Walton, daughter of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton; media executive Haim Saban; and New York investor Philip Munger. She also solicited funds in emails, online ads and direct mail.
"I have raised millions of dollars for my colleagues in the U.S. Senate to help them get elected. I will do everything I can to open the Democratic Party to the young people who are flocking into our political campaign." -Bernie Sanders, at a debate in April
“Sen. Sanders doesn't have a cache of big-money donors waiting in the wings,” Pennington said this week.
Last month, Sanders helped raise money for three Democratic candidates for the House of Representatives_ Pramila Jayapal in Washington state, Lucy Flores in Nevada and Zephyr Teachout in New York _ through emails.
Sen. Bernie Sanders talks to reporters after winning the Indiana Primary and stated his case that he is the best candidate to beat Donald Trump in the general election.
This is a capture of a video Alex Jones posted the evening of May 3, 2016 after Trump won the Indiana primary, clinching the GOP nomination; Jones deleted the video the following morning of May 4, 2016. More at:
Alex Jones Celebrates Trump Victory By Telling George Will: “Blow What Little Is Left Of Your Brains Out” Jones Appears To Have Deleted The Video
Republican presidential candidate and likely GOP nominee, Donald Trump, joins Morning Joe the morning after his big Indiana win to discuss everything from why George Will is a 'major loser' to what kind of person he may want for a VP pick. Duration: 18:07
NBC News: Donald Trump Is the Presumptive GOP Nominee
NBC Nightly News Wed, May 04, 2016
First-time politician Donald Trump is the last Republican presidential candidate standing after routing 16 rivals with roughly 150 years of collective political experience.
Presumptive GOP Nominee Trump Goes One-on-One With Lester Holt
NBC Nightly News Wed, May 04, 2016
Donald Trump speaks to Lester Holt after a resounding win in the Indiana primary and the departures of his last remaining rivals for the GOP nomination.
Just how many 'Never Trumpers' would vote for Hillary Clinton? A major 'Never Trump' proponent says he will vote for Hillary Clinton, and he's not alone. Duration: 5:45
I lied to myself for years about who my allies were. No more.
By: Ben Howe May 2nd, 2016 at 10:00 PM
Donald Trump is my fault as much as anyone else’s.
It started way back in 2009-2010 when the Tea Party erupted on the scene. At the core of the tea party was a principle that I agreed with so much that I became a conservative activist during that time period. That core was principled, fiscal conservatism and a desire to return to the things that had made America great.
We said it lots of different ways back then. “Take our country back.” “Return to the Constitution.” It really is embodied quite nicely in Donald Trump’s motto: Make America great again.
That’s what we wanted. A budget that the country’s federal government had to live within. A shrinking bureaucracy. An end to exploding entitlements.
Social issues weren’t discussed that much in the very early stages of the Tea Party. We all knew that there was some disagreement on these issues and we wanted to stay singularly focused. We could sort out our differences after we’d stopped the runaway train of government largesse.
By 2011 there were some cracks in the movement. There were groups that seemed to just be profiting off of it without actually helping. There were politicians who’d won on tea party rhetoric in 2010 but seemed less inclined to stop the growth of government once they got to Washington.
It was frustrating. This was compounded by the fact that Mitt Romney became the nominee and then lost in 2012. It was at that point that I believe a lot of people simply put down the signs and went home.
Through it all, my own career was burgeoning in politics. Not only did I begin writing for RedState, I started doing some television appearances and owned a video production company with a laundry list of clients from the movement.
When your life becomes politics and you are surrounded by people in the industry, you learn a key term: allies.
Allies aren’t friends. They may not even be colleagues. They are simply people that you find enough agreement with on enough issues to not go after each other. You don’t have to overtly support one another but you certainly don’t try to hurt each other.
As more and more people knew who I was and I fostered relationships and allies, I found myself more and more having to look the other way. Moments where I would cringe at something someone said, or quietly roll my eyes at a post they wrote, thinking “Gosh, I can’t believe they think that way” or “I swear that person is one tweet away from saying Obama is from Kenya.”
I justified it quietly to myself the way we had at the beginning of the tea party when such things would happen. People would say outlandish things and I would find myself nodding my head and awkwardly walking away, not calling them out for their silliness.
After all, there were more pressing matters.
And so, as I said, I kept quiet about these allies in new media and in Washington. People who I thought I agreed with only 70% of the time. Which normally is a great reason to consider someone an ally, but not when the other 30% is cringe-inducing paranoia and vapid stupidity.
I chose peace over principle. I chose to go along with those I disagreed with on core matters because I believed we were jointly fighting for other things that were more important. I ignored my gut and my moral compass.
The result is that, almost to a man, every single person I cringed at or thought twice about, is now a supporter and cheerleader of Donald Trump.
I looked the other way, and I’m sure many others did too, as these people rose to prominence and their microphones got louder. I ignored it at times because I hate self-righteous liberals who tell anyone they disagree with that they don’t want to be around them and I didn’t want to be like that. At other times because, well, it was easier than standing against foolishness.
I’m done with that now. Albeit a bit too late.
I’ll never be like the indignant pricks I’ve dealt with on the right who judge harshly anyone who doesn’t automatically parrot the Republican leadership. I’ll also never be like the virtue-signallers who feel the need to put rainbow flags over their avatars to prove how socially progressive they are.
But my days of watching crazy people gain readers & listeners right in front of me are over.
Ann Coulter, Gateway Pundit, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Sarah Palin, Breitbart News, Matt Drudge, and scores of others, too many to list here. They are all people that at one time or another caused me to bury my face in my hands. Caused me more than once to say “wait…we ARE the stupid party?”
I’m done with it and I’m done with all of them. They are in this for money and power and influence and they think Donald Trump is their ticket. Hell, they may be right. And I’ll go down in flames with my principles before I join them.
Sanders' fundraising is slowing just when he needs it most – for California
Sanders supporters march in downtown L.A. The campaign is already relying more on activism in California and less on media buys. (Barbara Davidson / Los Angeles Times)
By Chris Megerian and Evan Halper May 5, 2016, 3:00 AM
In no state is money more crucial for a candidate than in California. Its sheer size, in both geography and population, makes running here a ridiculously expensive endeavor. Its media markets are some of the most costly in the world, and candidates who try to sidestep big ad buys typically fail to convey their message to key segments of the electorate.
So now is a poor time for a precipitous drop in cash flow for Sanders. Amid a string of big losses to front-runner Hillary Clinton [ http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics-government/government/hillary-clinton-PEPLT007433-topic.html ] in April, Sanders' fundraising for the month fell to $25.8 million — which would seem a significant amount, except that in both February and March, he raised nearly $20 million more.
At the same time, he has been burning through his cash far more quickly than Clinton, outspending her in many of the big states he lost. Sanders has not yet reported his spending for April, but he likely spent well more than he raised based on the amount of airtime purchased, the size of his campaign's payroll, and the other expenses the campaign has in a typical month.
The change of fortune is already forcing the Sanders team to run a different kind of race in California, one that focuses on rallying activists and students in a part of the country with a strong tradition of protest, an affinity for quasi-socialist government and a Democratic electorate that skews left.
"He's a beautiful fit for California," said Sanders backer RoseAnn DeMoro, executive director of National Nurses United and a veteran of guerrilla campaigns in California. The nurses union started putting up 30 billboards around the state about a month ago and is bringing its "Bernie Bus" down from Oregon on Thursday, with plans for it to crisscross California until the primary.
"We're in farmers markets, we're in public places, we're going to be at all the rallies," DeMoro said. She said it was typical of the mainstream media to look at a $25.8-million month for the Vermont insurgent as a setback. "You've got a narrative out there that Bernie can't win, Bernie can't win. But he raises [$26 million]," she said. "That's the story."
California remains a crucial battleground for both Democratic candidates even though it is almost certainly not going to affect who wins the nomination. Clinton is far enough ahead of Sanders in delegates that she barely pays him any attention on the stump. But for her to lose in California would be a blow to party and campaign morale heading into the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia in July.
Sanders, for his part, is eager to mop up as many delegates as he can in the state to bolster his influence at the convention, where he plans to push the national party platform to the left.
Neither is taking anything for granted in California, where the electorate can be unpredictable.
Democratic nominees Jimmy Carter and Walter F. Mondale both lost primaries in the state despite heading into the races with the wind at their backs. "We've had a lot of primaries where the results are counterintuitive based on the momentum analysis of the campaign," said Bill Carrick, who worked for former President Clinton as a senior advisor in California.
Most of the state's political establishment is lined up behind Hillary Clinton, and her team in California includes some of its most seasoned operatives. Both she and her husband have already campaigned here.
"I'm on my way to California," Clinton said Wednesday in Washington, at a reception of the Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies attended by several California lawmakers. "We're going to be campaigning up and down the Golden State."
It is unclear, though, how her campaign will use Sanders' fundraising drought of late to its advantage. Campaign officials were cagey about their spending plans in California.
If Sanders does not come up with the cash to run an aggressive advertising push, Clinton may opt to ease up herself. Her campaign has been conservative with its resources, even allowing itself to be outgunned on the air in key primary states as it redirects its attention to the general election. As Sanders lays off dozens of staffers in states that have already voted, Clinton has begun staffing up in preparation for the fall.
"She's been smart with her money, and she needs to be," said Bill Burton, a Los Angeles-based Democratic strategist who worked on President Obama's first campaign and now supports Clinton. "The general election is going to be expensive.... To spend a lot of money on a race that's essentially been decided would be foolish."
Sanders supporters are hopeful that some anticipated victories in the states leading up to California will reinvigorate his fundraising operation. The prospects are good for Sanders in West Virginia on Tuesday and Oregon a week after that. This week, he beat Clinton in Indiana.
It would take a major uptick in cash flow for Sanders to mount the kind of effort in California he has in other states. A big ingredient of the Sanders surge has been blanketing the airwaves. Media consultants estimate that a standard statewide media buy in California, one that is more modest than what the campaign has purchased elsewhere, would cost some $4.5 million per week for airtime alone — money Sanders just does not have at the moment.
And history suggests it is unlikely that fundraising for Sanders is going to bounce back to where it was.
"It only gets more dire," said Doug Herman, a Los Angeles-based Democratic consultant who sees the drop in Sanders' fundraising as "indicative of the road ahead."
But unlike his opponent, whatever Sanders has in the bank once June rolls around, he is almost certain to spend in California.
"This is the end of the line," Herman said. "There's nothing to save it for after this."
You know when we talk about poverty, Steve, we often think, well, it's too bad somebody can't afford a flat-screen TV, or go out to eat. But what poverty is really about is that we have millions of people who are living — who are dying at ages much, much younger than they should. In McDowell County, where we're going tomorrow, the average life expectancy for men in that county is 64 years of age. Sixty-four years of age.
And yet you go a six-hour drive to Fairfax County, Va. — six-hour drive — a man can expect to live until the age of 82 years of age, 18 years longer than men in McDowell County...
INSKEEP: These are really compelling statistics, Senator. And you mention McDowell County — I believe the poverty rate there is something like 35 percent, and of course...
SANDERS: ... I think it's even higher than that actually.
INSKEEP: ... a lot of people are certainly close to that. But there's another statistic that's on my mind, along with the poverty stats, and the life expectancy — shocking life-expectancy stats.
SANDERS: Well, that's an excellent question, and I think it goes well beyond McDowell County and well beyond West Virginia. And I think there are many people around this country — poor people, working people — who believe that the Democratic Party is not effectively standing up to them.
Now, if I lived in McDowell County and the unemployment rate was sky-high, and I saw my kid get addicted to opiates and go to jail, there were no jobs, you know what? I would be looking at Washington and saying "what are you guys doing for me?" And I'm going to look for an alternative.
I think one of the challenges we face, what my campaign is about, is making it clear that the Democratic Party must be on the side of working people and low-income people. Now I'm talking about poverty, and in this campaign I'm talking about the fact that we have the highest rate childhood poverty of almost any major country on Earth. That we have 47 million people living in poverty ... that we have 29 million people who have no health insurance, and we have thousands of people who die every year because they don't get to a doctor on time.
The Democratic Party must make a stand, and the stand is that you cannot be on the side of Wall Street. You cannot be on the side of that pharmaceutical industry — which, by the way, charges our people the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs — you gotta make a stand. And the stand we gotta make is the stand with the people in McDowell County, W.Va., and poor people and working people all over this country.
INSKEEP: ... of people in Appalachia who are concerned about that history?
SANDERS: Look, I have spent my whole life fighting for working people. I have a 98 percent voting record with the AFL-CIO. I have opposed disastrous trade agreements — and I think there is perhaps no candidate in the United States Senate who has a more progressive record than I do.
But I also believe, and understand, as a member of the Senate Environmental Committee, that climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and it is already causing severe problems in our country and around the world. And we have to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy.
Now, I have introduced the most comprehensive climate change legislation ever introduced in the U.S. Senate. And in that legislation — because we understand it is not the fault of the coal miners, or people included in the fossil fuel industry, they have a right to want to feed their families, and live in dignity — we have $41 billion in that legislation to make sure that those workers who might be displaced as a result of the transition away from fossil fuel get the extended unemployment benefits they need, get the education they need, get the job training that they need. And also we are going to invest heavily in those communities.
INSKEEP: How do you speak to people in a community like that, who have deeply mixed feelings about government? You may run into the same person who says "I'm on Medicaid, I get various kinds of assistance, but I really don't like it. I don't like living like this, I don't like depending on government."
SANDERS: Well, I think it raises a fundamental issue about politics in America today and who we are as a civilized society. I understand that the right-wing has done a very good job in suggesting that "freedom" — and this is the Koch brothers' line — "freedom" is about ending social security ,and Medicare and Medicaid, and actually abolishing the concept on the minimum wage. So Steve, you can be a free guy and work for $4 an hour — aren't you a lucky guy?
But you know what, most Americans don't believe that, and one of the things I'm really proud of in this campaign is that in election after election — in primary and caucus after caucus, right here in Indiana where we won last night two-thirds of the people 45 years of age or younger. ... And the reason I think is they understand that in a democratic, civilized society, government has a very important role to play.
And the word has gotta get out — it doesn't get out all that often in the media — that the United States is the only major country on Earth, for example, that doesn't guarantee health care for all people. Life would be a lot different in McDowell County if all of the people there, and all of the people in Vermont, and all of the people in Connecticut, had health care as a right, which is the case 50 miles north of where I live, in Canada, for example.
INSKEEP: What do you say then, to people who just say — "regardless of my own situation, it bothers me that government has to do so much for people, or is doing so much"?
SANDERS: I think that that is mythology that has been effectively perpetrated by the big-money interests in this country. To say that every other country in the world guarantees health care to all of their people, every other country has paid medical and family leave, a number of countries provide free tuition in public colleges and universities, most countries take care of their elderly and their children a lot better than we do...
I think what you have seen in the last many years in this country is a very coordinated effort of the part of corporate media, and the wealthiest people in this country, to perpetuate an ideology, which says that government is terrible, government is awful — oh by the way, except when we can get some corporate welfare.
I point out in all of my speeches, Steve, that Walmart — which is owned by the Walton family, the wealthiest family in this country, worth some $149 billion — they get a huge subsidy from the taxpayers of this country, from you, from me, from every working people, person, because the wages they pay their employees are so low that many of those workers have to go on Medicaid or food stamps in order to survive. I don't think the middle class of this country should be subsidizing the wealthiest family in the United States of America.
So I guess if it's OK for the Walton family to get billions of dollars of support from the taxpayers of this country, maybe its OK for working families to get health care and paid family medical leave.
INSKEEP: Senator, I put a call out on Twitter — I said "I'm talking to Bernie Sanders, you got anything you want to know" — and the most consistent theme in the many responses we got had to do with how long you're going to stay in this race. Even though you just won Indiana, people are looking at the delegate counts, recognizing that you've got long odds, and wondering if you're going to stay in too long.
SANDERS: Well we're going to stay in till the last vote is counted, and that will be in the primary in Washington, D.C.
INSKEEP: June 14.
BS: That's right. We think that ... I don't know, maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that the people of every state in this country — including the largest state in America, California — should have a right to cast their votes as to who they want to see as president of the United States, and what kind of agenda they want the Democratic Party to have.
We won last night in Indiana — that is our 18th state. We're going to fight in West Virginia — I think we've got a shot to win there. We've got a good shot to win in Oregon, and I think we've got a good shot to win in California and some other states, so we are in this race till the last vote is cast.
INSKEEP: Let me ask a couple of specific questions — just people on Twitter — here's one. Are you threatening your revolution by continuing, and alienating some Democrats from voting for Hillary Clinton eventually?
SANDERS: Well I think we are perpetuating the political revolution by significantly increasing the level of political activity that we're seeing in this country. Millions of people are now coming into the political process as the result of what our campaign is about. I think it is good for the Unites States of America, good for the Democratic Party, to have a vigorous debate, to engage people in the political process.
You know, two years ago in 2014, 63 percent of the American people didn't even bother to vote, and 80 percent of young people and 80 percent low-income people didn't bother to vote in the midterm elections — I think that that is pretty pathetic. And I think that Democrats do well when the voter turnout is high. Republicans lose when the voter turnout is high.So I'm going to do everything I can to stimulate political discourse in this country — get young people, working people involved in the political process.
We think we have a path towards victory — admittedly it is a narrow path, but when I started this campaign we were 60 points behind Secretary Clinton; yesterday here in early May we won in Indiana. I think we've got some more good victories coming — so we are in this race until the very last vote is cast.
INSKEEP: Another variation on this question from Twitter: Which is more important, a Sanders presidency or a Democratic presidency?
SANDERS: Well, I think that if you look at the issues facing this country, and the differences between Secretary Clinton and myself, I think, a) my policies and my agenda will be better for the working families of this country, and second of all, if you look at virtually every poll that's out there — including one from CNN today [ http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll-general-election/ ] — Bernie Sanders does better against Donald Trump than does Hillary Clinton. So if we want to make sure that we do not have a Donald Trump in the White House, I think that at this point Bernie Sanders is the strongest candidate.
INSKEEP: Do you mean a Sanders presidency is more important than this person's suggestion that a Democratic presidency might be more important?
SANDERS: Well, what I'm just suggesting is — if you look at every poll that's out there — Bernie Sanders does better against Donald Trump, more likely to defeat Donald Trump, than Hillary Clinton.
INSKEEP: One more question along those lines, and this is my question now — you told Chuck Todd of NBC the other day that if Secretary Clinton does clinch the nomination quote "the responsibility will be on Secretary Clinton, to convince all people," not just your supporters, "that she is the kind of president this country needs." Are you convinced, Senator?
SANDERS: Well I thought my point was, that it's true of Secretary Clinton, it's true of Bernie Sanders, it is true of Donald Trump — you want to go out and win elections, you've got to convince the people of this country that you are the candidate that works best for their interests. And I think there's a lot of work that has to be done on the part of all of the candidates.
INSKEEP: The reason I ask is because you did say earlier in the campaign she was not qualified. Can you convince yourself, or have you convinced yourself, that she is qualified?
SANDERS: Right now — as I have said many times, Steve — I think that a Donald Trump presidency would be a disaster for this country. And I intend to do everything that I can to see that that does not happen.
INSKEEP: Does that mean to say that you would be out this fall if you don't win the nomination, campaigning?
SANDERS: You know, as I just said Steve, I think that a Donald Trump presidency would be a disaster for this country.
I am the most progressive member of the Unites States Senate, I think. I have fought as hard as I can for working people, and I'm not going to see a president come into office like a Donald Trump, who is busy dividing us up in terms of picking on Mexicans, and Latinos, and Muslims, and women, and veterans, and African-Americans. That is not the type of president that we need, and that is not the type of president that I — I will do everything in my power to make sure that he does not become our president,
So, Steve, so — thank you so much...
INSKEEP: Senator? Do you mind if I ask one more question?
SANDERS: One last question. Sure, we got time for one more.
INSKEEP: Yeah just, talk me through — because you said you have tough path, but one that you can walk — I'm just interested about a little bit of the mechanics here.
You'd have to win a lot of delegates — a great majority of delegates along the way to get a majority of pledged delegates. There are some big states ahead — it's certainly true — but just the way delegates are awarded, even if you win California, even if you win West Virginia, you don't get all of the delegates. They're not winner-take-all [ http://www.npr.org/2016/05/03/476541566/heres-where-the-delegate-math-stands-before-tuesdays-indiana-primary ]. Doesn't that make this extraordinarily difficult for you to...
SANDERS: Yes, it's an uphill battle. But you know what? Steve, when I started this campaign, it was an extraordinarily uphill battle — we were 60 points behind Secretary Clinton. Polls out there in the last few weeks, a few had us ahead actually in national polls, or a few points behind. The path to victory is to do extremely well in the remaining states — and as you indicate, California, of course, is the largest state. And we hope to do well there, and win that state.
INSKEEP: Could — and is...
SANDERS: But here is the other path, Steve — you asked me a question, let me give you an answer here — is that we have won a number of states, in Washington and New Hampshire, by landslide victories, and I'm talking about 65, 70, 75 percent of the vote. I think it is incumbent on the superdelegates—
The problem, one of the main problems that we have, is that the establishment Democrats, of course, supporting all of — virtually all of them are supporting Hillary Clinton. I think that in those states where we have won landslide victories, those delegates should reflect the wishes of the people of their state and give us their votes.
SANDERS: Steve I apologize — one more question, because I've gotta run here.
INSKEEP: Is there a real danger that Donald Trump — now that he's the presumptive Republican nominee — that he's the kind of different candidate who might seriously appeal to the very kinds of voters that you've been appealing to all this time, that you want to bring back to the Democratic Party?
SANDERS: Is that a serious — you mean...
INSKEEP: A real danger of that, yeah, in the fall?
SANDERS: You say a risk? Well, you know as I said a moment ago — what campaigns are about is going out and making a case to the American people. Does Donald Trump have support in this country? Of course he has support — he has won the Republican nomination, so of course he has a lot of support. He has won it overwhelmingly in state after state after state.
INSKEEP: Can he drag Democrats over to the Republican side?
That gets back to the question we talked about at the beginning of this conversation. Has the Democratic Party, has the leadership made the case that they are standing there, fighting for the poor people of McDowell County, or the working people of Indiana, or of New Mexico, or of California? Have they stood up and said that "maybe we gotta take on the billionaire class, maybe it's wrong that the top one-tenth of 1 percent now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, maybe we should not be getting significant sums of money from Wall Street or from the pharmaceutical industry that charge us the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs," you know, "maybe we've gotta stand with the people who for the last 20 or 30 years have seen a decline in their standard of living"?
You know, those are the issues that the Democratic Party has got to ask itself. And I think when it does, and it makes it clear that they are prepared to take on the big-money interests, I think the Democratic Party will do just fine — and that's kind of what this campaign is about.
Bernie Bros Made Me Finally Recognize Misogyny in America
Bill Pugliano via Getty Images
By Thrity Umrigar 05/05/2016 09:11 am ET | Updated May 5, 2016
I hated identity politics.
I was like Bernie Sanders, fixated on economic disparities. Fix those, I believed, and eventually, the rest of the stuff — racism, gender discrimination — would take care of itself.
I came to this country from my native India in 1983, when diversity and multiculturalism were buzzwords. But as a young socialist I believed that these were simply diversions created by a corporate culture to avoid dealing with the real elephant in the room — class issues.
Which is not to say I wasn’t hip to the terrible racial history of this country or that I wasn’t a feminist from the age of fifteen. It’s not that I didn’t believe in fighting for equal rights for minorities (read African-Americans and Latinos) and for women (read every other woman except myself). But I resisted any attempt to pigeonhole myself into a racial or gender box and I wanted to believe that everything I would achieve in my life would be based on merit alone.
I thought it was ridiculous that anyone could hate me based on my skin color or dismiss me as a foreigner when I was so obviously a friendly, affable person who loved America, smiled at strangers and could talk to lamp posts. The truth is, such irrational hatred would’ve devastated me. And so I found ways around it. I refused to believe that any position that I didn’t get was the result of latent or subconscious discrimination. I wanted to believe that when my bosses saw me they didn’t see my brown skin or my gender. Instead, they saw my writing ability, my intelligence, my ambition to do meaningful work.
And I’ve been lucky in that the three professions I’ve been associated with — journalism, academia and book publishing — have all been liberal enclaves in a world that seems decidedly illiberal. And I’ve been lucky in that my education, my good English, my middle-class childhood have bestowed upon me advantages that many working class immigrants have never had.
And so I happily, blindly ploughed through my life, with no interest in labeling myself. As for those journalism positions that went to a guy or to a prettier woman colleague that the editor was trying to date? Well, so what? They’d worked at the paper longer than I had. As for those work meetings where a male colleagues talked all over me? Well, he didn’t mean to. Besides, he claimed to be a feminist. And those book readings where for the umpteenth time, a well-meaning audience member complimented me, a bestselling novelist, on my “good English?” Well, I needed to squash the burn that started in my stomach and instead smile and thank them. Because they meant well.
Decades ago, Gloria Steinem had talked about the “click,” moments, those aha, revelatory, eureka moments when a woman suddenly recognizes the gender discrimination she faces. I am sorry to say, I never had one of those consciousness-raising moments. That is to say, I had plenty of them. But on the behalf of others. Never for myself.
Until now.
I have the Bernie Bros to thank for this.
Killary. Shrillary. She who yells too much. And a million other slurs that I see daily on Facebook but which are unprintable in this family publication.
When the Republicans did it, it was easier to take. But these young, white men! They called themselves Progressives! Which meant we were on the same team. But who refused to see their own bias, their own privilege, even when countless women pointed it out to them. Who, instead, turned on us and said we were “only” voting for her because she was a woman. As if Hillary Clinton had no past, no history, no accomplishments before they woke up to the 2016 caricatures of her.
Let me make one thing clear. I am not at all suggesting that some of their critiques against Clinton were not accurate or that they are wrong to be idealistic and youthful. After all, I was... as recently as 2008 when I joyously voted for Barack Obama.
But because they felt the need to attack me every single time I posted anything remotely favorable to my candidate of choice, because I have spoken to countless women who have stopped posting on Facebook and Twitter because they are afraid the Bros will pounce, because some of them have turned out to be as misogynist and careless in their attacks and speech as The Donald himself, they have been part of my growing education.
But still, I told myself that surely the people that I encountered online were not a representative sample. Sanders himself seemed like such a decent man.
Until...
Until... the infamous “unqualified” speech. That swooshing sound you heard was a million female heads spinning. Because if Hillary Clinton was “unqualified” to be president, what woman ever would be? Not in our lifetime, for sure. Click.
And then the another blow. Or click. Bernie had called her unqualified because he thought she called him unqualified. And he got that information from a Washington Post headline. Which, everybody soon knew was misleading. Turns out that the man who would be president didn’t bother to read the actual story. Ah, Bernie. Next time, read the damn story before you get in a tizzy, would ya?
After this, the clicks began to grow. After his flame-out in the New York primary, Sanders claiming that the burden was on Hillary to work to win over his supporters. (Imagine Hillary making this demand in 2008.) Nobody in the media demanding that Sanders release years of tax returns, as Hillary had done. One story — one — about Sanders paying for his chartered plane to the Vatican out of campaign funds after claiming that this was not a campaign trip. (And no one accused him of dishonesty or corruption.) No major story about the child out of wedlock, the weird quotes about rape and sexual fantasies. Imagine if a female candidate had had this past.
Just as Obama’s election ripped the mask off of the racism that had simmered below the surface, something very similar is happening with sexism during this primary season. And, it is radicalizing women. This past weekend I was at a birthday party where every woman — ranging in age from 20 to 70 — said that even though she agreed with much of Sanders’ platform, he had lost her in the last two months. I have yet to see the media cover this story.
As for this feminist, the time has come to confront her own assumptions. And to connect the dots so that I can see misogyny when it attacks me as clearly as I can when it does one of my sisters. I would never vote for a female candidate based solely on gender. But to vote for someone like Hillary because she’s eminently qualified and because she’s a woman? You betcha. I Am Woman. Watch Me Vote.
By Monica Bauer Playwright and retired Political Science Professor; former Writing Fellow at Quinnipiac University 04/11/2016 01:58 pm ET | Updated Apr 12, 2016
She didn’t say it. Everybody but the most die-hard Sandernista gets it. Sanders wouldn’t walk it back. And this, from the man who is supposedly more honest than Hillary Clinton. Finally, this morning on the Today show, Bernie admitted that she was “qualified.” But this incident sheds light on the entire Sanders campaign from day one. It was originally constructed as a protest campaign, but when Sanders and his team saw the size of their crowds, and won some caucuses and a few primaries, their own ambition got the better of them.
The Sanders campaign made sense as a protest movement, but as a real campaign it has been built on this supposed contrast, of Honest Bernie and Dishonest Hillary. And yet, when the going gets tough, and the math doesn’t work, to what lengths will Bernie go?
The Sanders campaign knows it is losing. They can read a delegate map, they can do the math. Perhaps they turned a corner when a few days ago a long article published in the New York Times laid out a scenario, presented by Sanders’ own top aides, that the campaign had made a mistake in not attacking Clinton more forcefully. Perhaps it is no coincidence that just a few days later, and following hard on the heels of a Daily News editorial board meeting that appears, from the word for word transcripts, to have been a disaster, that Sanders decides that he has suddenly been called “unqualified to be president,” and must respond.
This is the man who has been attacking Hillary Clinton for months on the slimy innuendo that if she accepts any money at all from anyone connected with finance or banks or the oil industry, that she’s become their puppet, without offering a single shred of evidence, not one vote, that shows Hillary Clinton is in the pocket of any special interest. No proof that she’s some secret, behind the scenes champion of Republican policies. And the whole time, the Clinton campaign has been taking it without much comment, because they have been warned not to offend Bernie’s supporters.
When it has been brought to Senator Sanders’ attention that President Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, and virtually every Democrat in the House and Senate has also taken this money that supposedly turns them into puppets, he does not respond, because he can’t. The superdelegates have understood this from the very beginning. They all know that in order to raise the money necessary to fight and win for progressive candidates in most states and congressional districts, they have to raise money from people with money. Democrats would prefer a system of public financing of all campaigns, but this is the system we have now. And within this system, Democrats have been championing the working people of this country without any purity lectures from Bernie Sanders.
The entire Sanders campaign is built on a lie; that only those who take no money from people who work on Wall Street or fill-in-the-blank special interest can be champions for progressive causes. Tell that to Al Franken and Sherrod Brown, tell that to the Congressional Black Caucus. Tell it to them with a straight face.
Let me end with this; the biggest lie of the entire campaign is the viability of a superdelegate strategy at the convention. For the last two weeks the Sanders campaign has been saying that this is their path to the nomination. It is a desperate Hail Mary pass. They know it won’t work. They have no momentum with superdelegates. And just a few months ago they were denouncing the entire idea of superdelegates as undemocratic.
You know what is guaranteed to make superdelegates furious? Doing the Republican Party’s work for them. And now that Sanders has decided his last stand will be built around the notion that Hillary Clinton is unqualified to be president, this mistake has closed the door to his supposed winning convention strategy once and for all.
Meet the Bernie Sanders supporters who say they won’t switch allegiances, no matter what happens in the general election.
By Clare Foran May 5, 2016
Loyal fans of Bernie Sanders have a difficult decision to make. If Hillary Clinton faces off against Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, legions of Sanders supporters will have to decide whether to switch allegiances or stand by Bernie until the bitter end.
At least some supporters of the Vermont senator insist they won’t vote for Clinton, no matter what. Many view the former secretary of state with her deep ties to the Democratic establishment as the polar opposite of Sanders and his rallying cry of political revolution. Throwing their weight behind her White House bid would feel like a betrayal of everything they believe.
These voters express unwavering dedication to Sanders on social media, deploying hashtags like NeverClinton [ https://twitter.com/hashtag/NeverClinton ] and NeverHillary [ https://twitter.com/hashtag/NeverHillary ], and circulating petitions like www.wontvotehillary.com [ http://www.wontvotehillary.com/ ], which asks visitors to promise “under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary Clinton.” It’s garnered more than 56,500 signatures so far. Many feel alienated by the Democratic Party. They may want unity, but not if it means a stamp of approval for a political status quo they believe is fundamentally flawed and needs to be fixed.
“Just pack up your revolution and go home? Really? That’s not going to happen,” said Tara Margolin, a 50-year-old Sanders supporter and self-described Democrat who lives in Los Angeles. She dismissed the idea that Sanders voters might coalesce behind Clinton. “She would cement in place everything we are fighting against. I could never in good conscience vote for Hillary Clinton.”
Yet some of the voters who stand with Bernie have not been moved. “She’s lost my trust, frankly,” said Matt Brownfield, a 31-year-old Sanders supporter living in South Carolina. “I don’t think there’s anything Clinton could say or do that would change my mind.” Brownfield plans to write in the senator’s name when it comes time to cast a ballot in the general election if Sanders fails to secure the nomination. The decision wasn’t easy. “The thought of Trump becoming president is vile and disgusting,” Brownfield said. “But I realized I couldn’t live with myself if I voted for Clinton. I would say I’m Bernie or Bust.”
Some high-profile Democrats have voiced anxiety [ http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/275539-dems-worry-sanders-clinton-rhetoric-risks-white-house-win ] over party unity, but doom-and-gloom predictions over party divisions should be taken with a grain of salt. A McClatchy-Marist poll released in April found that roughly 25 percent of Sanders supporters say they won’t back Clinton in a general election [ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article70202867.html ] if it came to that. But that estimate of discontent, and others like it that attempt to take the temperature of voters while the primary race is still underway, is likely overinflated, or at the very least a poor gauge of what will happen in the general election.
Overall, people are not very good at predicting what they will do in the future. “People have ideas about how they’re going to behave that don’t necessarily end up being the case when they’re faced with that eventual reality,” said Kim Nalder, a professor of government at California State University, Sacramento. “In the abstract we see things very differently from when we’re actually faced with a decision. We think we’re going to eat healthy and then we see a piece of a cake.”
Voters’ convictions can shift quickly as political circumstances change. Sanders supporters view Clinton as their opponent now, but once the general election arrives the battle lines will be re-drawn and that is likely to impact voter loyalty. “We don’t like to think of ourselves as contradictory and inconsistent, but we are,” said Lilliana Mason, a political science professor at the University of Maryland College Park. “When we’re in the middle of a fight, it’s really hard for us to imagine joining the other team. But who we identify with can change quickly when our attention shifts to a different fight.”
None of this is to say that voters who make a vow never to vote for Clinton won’t stick with it. They could write Bernie’s name in during the general election if she wins the nomination. They could vote for another candidate apart from Clinton, or decide to stay home. There will also be voters who emerge from the election with a far worse opinion of the Democratic Party. “When I voted Democrat for Barack Obama, I didn’t feel like the party was as corrupt as I feel like it is today,” said Bailey Osborne, a 54-year-old Bernie supporter from Burlington, Vermont, who says she is currently registered as a Democrat. “Now I feel absolutely no loyalty to the party.”
As the race drags on, some Sanders supporters feel frustrated by pressure from friends and acquaintances who want them to vote for Clinton if it comes to that. They argue that Sanders is a stronger candidate, pointing to polling indicating that he would be more likely to defeat Trump, despite the fact that early predictions of general-election matchups are unlikely to act as a reliable gauge [ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/08/bernie-s/bernie-sanders-says-he-consistently-beats-donald-t/ ] of how candidates might fare. “People are acting like we want to throw the election, and that’s not the case at all,” Osborne’s 22-year-old daughter Casey said. “They say our unwavering support is a bad thing, but I think it’s a testament to the sort of loyalty he inspires. The reason that we are unwavering is that Bernie Sanders is a stronger candidate than Hillary. If anything it should be Clinton supporters that switch sides to Sanders.”
How can Clinton win over skeptical voters who have been loyal to Sanders? One way might be to pick a vice-presidential candidate with progressive credentials. If Clinton ends up as the nominee, but allows Sanders to play an influential role in shaping the Democratic Party platform, as she has indicated she may do [ http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/clinton-sanders-democrats-platform-222679 ] , that could help to build goodwill. Still, the scars of the primary season won’t simply disappear for Democrats when the general election arrives. Clinton will inevitably confront voters whose negative opinions of her are fixed in place. For many Democrats, however, the general election will be a time to close ranks. In the end, the prospect of a Trump presidency may prove to be a powerful unifying force for the party.
“What is strange about what goes on in America is that we are the wealthiest country in the history of the world,” Sanders told more than 250 people at the Five Loaves & Two Fishes Food Bank.
He pointed to mounting wealth and income inequality nationwide. In West Virginia, while the top 1 percent saw incomes rise more than 60 percent from 1979 to 2012, incomes for everyone else fell by 0.4 percent. He also said 22 percent of American children live in poverty, including about 100,000 in West Virginia.
“What poverty is about is dealing with the stress of whether or not your family is going to make it every single week,” Sanders said. “When you don’t have any money you’re fighting for your survival every single day.”
The Democratic front-runner for president was confronted by scores of protesters - some of whom held signs supporting Sanders - outside an organizing event in East Los Angeles on Thursday. [id.]
Clinton was heckled indoors once she began speaking, as well, on at least five separate instances during her speech to a Latino audience. [id.]
PIPE DOWN: 'I think we would be a lot better off if we actually talked to each other instead of yelling at each other,' she told the hecklers. [id.]
Protesters outside the event were against Clinton for a variety of reasons, some taking aim at her vote for the Iraq War and support for trade policies progressives say hurt American workers, others her email scandal. [id.]
Protesters from Latino and Community groups make their way to East Los Angeles College in Monterey Park, California, for the Clinton event. [id.]
More than one anti-Clinton sign referred to her as 'Killary' and several referenced her [aid speeches to Wall Street. [id.]
Sanders has hammered Clinton over the checks she accepted from the financial sector for speaking gigs after she left President Barack Obama's cabinet and says she should release the transcripts of the sessions. [id.]
In order to tie her in pledged delegates, Sanders would need to decimate Clinton in California, where 475 pledged delegates are at stake. [id.]
The state votes on June 7, the second to last day of the primary season. The District of Columbia goes last on June 14. Clinton leads Sanders by an average of 10 points in California as things currently stand. [id.]
Travis Gettys 06 May 2016 at 12:18 ET
A group of Bernie Sanders supporters and other protesters disrupted an appearance by Hillary Clinton in southern California.
The Democratic presidential frontrunner was repeatedly interrupted Thursday [May 5, 2016] as she spoke to a largely Latino crowd in Monterey Park, where Union del Barrio organized a protest against Clinton over her immigration policies and opposition to a national $15 hourly minimum wage, reported KNBC-TV [ http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Protesters-Gather-Outside-Hillary-Clinton-Rally-378350571.html ].
Clinton warned that Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, would create a “deportation force to round up millions of people” — but her opponents remained unconvinced by her message.
“She would do absolutely nothing to help the middle class,” said Cilena Aziz, a Sanders supporter.
“I believe that being a Democrat is for the people,” said Regina Cruz, a Sanders supporter. “I have a really difficult time believing that she is really for the people.”
She has said a strong showing in California’s June 7 primary could put her on the path to winning November’s general election and push her opponent out of the Democratic primary race.
“I am 3 million-plus votes ahead of Senator Sanders, right?” Clinton said in Exposition Park. “I am nearly 300 pledged delegates ahead of Senator Sanders.”
Trevor attempts to address a few problematic issues with Bernie Sanders's policies without making waves with the Democratic presidential candidate's supporters. (Duration: 7:14)
#BernieOrBust: Sanders Fans Debate Whether to Vote for Clinton If She is Democratic Nominee
May 06, 2016
As Democratic challengers Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton press on in the Democratic primary, Sanders trails in the pledged delegate count by more than 300. Add in superdelegates, and Clinton is just under 200 delegates shy of the number needed to clinch the nomination. Even as Sanders maintains his commitment to stay in the race, voters looking for political revolution are facing the question of whether or not to support his rival Hillary Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee for president. We host a debate between Kshama Sawant, Socialist city councilmember in Seattle and member of Socialist Alternative, who is a Sanders supporter [ http://www.movement4bernie.org/ ] and says she will not support Clinton; and Mike McGinn, former mayor of Seattle from 2010 to 2013, who hosts a podcast on social change called "You, Me, Us, Now." He is a Bernie Sanders supporter, but will back Hillary Clinton if she becomes the nominee.
Sanders Campaign Manager Cautions Clinton Against Shift Back to Middle
Sanders supporters are likely to stay home in November if that happens, Jeff Weaver warned on the Masters in Politics podcast.
by Betsy Fischer Martin and Tammy Haddad May 6, 2016 — 7:01 PM CDT
Jeff Weaver, the campaign manager for Bernie Sanders, issued a warning to Hillary Clinton on Bloomberg’s Masters in Politics podcast: If she makes a shift back to the middle on important issues in a general election campaign, she shouldn’t count on Sanders supporters to be there for her in November. "The Secretary has obviously moved to the left of this campaign substantially in an attempt to block out Senator Sanders," Weaver noted. "But as too often happens, one worries that when the primary is over that candidate becomes much more centrist in a general election. If that happens, I think you will see a lot of Sanders supporters just sit home frankly."
Weaver also reiterated that even though Sanders is behind in the pledged delegate count, the senator will continue to fight for every vote in the Democratic presidential primary. "Secretary Clinton may want to move on, but there's certainly a contest going on and he's gonna fight for every vote and every delegate from now till the end,” he said.
Weaver reported that Sanders will be all over California in the coming weeks. “He's going to make a full court press. He’s going to be holding rallies all over the state and meeting people. I think he will move people there like he did in Indiana or Michigan and a number of other places."
Responding to recent efforts by Donald Trump to try to reach out to Sanders supporters, Weaver says that Sanders himself "will work day and night to make sure that Donald Trump does not get elected president.” Weaver contends that any outreach that Trump makes to Sanders voters will not be successful. "I think that Trump's message—lower wages, his outrageous bigoted comments, sexist comments, I just don't think that Bernie Sanders supporters are going to move to Donald Trump.”
Political world looks to general election The Rachel Maddow Show 5/6/16 Rachel Maddow rounds up the day's political headlines that together paint a picture of the political world shifting its focus to the general election even as the Democratic primary is not yet resolved. Duration: 3:02 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/political-world-looks-to-general-election-681178179705 [with comments]
Sanders aims for strong finish to win half of US states The Rachel Maddow Show 5/6/16 Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic candidate for president, talks with Rachel Maddow about the outlook for his campaign going into the final stretch of the primary race and what he thinks he can accomplish at the national convention. Duration: 4:37 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-aims-to-win-half-of-us-states-681138243988 [with comments]
Sanders hits Democratic Party for 'stacked deck' The Rachel Maddow Show 5/6/16 Senator Bernie Sanders talks with Rachel Maddow about his accusation that the Democratic Party has put his campaign at a disadvantage by under-representing them on convention committees, saying, "So far the deck is outrageously stacked against us." Duration: 2:16 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-hits-democratic-party-stacked-deck-681142339680 [with comments]
Sanders: Superdelegates have too much power The Rachel Maddow Show 5/6/16 Bernie Sanders talks with Rachel Maddow about where he sees unfairness in the Democratic primary system, the role of superdelegates, and why caucuses, messy though they may be, are worth keeping. Duration: 4:27 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-superdelegates-have-too-much-power-681145923625 [with comments]
Sanders pushes to broaden Democratic reach, boost turnout numbers The Rachel Maddow Show 5/6/16 Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic candidate for president, talks with Rachel Maddow about the importance of turnout for Democrats in 2016 and why he thinks he's the one who can energize the base as well as pull in new independent voters to defeat Donald Trump. Duration: 5:47 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-pushes-for-broader-democratic-reach-681150019898 [with comments]
Sanders slams corporate media, calls for Democratic Fox News The Rachel Maddow Show 5/6/16 Senator Bernie Sanders, Democratic candidate for president, vents his frustrations about corporate, mainstream media, calling for a Democratic-funded equivalent of Fox News, and political journalism that focuses more on the substance of solving the nation's problems than on the horse race of elections. Duration: 2:38 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-calls-for-a-democratic-fox-news-681133123695 [with comments; MSNBC YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SKMavOKhqo {with comments)]
The best things in Vermont... The Rachel Maddow Show 5/6/16 Rachel Maddow celebrates the fact that her trip to Vermont to interview Senator Bernie Sanders also includes spending time with Steve Benen and some local beer. Duration: 0:49 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/the-best-things-in-vermont-681155139893 [with comments]
Sanders on change, state by state, person by person The Rachel Maddow Show 5/6/16 Senator Bernie Sanders talks with Rachel Maddow about the possibility of single-payer health care happening state by state instead of their federal action, and the motivation he hopes his supports take from his campaign to help bring change on important issues. Duration: 4:14 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-on-change-by-states-and-by-people-681168963991 [with comments]
Sanders condemns disruptions, ok with protests at Clinton events The Rachel Maddow Show 5/6/16 Senator Bernie Sanders makes clear in an interview with Rachel Maddow that he does not want his supporters to disrupt the meetings of other candidates, but he sees it as part and parcel of free speech for people to protest outside such events, even Hillary Clinton events. Duration: 3:56 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/sanders-condemns-disruptions-ok-with-protest-681128003895 [with comments; MSNBC YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chZboAndSUk {with comments)]
In his editorial New Rule, Bill explores how gender stereotypes have changed over the years and calls out Donald Trump for being a "whiny little bitch." Original air date: May 6, 2016.
Why the Islamic Invasion of the West is Happening / Glenn Beck Controversy
Published on May 7, 2016 by The Alex Jones Channel
Alex breaks down the globalists plan to fracture the west with masses of Muslims and destroy their homelands at the same time. He also responds to the ongoing Glenn Beck Controversy.
But whether that assessment of Clinton is accurate depends entirely on what it means to be a true progressive nowadays.
Does it mean voting like Sanders has, and embracing his agenda? Or does it simply mean consistently pushing for policies that would significantly advance progressive causes, like a fairer economy and a cleaner environment?
By the first definition, Clinton clearly doesn’t qualify as a progressive.
By the second, she clearly does.
The ideological gulf between Sanders and Clinton is real, and it’s easy to spot. Sanders thinks everybody should get health insurance from the government and be able to attend public universities for free. He thinks taxes must go up to pay for these programs, mostly on the rich but also on the middle class. Clinton has rejected those ideas as impractical, as policy or politics — or simply ill-conceived.
Their histories are different too. Over the years, Sanders staked out a position so far to the political left that, until this year, he didn’t even formally identify as a member of the Democratic Party — and preferred to call himself simply a “democratic socialist [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-socialist_n_7182752.html ].” He was an original critic of the North American Free Trade Agreement. He gets his campaign funding almost exclusively from small donors, and has basically no ties to corporate America.
But Sanders’ position on the outer ideological edges of the Democratic Party is also a reminder that context matters.
If Sanders is the standard by which you’re going to decide whether a politician is a progressive, then almost nobody from the Democratic Party would qualify. Take Sanders out of the equation, and suddenly Clinton looks an awful lot like a mainstream progressive — firmly on the left side of the American ideological spectrum and maybe on the left side of the Democratic Party’s, as well.
One reason it’s easy to miss this is that Clinton’s domestic policy agenda doesn’t include one signature idea or position that’s going to dominate the headlines or get activists excited. Instead, it’s a series of proposals that, together, would fortify the social safety net, strengthen regulation of industry, and bolster public services. To the extent these programs require new spending, the money would largely come from new taxes on the wealthy.
Consider just a few key components of Clinton’s economic and energy agenda:
Paid Family Leave: Clinton, a longtime proponent for supporting working parents, has called for providing 12 weeks of paid leave [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-paid-leave_us_568f2e27e4b0a2b6fb6f8d81 ] for new mothers and fathers, as well as anybody taking care of an infirmed elderly relative. She would require this of all states, rather than simply putting up some money for states interested in experimenting. And she’d back that with enough federal funding to cover at least two-thirds of the cost in each state.
Unlike Sanders, who would finance his version of paid family leave with a small tax on all payrolls, Clinton has said she would probably rely on taxes for the wealthy or taxes on business. But the benefits would be the same.
Higher education: If Clinton has her way, students could pay for tuition at public four-year colleges in their states without taking out loans. The program to make this possible would be complicated, even convoluted: States would get money from the the federal government, on the condition they stop reducing and start increasing what they spend on higher education. In addition, students would have to work up to 10 hours a week, while families would have to make a “realistic contribution” — conditions that Sanders [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/heather-gautney/college-affordability-com_b_8011428.html ] would not place on aid.
But low-income students could use aid to pay for books and fees, as well as tuition. (Other living expenses, notably room and board, would still require payment or loans for most students.) Community college would be free, which is a big deal, since that’s where 38 percent of undergraduates are getting their educations. All told, the Clinton program would require $350 billion over 10 years, which is less than Sanders has proposed, but far more than Obama suggested in either of his presidential campaigns.
Taxes: Clinton has proposed a raft of new taxes that would fall almost entirely on wealthy individuals or corporations [ http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2016/01/hillary_clintons_new_tax_propo.php ]. Her agenda includes higher estate taxes and a minimum tax on incomes higher than $1 million, which has come to be known as the “Buffett Rule.” (It’s after Warren Buffett, the multibillionaire who publicized the loopholes allowing people like to him to pay lower income tax rates than their office staff.) Clinton would close the loophole that lets some investment fund managers get a huge tax break on most of their incomes. She would also make it more difficult for corporations to avoid taxes overseas.
The Brookings-Urban Tax Policy Center [ http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-hillary-clintons-tax-proposals ] estimates that Clinton’s tax proposals would generate more than $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. That’s a lot of money, even if it pales next to the new taxes that Sanders would seek. (Estimates have suggested his tax hikes would be more than $10 trillion and maybe more like $20 trillion, though the majority of that would be in the form of health insurance taxes displacing current taxes and private health insurance premiums.)
Note that this partial list leaves out whole categories of policies — like immigration, gun violence, and abortion rights — where Clinton also has staked out strongly progressive positions. In some cases, her positions are arguably more progressive than the ones Sanders has taken. (The list also does not include foreign policy, where Clinton’s interventionist instincts put her at odds with many progressives — but where, as Max Fisher of Vox [ http://www.vox.com/2016/4/27/11504272/hillary-clinton-hawk ] has noted, Clinton’s enthusiasm for diplomacy sets her apart from conservatives.)
Of course, sketching out a campaign agenda is one thing. Pushing to enact it is quite another. A big reason that Sanders and his supporters don’t put much stock in Clinton’s rhetoric is that they don’t trust her to follow through. They think she will pull back, because they see her raising money from corporate interests that oppose progressive policies — and because they remember the 1990s, when she supported welfare reform, free trade treaties, and other policies that her husband pursued when he was president.
But Clinton’s responsibility for her husband’s agenda isn’t always self-evident, because, as first lady, she had less ability to dissent than other advisers. A better indicator of her instincts is probably her subsequent record as a senator from New York. According to those same DW-NOMINATE ratings, Clinton was the chamber’s 11th most-liberal member [ http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/31/1374629/-Hillary-Clinton-Was-the-11th-Most-Liberal-Member-of-the-Senate ] during her tenure. It’s a crude statistic, but it suggests strongly that she was not just progressive relative to the Senate. It suggests that she was also progressive relative to members of her own party.
And if you can count on Clinton to be responsive to Wall Street, you can also count on her to be responsive to unions, environmental groups, advocates for children and for women’s rights — groups that will continue to push her in a progressive direction if she ends up in the White House. The same goes for the hordes of progressive voters who have backed Sanders in the primaries. If they make noise, Clinton is going to listen.
That’s arguably happening already, thanks to the strong campaign that Sanders has run. This is how political change happens! But once the fight for the Democratic presidential nomination is over, the dynamics are bound to shift. It’s easy to forget now, but the right wing has spent most of Clinton’s time in public life portraying her as a extreme liberal, or even a socialist. As soon as the primaries are over, those attacks will start again — and some ambivalent progressives may decide they like Clinton after all.
By Jeff Schweitzer Scientist and former White House Senior Policy Analyst; Ph.D. in neurophysiology 04/19/2016 10:55 am ET | Updated Apr 19, 2016
I doubt many would question my liberal credentials, probably best defined by epithets from those right of center who object to my writings and background. To them I am a liberal elitist, left-wing extremist, godless sinner and, one of my favorites, “nothing but an immoral pointy head atheist” who “hates America” among other transgressions. Fan mail at its best. A common technique to express disdain in letters to me is to put in quotes my qualifications as a “neurobiologist” and “senior White House Policy advisor” in the Clinton administration.
I wear with great pride this scorn from the right and consider the label of liberal a badge of honor. But during this election cycle, I find myself becoming increasingly annoyed with my left-leaning colleagues and friends. Many seem to have forgotten or wish to deny the deep truth that idealism is not a foundation for governance. This growing disconnect from reality manifests itself in expressing “disappointment” in President Obama and self-destructive vows to deny support to the Democratic nominee should it be Hillary for those feeling the Bern, or to a lesser extent should it be Bernie for Clinton supporters. For my fellow liberals still willing to read on, let’s look at why we need to gain a little perspective.
In spite of early impatience in the LGBT community, Obama has done more to protect LGBT rights [ https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/lgbt_record.pdf ] than any other president by repealing Don’t Ask , Don’t Tell, ending the legal defense of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signing historic hate crime legislation, ensuring hospital visitation rights for LGBT patients and partners, expanding access to health care without worries of pre-existing conditions, ensuring equality for LGBT federal government employees, and taking steps to ensure LGBT equality in housing and crime prevention.
On foreign policy, the Nation [ http://www.thenation.com/article/barack-obama-is-a-foreign-policy-grandmaster/ ] rightly concludes that “Barak Obama is a Foreign Policy Grandmaster.” He withdrew troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, decimated al-Qaeda, thwarted Iran’s nuclear program, removed chemical weapons from Syria, toppled Gadhafi, halved the number of Russian and American nuclear missile launchers, redirected relationships with Cuba, improved ties with India, and signed a climate deal in which China for the first time agreed to participate meaningfully. Yes the world remains a dangerous place, ISIS coming to mind, and any foreign policy is open to legitimate criticism. Any decision on the world stage will have undesirable impacts, and these are naturally the focus of critics. But even the conservative Wall Street Journal [ http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-presidents-successful-foreign-policy-1438643082 ] says of Obama’s foreign policy successes, “Give the president his due here.” They add that “Mr. Obama has largely succeeded in what he set out to do.” That conclusion is from a publication that is no friend to Obama.
What makes these accomplishments all the more remarkable is that Obama was working against an opposition openly committed to his failure, which is more or less unprecedented in its brazenness. Mitch McConnell [ https://newrepublic.com/article/96591/mcconnell-villain-who-me ] said on October 23, 2010 that “my number one priority is making sure Obama’s a one-term president.” Not making America great, or preventing terrorist attacks, or helping the middle-class, or bringing home our troops - no, the Republican leader has one top goal - to deny Obama any success, at any cost to America. GOP leaders wish for Obama to fail more than they hope America will succeed. They are not alone, having plenty of rank and file support for this treasonous idea. Rush Limbaugh [ http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/01/20/35012/limbaugh-obama-fail/ ] said simply, “I hope he fails.” Rep. Michelle Bachmann [ http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201004140001 ] said, “We’re hoping that President Obama’s policies don’t succeed.”
In evaluating Obama’s tenure forget not either that the right has painted all that is bad as Obama’s fault and denied him credit for anything good. Two glaring examples prove he faces a degree of hypocrisy and cynicism that have taken our national politics into uncharted waters of hatefulness.
None of the above has issued an apology, noting that energy prices have declined under Obama. Remember the accusation was that Obama sought higher prices as a deliberate policy. But we have seen no retraction of that absurd claim: now that we have low prices, Obama’s policies are not responsible and nobody mentions his policy of seeking higher prices; no, low prices are due to “oil industry ingenuity [ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/11/editorial-gas-prices-low-thanks-to-american-oil-in/ ].” Obama to blame for high prices; Obama has nothing to do with low prices. Costs up, Obama bad; prices down, oil industry smart, with past accusations conveniently forgotten. I wonder how these people sleep at night.
Stock Market
The GOP take on the stock market is even more remarkable than with gas prices, taking hypocrisy to truly new extremes. The DJIA was at 3310 on Bill Clinton’s first inaugural day. The market was 6813 when he was next inaugurated. At the end of Clinton’s second term, on the day Bush took office, the DJIA was at 10,578; that is the market Bush inherited from Clinton. When Bush left the Oval Office on January 20, 2009, the Dow was at 7,949, a decline of 25% over the eight years Bush was president. By March the DJIA had completed its tumble to bottom out with a 12-year low at just over 6500. Republicans blamed Obama [ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/dow-hovers-near-11000-thi_b_545800.html ] for the continuing decline from 7,900 to 6,500 during his first month in office, but not Bush for the loss from 10,600 to 7,900 in eight years as president. Here is just one example:
Wall Street Journal [ http://mediamatters.org/research/2009/03/06/bloomberg-news-wsj-op-ed-blame-obama-for-stock/148059 ] (March 6, 2009): “Obama’s Radicalism is Killing the Dow.” Author Michael Boskin [ http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123629969453946717 ] prognosticated that, “It’s hard not to see the continued sell-off on Wall Street and the growing fear on Main Street as a product, at least in part, of the realization that our new president’s policies are designed to radically re-engineer the market-based U.S. economy, not just mitigate the recession and financial crisis.”
Perhaps most astonishing of all, John Tanny of Real Clear Markets [ http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2008/11/like_it_or_not_this_is_obamas.html ], wrote on November 25, 2008, an article entitled, “This Is Obama’s Market, Good and Bad.” Obama was not yet president! That did not stop Tanny from writing that, “Lacking clarity, investors can only guess about what’s ahead based on Obama’s decidedly anti-business rhetoric used during the campaign. Whatever direction he takes, it should be clear that today’s stock market is the Obama stock market, so it’s up to him to decide its basic direction.” Even though Obama was not yet president. So a declining market was Obama’s fault even before he took office; but after nearly 8 years in office, we hear...nothing. Where is the talk about Obama’s radicalism killing the Dow because he was re-engineering our economy? When the DJIA hit 17,000, did you hear conservatives say “this is Obama’s market”? Nothing? Cat got their tongue?
We see this same extraordinary double standard and outrageous hypocrisy with Obamacare, unemployment, national security, and in fact in every area where Obama has had success. When unemployment was 10%, Obama’s fault; when 5%, the number is meaningless.
I ask my liberal colleagues to think about this sick, irrational and polarized environment in which Obama must operate when evaluating his amazing accomplishments before becoming “disappointed” with him. He should be evaluated against the possible, not the unachievable ideal. In a perfect world, of course we would like him to have done more. Climate change is a good example. He made extraordinary and unprecedented progress on climate change, but only relative to the limits of international recalcitrance and a wall of opposition in the House and Senate at home. I wish he had done more; but also recognize real world constraints. I just wish my fellow liberals would do the same. We have no reasonable justification to be disappointed with Obama; but plenty of reasons to rejoice in his extraordinary accomplishments. Leave the negative hand-wringing to right wing extremists who simply cannot admit that Obama has been successful.
Bernie and Hillary
Nothing saddens me more than the rift within our liberal ranks caused by passionate support for one of these two great candidates. Let’s have the debate; let’s have the candidates give us their best. Let us each vigorously support the candidate of our choice. But once the nominee has been selected it is insane to withdraw support if the choice is not your man or woman. Too much is at stake for you to take your marbles and go home because you did not get all you wanted. Once the Democrats have chosen the Party candidate, your choice is no longer between Hillary and Bernie; but between one of those and Cruz or Trump (or whoever the GOP freak show eventually selects). Nobody other than a patient in a padded cell and helmet could possibly say that there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans. Ralph Nader [ http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/r/ralphnader160181.html ] once made that claim and gave us the nightmare of George Bush. Even with Gore’s anemic campaign and loss of his home state, Gore would have been the clear winner absent Nader’s siphoning; let us not repeat that historic mistake. The distinction between left and right has never been greater, never starker, never more important.
Celebrities like Susan Sarandon [ http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/29/susan-sarandon-trump-might-be-better-for-america-than-hillary-clinton.html ] do us no favors by being coy about supporting Hillary if Clinton gets the nomination. I admire Sarandon’s dedication to Bernie and to his ideals, and am happy to see her fight for him to win. But we become as nuts as the other side when we withdraw support from either Bernie or Hillary because one side or the other is “very passionate and principled” as Sarandon said of Bernie supporters. Whoever wins the nomination deserves our full backing, no matter who we previously supported in the primaries. We only provoke the crazies by suggesting that only one of our liberal candidates is worthy of fighting the insanity of the right. Withdrawing support for the Democratic nominee, be it Bernie or Hillary, is not an option because not voting is no different than pulling the lever for Trump or Cruz or whatever swamp creature emerges from the GOP morass - and that is political suicide for our country. So fellow liberals, stop moaning about Obama and be grateful for his courage, fortitude, political acumen and steadfast focus on the long game; he achieved the near impossible. And we must stop this ridiculous and I must say childish rant that we won’t support the Democratic nominee if he or she is not our first choice. Let idealism guide your heart and realism guide your vote.
Clinton Threads Needle With Pitches to Sanders Fans, Republicans
Hillary Clinton, a 2016 Democratic presidential candidate and former secretary of state, speaks during a campaign event in Oakland, California, on May 6, 2016. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg
Facing a Republican Party with a presumptive nominee and an ongoing contest in her party, the Democratic presidential-front-runner said she would reach across the political spectrum.
by Ben Brody May 8, 2016 — 9:36 AM CDT
Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton said she sees “a great role” for Bernie Sanders and his supporters in a “unified party," even as she said she welcomed Republicans who are not supporting presumptive nominee Donald Trump.
Days after Trump’s remaining Republican competitors exited the race, the former secretary of state continues to battle for her party’s nomination against the Vermont senator, who has taken several positions to her left on economic issues.
“Obviously I'm reaching out to Democrats, Republicans, independents, all voters who want a candidate who is running a campaign based on issues,” Clinton said in an interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation” broadcast on Sunday.
Clinton said she and Sanders have similar views on issues, including raising the minimum wage and reining “in bad actors on Wall Street and in corporate America." She said she wants to unify Democrats around those issues.
“I see a great role and opportunity for him and his supporters to be part of that unified party to move into not just November to win the election against Donald Trump, but to then govern based on the progressive goals that he and I share,” she said.
Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver, in a May 6 interview with Bloomberg [ http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-07/sanders-campaign-manager-cautions-clinton-against-shift-back-to-middle (third item above)], warned Clinton against moving back to the middle—a common tactic by presidential nominees from both parties as they pivot from the primary season to the general election. Many Sanders supporters would “just sit home, frankly” in November if Clinton shifted toward the center on important issues, Weaver said.
While working to not alienate the party's left wing, Clinton said she'd communicated with members of the Republican Party who weren’t getting behind Trump, whom she said “take their vote seriously and who really see this as a crossroads kind of election.”
“I am asking people to come join this campaign, and I've had a lot of outreach on Republicans in the last days who say that they are interested in talking about that,” she said.
Clinton didn't say who she'd spoken with. Several prominent Republicans, including Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush as well as House Speaker Paul Ryan, who will chair the Republican National Convention in July, have said they did not yet or could not support the real estate developer turned politician.
Asked about the high unfavorable ratings associated with both her and Trump, Clinton said she's "not going to run an ugly race."
"I don't feel like I'm running against Donald Trump. I feel like I'm running for my vision of what our country can be," Clinton said.
Polls show Clinton is viewed unfavorably by 55 percent of voters, with Trump viewed unfavorably by 65 percent, according to compilations by RealClearPolitics.
Clinton also told CBS said she had not been contacted by the FBI for its investigation into the security of a private e-mail server she used during her time as the nation’s top diplomat.
Poll: Trump less popular than lice, still backed by GOP voters
The Rachel Maddow Show 5/9/16
Rachel Maddow presents the results of a new PPP poll which finds, among other things that Donald Trump is less popular than lice, and yet, contrary to media narratives about a party split, Republican voters are shown as likely to vote for him and even Republican politicians who said terrible things about him are eating their words and supporting him. Duration: 17:36
Senator Amy Klobuchar talks with Rachel Maddow about peculiar line of attack Donald Trump has taken on Hillary Clinton, and whether Clinton will have better success running against Trump than his Republican rivals did. Duration: 8:47
Clinton campaign rethinks ending primary ads just yet
The Rachel Maddow Show 5/9/16
Rachel Maddow reports breaking news that the Clinton campaign has said that after effectively ending ad spending against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary that decision is being reconsidered and ad time will likely be purchased for at least some of the upcoming primary contests. Duration: 1:34
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
