Sandernistas, the "Burning Britches" You Smell Are Your Own

Screenshot of People for Sanders video

Another day, another overheated accusation from the Bernie Sanders campaign and/or the DC operatives loosely affiliated with it that Hillary Clinton is LYING AGAIN.  This time, she supposedly LIED about whether Bernie was an active contributor to the 1993-94 health care reform battle.
To hit the point home, “The People for Bernie Sanders” disseminated a little video, essentially accusing Hillary of being a “liar, liar, pants on fire.” They present all of ten seconds of video of Sanders standing in the background on a stage at a Hillary health care reform event, as if that proves their point. (Sanders campaign staff had earlier tweeted out a still from the same CSPAN footage.)

Hillary Clinton forgets where Bernie Sanders was
Hillary Clinton should really see this video
Posted by The People For Bernie Sanders 2016 on Saturday, March 12, 2016

Not trying to be snarky, but Bernie showing up at Hillary's rally at a college next door to his Congressional district wasn't exactly heavy lifting.  In the clip, she thanks those who are leaders in the effort, but she doesn’t identify Sanders as one of them. She then says that she was “grateful that Congressman Sanders would join us today from Vermont,” at which point the clip is abruptly cut off. 

Hillary Wins Nevada By 5.5 Points Amid Second Biggest Turnout Ever

As of 9:40 PM (Pacific) Saturday night, The New York Times reports that the Nevada Democratic Caucuses went 52.7% for Hillary and 47.2% for Bernie, with about 5% of precincts left to be accounted for. 

Some sources are still spinning it as “Hillary eked out a win.”  I don’t know about that – in most elections, a 5½  point spread is usually considered a pretty decisive victory.  Sure, Bernie put in a good showing, but Hillary’s victory wasn’t “eked out.” Not by a long shot.Heck, even Fox News handed it to her - and they seem to have a whole separate bureau specifically dedicated to identifying and promoting each and every story's possible anti-Hillary angles.

Screen snip, Twitter 

About 80,000 folks* participated in Nevada's Democratic caucuses this year.  Yes, that’s about a 33% decline from 2008 (which had almost 120,000 turn out.)  But 2008 was a unicorn.

Citing Satire as "Reporting," Raw Story Implies Iowa Pro-Hillary Shenanigans

Hillary at the 2015 Iowa Fair / Phil Roeder, CC BY 2.0

Raw Story is the Democrats’ answer to Breitbart.  Anything you see from them needs to be scrutinized carefully and fact-checked thoroughly.  Fail to, and you’ll share, repost, or cite at your own risk.

Case in point: THIS Raw Story piece is the WORST.  The author, in building a case that pro-Hillary shenanigans were afoot in the Iowa caucuses, was incredibly sloppy in his sourcing and analysis.  I’m not sure whether this resulted from his desire to prove his thesis, or the perverse incentives of “writing at the speed of the Internet” resulting in haphazard work, or both.  Just in case it’s primarily due to an unusual series of mistakes – and we’ve all made them – I’ll simply refer to him here as RS Travis.

RS Travis cites an Iowa blog for saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of what it says.  He also cites a HuffPo satire piece as “reporting,” and paints a couple of fairly even-handed Iowa newspaper editorials as being much more dramatic and sensational than they really were.   All in all, lovely. ;)

Misciting a one-year old source

RS Travis: 

The blog BleedingHeartland has been raising concerns that McGuire, who has been involved in Iowa politics for more than 20 years, is manipulating the state’s Democratic Party to favor Clinton over her challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT).

Uh, that’s not what she said.  The Bleeding Heartland post he linked to was from one year ago, when McGuire was first elected Chair - the post and all updates are from January 2015: 

Why Won't Bernie Denounce Super PAC Spending That's Helping HIM?

Bernie on the stump / Phil Roeder, CC-BY 2.0

The New York Times, reporting on Friday, January 29, 2016:

“Bernie Sanders is Democrats' Top Beneficiary of Outside Spending, Like It Or Not”* 

*This was the original, accurate headline. The NYT later subbed in a misleading, click-bait headline, which I really wish they'd get rid of.* 

I'm waiting to hear Sanders supporters - ANY Sanders supporters - call on Bernie to immediately and publicly repudiate the $5.3 million+ that super PACs have spent so far – much of it in Iowa and New Hampshire – to help Sanders and hurt Hillary.  At the very least, denouncing the $4.3 million in right wing attack ads that have been targeting Hillary would seem to be a gimme.

For the sake of consistency, if Bernie thinks all PACs are bad, he should probably respectfully request that UNNA not spend their super PAC money trying to elect him, either.  Ditto for myriad other Bernie-endorsing organizations, including MoveOn.org, which recently endorsed Bernie, and which spent almost a million dollars on campaign ads in the 2014 election season (note: MoveOn Political Action is a federal PAC rather than a super PAC, so they at least disclose their donors.)

No, Elizabeth Warren Didn't "Sink" Hillary Endorsement Hopes

Senator and progressive girl-crush Elizabeth Warren / Image: Ninian Reid, CC BY 2.0

The essay hit Huffington Post earlier today and is already manically careening around Facebook and other social media:

Elizabeth Warren Sinks Clinton's Hopes for Endorsement


Oh, BALONEY. 

The Elizabeth-Warren-secretly-loves-Bernie-and-hates-Hillary stories have been circulating online for months, mostly among Sanders' supporters.  And they only seem to be multiplying as Iowa draws near: "Warren in talks to endorse Bernie," "Bernie will nominate Warren for VP," "This comment from Sen. Warren PROVES she hates Hillary's guts!"  None of the stories or headlines are supported by actual evidence. 

Listen for yourself to the speech where Sen. Warren supposedly "made it clear she won't endorse Hillary":  

Sanders' Antidote To Shallow Campaign Coverage

Screen Shot of Sanders Economic Inequality Video

Tired of shallow campaign coverage?  Want to hear more about issues that actually impact most of our lives on a day to day basis?  Well, here you go:

I'm not a Bernie Sanders supporter.  [I actually lean toward Hillary.]  But this video was extremely well done and focuses viewers' attention on REAL issues that impact REAL Americans on a day to day basis, rather than all of the silly stuff dominating campaign coverage. 

This is an extremely compelling, engaging presentation of modern American economic realities.  I'm not with Sanders on doubling the federal minimum wage (although it does need a boost.)  But all of the other points made here are solid.

If you're still not sure why life feels like more of a struggle than it was 10, 20, or even 40 years ago, the info shared here helps bring that to light.  Take 8 minutes and give this video a watch and a listen. 

And if you, too, are concerned about the issues discussed here - even if you're not a Bernie supporter - help share the video on Facebook, your blog, Twitter, and any other social media.  Help make the case to all Presidential candidates and the press that a majority of American voters - left, right, and center - are tired of political, legal, and economic systems that have been rigged to benefit a very, very small share of our population, at the expense of the other 90-some% of us.  

Federal and state taxes paid by the profoundly affluent have been slashed again, and again, and again since the 1960s, each time with the promise that this would unleash growth in US GDP that would mean improved quality of life for ALL of us.  While the average American has experienced improved quality of life is some arenas, those improvements have almost exclusively been due to technological change, cheaper goods due to globalized trade (which hasn't been without a downside), economies of scale, and public infrastructure investment - all factors that had little to no connection to any of these tax cuts.

Slashing taxes on the wealthiest in America has never "unleashed growth" in the way that's been promised.  Data point after data point indicate that US policy promoting GDP growth as the primary concern of economic policy has had no discernible benefits for 90-some% of Americans.  To the contrary, our incomes and wealth after inflation is accounted for have SHRUNK. 

We need to say ENOUGH.  And if you tend to vote Republican and YOU care about these issues, we REALLY need you to help spread the word.  Because you guys have a much better shot at getting GOP candidates to stop pandering to major corporations, banks and financial services firms with their economic policy proposals.

Dems Need to Resolve Angst About Hillary, Stat!

Secretary of State Clinton / Photo: U.S. Embassy in London, CC BY-ND 2.0

I still have angst about the State Department email situation that is holding me back from enthusiastically supporting Hillary Clinton.  The arguments for the defense coming from Dems sound more like typical spin than thoroughly researched, credible arguments.  But so do the arguments being made by the GOP folks.  I'm feeling like I need to dig in, sort through the best info available, and sort out my feelings on this one right away.

UPDATE: Turns out I'm not the only Dem with such angst.  From today's New York Times: Hillary Clinton's Handling of Email Issue Frustrates Democratic Leaders

Donald Trump seems to be gaining on Hillary in head-to-head match-up polls.  She's still ahead, but he's moved a LOT in the last month or so.  All of the polls in June and July had her ahead by 12 to 24 points.  The results gauged in August have her ahead of Trump by just 4 to 6 points.