Tag Archives: 2016 Democratic Party presidential primary season

Bernie and Billary agree to four more debates, including one before N.H.

Democratic U.S. presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and rival candidate U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders speak simultaneously at the NBC News - YouTube Democratic presidential candidates debate in Charleston

Reuters photo

Billary Clinton and Bernie Sanders are pictured at the Democratic Party presidential debate earlier this month in South Carolina. The two front-runners have agreed to four additional debates, one wedged between the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary and three more after the New Hampshire primary.

Politico reports today that Bernie Sanders and Billary Clinton have agreed to four more debates, which would bring the total number of 2016 Democratic Party presidential debates to 10.

The Democratic National Committee (that is, Debbie Wasserman Schultz) would have to approve the additional debates, however.

The first proposed new debate would be sandwiched between the Iowa caucuses on Monday and the New Hampshire primary on February 9. This additional debate would help Billary, especially if Bernie wins Iowa — something that Nate Silver says is more unlikely than likely to happen yet still is quite possible, given that the two have been neck and neck in Iowa recently but that Billary is up around four points right now and has the support of the establishment, yet if Bernie can get his more-enthusiastic-but-younger supporters to turn out, that could win it for him.

(Right now Real Clear Politics’ average of Iowa polls has Billary at 3.4 percent ahead of Bernie, while the Huffington Post’s average of Iowa polls has Billary up over Bernie at 4 percent right now.)

Indeed, an additional debate sandwiched between Iowa and New Hampshire would do more good for Billary than it would for Bernie, given that Bernie has been leading Billary in New Hampshire by double digits for some time now. (Right now RCP’s average of New Hampshire polls has Bernie at 14.3 percent ahead of Billary, and HuffPo’s average of New Hampshire polls has Bernie beating Billary there by 13 percent.)

Especially if Bernie wins Iowa, another debate before New Hampshire could, I surmise, harm his chances there. Recall that in 2008, Billary came in at third place in Iowa and then turned on the waterworks and won New Hampshire (because The New Feminism is all about attacking others for their sexist or even supposedly sexist stereotypes — but employing blatantly sexist stereotypes oneself when it benefits oneself).

On the balance, though, the addition of three more debates after New Hampshire should help Bernie, because the Democratic National Committee/Debbie Wasserman Schultz thus far has scheduled only two debates after New Hampshire: on February 11 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and on March 9 in Miami, Florida.

In addition to the debate wedged between Iowa and New Hampshire, the Bernie and Billary camps have agreed to additional debates in March, April and May, Politico reports.

If the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primary season is stretched out, like 2008’s was (recall that Billary didn’t finally concede to Barack Obama until June 2008), the three extra debates after New Hampshire, bringing the total post-New-Hampshire debate total to five, would benefit Bernie.

Indeed, scheduling only two debates after New Hampshire apparently was Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s tactic to expose her precious Billary to as few debates as possible after the earliest-voting states.

So while I’m hoping for the four extra debates — even though live-blogging the debates, as I have been doing, can be a bit of a pain in the ass — I’m not holding my breath that the Democratic National Committee/Debbie Wasserman Schultz will say yes to them.

The process has not been very democratic thus far.

P.S. In other news today, the New York Times quite stupidly has endorsed Billary Clinton for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. (This endorsement comes on the heels of the resurfacing of E-mailgate — news yesterday that Billary’s home-brewed e-mail server contained at least 22 top-secret e-mails. Yeah, it’s really smart to endorse a candidate who might be indicted any day now…)

Can you say “establishment”? The establishmentarian New York Times had endorsed Billary in 2008, too, and we know how well that turned out.

What so many people forget (or ignore) is that the corporately owned and controlled mass media want a corporation-friendly president. Therefore, their endorsements reflect what’s best for them, not what’s best for the majority of the American people.

The Times once again has perceived the most corporation-friendly candidate to be Billary Clinton. Let’s hope that the Times is as right this year as it was in 2008.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Bernie wisely avoids probable trap

Bernie Sanders is quite wise to refuse to participate in a debate in New Hampshire that hasn’t been blessed by the Democratic Party establishment (the Democratic National Committee, which actually is just a one-man show in Debbie Wasserman Schultz [yes, I wrote “man” on purpose]).

Reports The Associated Press:

Hillary Clinton’s campaign is pushing Bernie Sanders to participate in a newly proposed Democratic debate — one not sanctioned by the Democratic National Committee — to be held just days before the New Hampshire primary.

But Sanders, who has surged ahead of Clinton in New Hampshire polls, has no plans to do so, his campaign said.

“The DNC has said this would be an unsanctioned debate, so we would not want to jeopardize our ability to participate in future debates,” Sanders’ campaign manager Jeff Weaver said.

[The DNC/DWS proclaimed before this primary debate season began that any candidate who participates in a debate not sanctioned by the DNC will be disqualified from participating in all future DNC-sanctioned debates. There are only two more DNC-sanctioned debates in the Democratic Party primary season: February 11 in Wisconsin and March 9 in Florida.]

Television network MSNBC and the Union Leader, New Hampshire’s largest newspaper, announced [announced or proposed?] the new debate [yesterday], citing “overwhelming” calls from voters for another forum prior to the state’s February 9 primary.

The proposal comes as Clinton and Sanders are locked in a tight race in first-to-vote Iowa and Clinton is trying to close the gap on Sanders in New Hampshire. Clinton’s campaign had pushed for fewer debates earlier in the campaign, but now says she will participate in the forum if her competitors do.

“Hillary Clinton would be happy to participate in a debate in New Hampshire if the other candidates agree, which would allow the DNC to sanction the debate,” Clinton spokeswoman Jennifer Palmieri said.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s campaign said he plans to attend.

The DNC has sanctioned six debates and said in a statement [last] night it plans to “reconvene” with the candidates after voting in Iowa and New Hampshire to talk about further debates.

Weaver said Sanders hopes there will be at least three or four more debates following the two remaining scheduled debates planned in Wisconsin and Florida. He said the process required a “rational, thought-out schedule of debates, not just ad hoc debates scheduled when a network decides they want to have one.”

The Sanders camp is quite correct not to fall for this trap.

Unless the DNC officially sanctioned the proposed debate before the February 9 New Hampshire primary, by its own established rules for this primary debate season, the DNC easily could disqualify all three candidates from any future debates even if all three candidates agreed to participate in the unsanctioned debate before New Hampshire votes.

Given how tight Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Billary Clinton are, it’s entirely possible that what Billary wants is just one last debate, which would come just before New Hampshire, where Bernie Sanders is leading her by double digits (see here and here).

Recall that Team Billary won’t shut up about their supposed post-Iowa-and-post-New-Hampshire “firewall.” If such a “firewall” truly exists, then politically, Team Billary wouldn’t need any more debates after Iowa and New Hampshire – yet Bernie Sanders would. So how convenient it would be for him to be banned from all debates after Iowa and New Hampshire weigh in!

And it’s not just that Bernie Sanders already has New Hampshire in the bag and so politically he doesn’t need a debate before New Hampshire votes; again, it’s that neither Billary nor Wasserman Schultz can be trusted. Wasserman Schultz, who sorely needs to be replaced, has been trying to rig the game for Billary from Day One.

So let Team Billary make its elementary-school-playground-level taunts that Billary will debate before New Hampshire but Bernie Sanders won’t!

Unless the DNC officially sanctioned a debate before New Hampshire, Bernie Sanders would be a fool to participate in it – and he is no fool.

P.S. Martin O’Malley, who can’t get out of the low single digits in any of the polls, of course has less than nothing to lose, so he’ll agree to anything.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

October should be good for Bernie

In this Oct. 3, 2015, photo, Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt, speaks during a campaign rally in Springfield, Mass. Sanders and his campaign team have a relatively simple plan for his debut appearance in a nationally televised debate:

Associated Press photo

The dynamics of the Democratic Party presidential primary race thus far — that the more people get to know Bernie Sanders, the better he does, while the more they get to know Billary Clinton, the worse she does — should be on dramatic display as this month unfolds. (Sanders is shown above at a rally in Springfield, Massachusetts, earlier this month.) Just by being himself, last fundraising quarter Sanders took in $26 million, only $2 million less than did Billary Clinton and more than did any of the many Repugnican Tea Party presidential wannabes.

The first of the too-few Democratic Party presidential debates is on Tuesday.

How is my candidate, Bernie Sanders, doing?

Fairly well.

The polls have been a bit stagnant as of late, although Billary Clinton continues to drop. Consider that nationally, she once led in the 60s, but that as of late nationally she’s in the low 40s (see here too).

She’s still polling ahead of any other candidate for the Democratic Party presidential nomination on the national level, but that she has fallen considerably short of having even half of her party members’ support is, methinks, significant, as is the fact that last fundraising quarter Billary raked in $28 million while her chief opponent, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, took in a very competitive $26 million.

While 77 percent of billionaire-unfriendly Sanders’ donations came from small donors, only 13 percent of billionaire-friendly Billary’s did.

So many people (real people, not corporations) parting with money for Sanders instead of Billary should scare the shit out of Team Billary. These same people who are giving Sanders what they can afford to give him will show up at the caucuses and primaries, whereas Billary’s main “people” — corporations — can give mountains of money but they can’t vote (not yet, anyway).

You need cash to run a presidential campaign, of course, but, in the end, you also have to get the votes.

Polling in first-in-the-nation Iowa, which caucuses on February 1, shows Billary only about 6 percent ahead of Bernie right now. Bernie, who has tied with Clinton in Iowa in past polling, has plenty of time to close that gap.

While I would love Bernie to beat Billary in Iowa — I hope that he does, and if I were to bet money on it, I would bet that he will — I expect him to come in at least at second place in Iowa.

Billary at one time polled at least in the low 60s in Iowa but now doesn’t poll at even 40 percent. Joe-Come-Lately Biden — if he ends up coming at all — polls at about 15 percent in Iowa right now, while Bernie polls around 31 percent. Add Biden’s and Bernie’s support together and that’s 46 percent of likely Iowa caucus-goers who don’t want Billary — to the about-37-percent support that Billary has in Iowa right now.

Should Biden not run after all — and time for him to jump into the race is running out — it will be interesting to see how much of Biden’s support Bernie inherits in Iowa and elsewhere.

I fully expect Bernie Sanders to win New Hampshire (which holds the nation’s first presidential primary election, on February 9), where he has held a significant lead over Billary for some time now. Right now he hovers around a lead of 9 percent over Billary (he’s around 39 percent and she is around 30 percent — she used to approach 60 percent in New Hampshire).

As I have written, if Sanders wins both Iowa and New Hampshire in February, I expect it to be over for Billary. Mathematically, yes, of course she still could win enough delegates from the subsequent states, especially in the South, where she is much more popular than is Sanders (because, as a Democrat in name only, she’s much further to the right than is Sanders; I mean, I wouldn’t brag about being popular among the mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging Southerners).

But the presidential primary election battle isn’t based upon math alone; it’s based upon human nature, and human nature is such that the early winner spirals upward while the early loser spirals downward. As I’ve noted, if all 50 states voted on the same day in February, Billary probably would win, but that’s not how it will play out. The voting will roll out over several weeks, and over those weeks I see Berniementum mounting — and Hillary hemorrhaging.

You can’t quantify human nature, not really, and predicting it can be even more difficult, but, again, should Bernie Sanders win Iowa and New Hampshire — as in come in at first place in both states — I still don’t see Billary recovering from that. (She lost Iowa to Barack Obama in 2008, but at least then went on to beat Obama in New Hampshire.)

We’ll see how the debates go. Thus far Sanders has been fairly cordial to Billary; we’ll see if he continues that tack (I expect him to) and if so, how far it carries him. (And, if Billary actually attacks Bernie in the debates, we’ll see whether that works for her or whether it backfires on her. I would expect that it would backfire on her more than help her, and that even she might realize that and thus tread carefully.)

I don’t expect “Benghazigate” — Billary is scheduled to testify before the Repugnican Tea Party traitors in Congress on the topic of Benghazi on October 22 — to sway very many people.

To those who hate Billary, Benghazi has always been a “scandal” — note that these same “people” pretending to care so very much about the deaths of four Americans in Libya never have given a flying fuck about the more than four thousand (4,000) of our troops who died in the unelected, treasonous Bush regime’s illegal, immoral, unjust and unprovoked Vietraq War — and to those who for some reason wuv Billary, Benghazi has been what it was: an unfortunate incident that happened in a dangerous part of the world, that may or may not have been preventable.

(And, of course, if Billary was a bad secretary of state for having “allowed” Benghazi, what of former “President” George W. Bush, who allowed almost 3,000 Americans to die on September 11, 2001, after the August 6, 2001 presidential daily brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”? Um, yeah. The Repugnican Tea Party traitors, being uber-hypocrites, refuse to acknowledge that their own shit reeks much, much worse than does any Democrat’s.)

We didn’t need wingnutty dipshit Kevin McCarthy to incredibly stupidly admit on television that “Benghazigate” all along has been a political witch hunt meant to bring down Billary Clinton. That was glaringly obvious from the beginning. Again, if these craven traitors of the right actually gave a shit about Americans and our troops, they would have investigated war criminals George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, et. al. by now.

But at the same time it’s hard for anyone who actually has paid attention to Billary Clinton’s political career to feel sorry for her. “Benghazigate” is (mostly) bullshit, but her home-brewed e-mail server is not, and it points to her being a power monger and it points to her character: Queen Billary is to be held accountable to no one.

To me, that Billary voted for the obviously bogus Vietraq War in October 2002 alone disqualifies her for the presidency. Thousands upon thousands of Iraqis and thousands of Americans have died — and the U.S. treasury was emptied — at least in part because then-U.S. Sen. Billary Clinton had calculated on that day in October 2002 that voting for the Vietraq War would be the best thing for her political future.

(The state that she represented as a carpetbagger in the U.S. Senate, New York, had been hit the worst on 9/11, you see, so apparently Billary went along with the Bush regime’s painting of the Vietraq War as Revenge for 9/11!, even though Iraq had had nothing, zip, zero, nil, nada, zilch to do with 9/11.)

Bernie Sanders voted against the Vietraq War when he was in the U.S. House of Representatives. It was an incredibly important vote, and, as he usually does, he got it right. Billary, of course, got it incredibly wrong, and yes, that one vote should have ended her political career by now.

I digress a little — my point is that “Benghazigate” is unlikely to sway a significant chunk of voters to Billary (out of sympathy) or away from Billary (out of stupidly siding with her congressional inquisitors). Again, that Kevin McCarthy so helpfully publicly admitted that it’s a political witch hunt has only confirmed what we’ve long already known. I mean, Mittens Romney tried to make political hay out of Benghazi way back in 2012, for fuck’s sake. This is some stale fucking shit.

Speaking of stale fucking shit, Billary is so inherently unlikable (no, a stint, even a self-deprecating stint, on “Saturday Night Live” isn’t enough to change that fact) that I don’t expect scads of people to run to her side after her appearance before the “Benghazigate” assholes in Congress later this month.

However, Billary’s appearance before the “Benghazigate” assholes in Congress later this month will/would remind us how the Clintons are scandal magnets. That’s not entirely fair, as the Repugnican Tea Party traitors largely have attacked the Clintons grossly unfairly over the past decades (I mean, a blow job?), but scandal fatigue is scandal fatigue, and that fatigue persists within the electorate regardless of who is more at fault for it.

I see nothing on Billary’s horizon to reverse her drop in the polls. It seems safe to conclude that the more people get to know her, the less they like her — thus, her drop in the national polls from the 60s to the low 40s. Therefore, I don’t see the upcoming debates helping her. More exposure is worse for her, which is why the pro-Billary, DINO head of the Democratic National Committee, the God-awful Debbie Wasserman Schultz, rigged the game for Billary by scheduling so few presidential primary debates.

The opposite is true for Bernie Sanders: the more exposure he has, the higher he climbs. He never was supposed to be doing this well, pulling in $26 million to Billary’s $28 million and out-polling her in New Hampshire and being competitive with her in Iowa at this point in the game.

Sanders has nowhere to go but up. I expect even the too-few debates to help him, and he won’t be called to testify before the wingnuts in Congress in any witch hunt. And he has no ongoing e-mail scandal.

By this month’s end, I expect Sanders to overtake Billary decisively in the Iowa polling and I expect his polling in New Hampshire and in the nation as a whole to increase while Billary’s drops.

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

While Bernie surges, Billary slips below 50 percent nationally and in Iowa

Presidential aspirant U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders has work to do on becoming better known by more Americans, but more of those who know Sanders like him than dislike him. Billary “Coronate Me Already” Clinton, on the other hand, is quite well-known, but more than 50 percent of Americans dislike her. Yet we’re to believe that she’s the stronger general-election presidential candidate.

A third recent nationwide poll (I recently reported on the first two) has put Billary Clinton’s nationwide support among Democrats and Democratic leaners at below 50 percent — and has shown that such support for her dropped by 10 percentage points in just one month, from last month to this month.

And perhaps more devastatingly, a recent poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers also, for the first time, has put Billary at below 50 percent.

A Quinnipiac University poll taken August 20-25 put Billary’s support from her own party and its sympathizers at 45 percent nationally.

If 45 percent seems pretty good to you, note that a similar Quinnipiac University poll taken in April put Billary at 60 percent nationally. And the August 20-25 Quinnipiac University poll, like the other two recent nationwide polls that I wrote about earlier this month, also shows that Billary experienced a 10-point drop in support from just July to August; a July 23-28 Quinnipiac University poll had put Billary at 55 percent.

That’s three recent, independent nationwide polls whose results are quite close. The three polls have Billary’s nationwide support averaging at 47 percent, and Bernie Sander’s nationwide support averaging at 27 percent.

Democratic socialist Sanders wasn’t supposed to be doing this well against Queen Billary, who began running for president when her mother pushed her out 67 years ago.

That Billary’s support from those within her own party plummeted 10 points in just the past month demonstrates that the more people hear about her and get to know her, the less they like her. And we have more than five full months to go before the first-in-the-nation states of Iowa and New Hampshire hold their caucuses and primary election (on February 1 and on February 9, respectively).

Speaking of which, a Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register Iowa Poll released yesterday shows that Billary has the support of only 37 percent of likely Iowa caucus-goers — the first time that Billary’s support has been below 50 percent in the poll — and that Bernie Sanders is right on her heels, with the support of 30 percent of likely caucus-goers. (In May, Billary was at 57 percent in the poll and Sanders was at only 16 percent.)

Bloomberg News reports: “‘It looks like what people call the era of inevitability is over,’ said J. Ann Selzer, president of West Des Moines, Iowa-based Selzer & Co., which conducted the poll. ‘She has lost a third of the support that she had in May, so any time you lose that much that quickly, it’s a wake-up call.'”

But Billary won’t wake up.

Instead, she’s giving us a repeat performance of her doomed 2008 bid for the Democratic Party presidential nomination, when she acted like the cocky hare who already had it in the bag and thus lost to the slow-and-steady-wins-the-race, tortoise-like Team Obama.

Billary has tried to assure the Demo-rats who are fleeing the sinking USS Billary — which awfully resembles the RMS Titanicthat she essentially has won already, before a single caucus has been held or a single primary election ballot has been cast, because of the “superdelegate” commitments that she already has (never mind that those too-early commitments easily can be broken — and that they would be, that they would evaporate after it were clear that the voters don’t want Hillary after all).

With Bernie Sanders within striking distance of Billary in Iowa (given that the caucuses are more than five full months away) according to the latest poll, and with him already beating Billary in the latest poll of likely New Hampshire primary voters (by 7 percentage points*), I expect Bernie to win New Hampshire and quite possibly Iowa, too.

I don’t see Billary recovering from losing both Iowa and New Hampshire to party outsider and democratic socialist Bernie Sanders. (He always has caucused with the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives and in the U.S. Senate, so he’s not entirely an outsider, but still, compared to the center-right Clintons, who with their political machine turned the Democratic Party into the Repugnican Lite Party, he very much is an outsider.)

We saw what Billary did in 2008 when she was losing to upstart and political rock star Barack Obama and increasingly was desperate: She bolted to the right, dubbing Obama an “out-of-touch” “elitist.” But this Clintonesque triangulation bullshit hurt her more than it helped her — obviously, since Obama beat her — as those who participate in caucuses and primary elections (a.k.a. your base) aren’t the centrist fucktards to whom the Clinton Dynasty always has tried to appeal.

I see Billary & Co. savaging Bernie Sanders especially should he win both Iowa and New Hampshire, and Team Billary’s attacks on Sanders would make Billary even more loathed than she already is.

Especially since Bernie Sanders decided early on not to attack DINO Billary Clinton** — although he has plenty of material with which to do so — Team Billary’s attacks on Bernie would backfire big-time.

When someone who already is not well-liked (two recent nationwide polls put Billary’s unfavorability among all Americans at more than 50 percent and her nationwide favorability well below 50 percent) savages someone who has not savaged anyone else and who generally is liked, it usually doesn’t work out very well for the attacker.***

*Sanders beat Billary in the last three polls of New Hampshirites, with a 7-percent lead over Billary in the last two polls.

**My best guess, and my understanding, is that it’s Bernie Sanders’ personality and personal belief system that prevent him from attacking Billary, and while I personally have questioned whether or not it’s politically wise for him not to attack Billary, my best guess is that in the end his political pacifism will have helped him politically much more than it will have harmed him.

In short, he knows what he is doing, as evidenced by the fact that what he is doing is working; he surges on.

***Bernie Sanders’ favorability ratings in two recent nationwide polls show that, unlike is the case with Billary, more like him than not, but that many don’t know him well enough to have an opinion of him.

He has a lot of work to do on that (we have a lot of work to do on that), to be sure, but it’s better to be like Sanders (unknown by many Americans but liked by a majority of those who do know you) than it is to be like Billary: quite-well-known and disliked by a majority of Americans.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Sooooo NOT ready for Billary

File photo of Hillary Clinton arriving to take part in a Center for American Progress roundtable discussion  in Washington

Reuters photo

The centerpiece of the presidential campaign of Billary Clinton — whose actual record is that of having collected titles instead of actually having accomplished anything — is that she is a woman, when even the wingnuts were poised to possibly put Sarah Palin in the White House in 2008. Billary has nothing except for her co-option of the “Democratic Party” label and the probably-fatal lack of imagination of today’s Democratic Party, which apparently sees nothing wrong with center-right political dynasties.

“Hillary Clinton Is About to Launch the Most Boring Presidential Campaign in Years,” a writer for Vice.com proclaims.

I wholeheartedly agree. This launch is scheduled to happen today.

Billary already was old news when she lost the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination to Barack Obama. Recall that she came in at third place in Iowa in January 2008, behind the now-disgraced John Edwards at second place and Obama at first. True, it was close — Edwards got 30 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 29 percent, but, as Wikipedia correctly notes, “Clinton’s surprising third-place finish in the popular vote [in the first contest of the primary season] damaged her image as the ‘inevitable’ nominee. However, she remained upbeat, saying, ‘This race begins tonight and ends when Democrats throughout America have their say. Our campaign was built for a marathon.'”

In that marathon — and it was a marathon; it wasn’t until June 2008 that Billary conceded to Obama — Billary acted like the cocky hare, while Team Obama knew, like the tortoise knew, that slow and steady wins the race, as Obama carefully cobbled together delegates from regions around the nation that Billary apparently felt she already had in the bag and/or could afford to lose.

Billary also acted like a major asshole (I’d say “bitch” or perhaps even “cunt,” but that would be sexist, so I’ll be entirely equal-opportunity here) the more desperate she became to try to beat Obama. Although the states of Florida and Michigan had violated the Democratic Party’s rules and held their primaries too early — risking having their delegates not being allowed to cast votes at the convention, as the party had warned them might happen — and even though Obama had not even appeared on Michigan’s primary ballot, Billary insisted that she be given the delegates for the two states even though the two states clearly had violated the rules of the game (and again, even though Obama had not even appeared on Michigan’s ballot).

In April 2008, Billary, pathetically desperately trying to cast herself as one of the good old boys in the red-to-purplish states in order to scrape together some more badly-needed delegates, infamously referred to Obama as an “out-of-touch” “elitist” (based on remarks that he’d made at a fundraiser in San Francisco that were secretly recorded and were reported out of context; Team Billary really pounced on this opportunity to call Obama a limousine liberal, when Billary is the Queen — King? — of the Limousine Liberals).

I, for one, never forget a politician’s stunning display of low character. Either of the two crimes that I just mentioned — Billary’s tacking to the right and trying to appeal to what would become the “tea-party” set in order to try to beat Obama in the 2008 primaries, which was treasonous to the Democratic Party (which is what the Clintons always have been about: dragging the Democratic Party further and further to the right and further corporatizing it so that today it looks like Repugnican Lite), and her blatantly anti-democratic, power-grabbing demand that she simply be given the delegates for whom Obama did not even compete* — disqualify Billary from the Oval Office, but taken together, there is no question that the incidents amply showed Billary’s true colors.

There’s no way in hell that I’ll give this woman a penny, much more my vote.

As I noted, Billary was old hat in 2008, but now, seven years later, she’s still on the kick that we should put her in the Oval Office primarily because she’s a woman, because it would amount to Billary cracking “the highest and hardest glass ceiling.”

The 67-year-old Billary largely is living in the past, apparently acting out her own old wounds; she apparently wishes to keep the glass ceiling alive primarily for her own benefit.

I’m not convinced that in 2015, years after Billary’s 2008 run, the American voters have a problem with putting a woman in the White House, despite Billary’s apparent claims of being the victim of sexism and misogyny.

In fact, in 2006, 92 percent of Americans said in a CBS News/New York Times poll that they’d vote for a woman for president if they believed that she is qualified. (In fact, that 2006 poll found that “Men are actually more likely than women to say the country is ready for a woman to be president. Sixty percent of men say so, compared to 51 percent of women.” [!])

True, in 2006 apparently no more than 60 percent of those polled believed that a woman would be elected president in the next decade, but in early 2014 a Rasmussen poll found that 77 percent of respondents believed that a woman would be elected president in the next 10 years.

So Billary can’t factually claim that she is up against the same level of sexism that she might have been in 2008.

But I don’t believe that Billary was fighting against sexism in 2008; in 2008, as she still is today, Billary was fighting against (in no special order) her own utter lack of charisma, her record of having held titles (first lady, U.S. senator, U.S. secretary of state) instead of having actually accomplished anything, her nauseating sense of dynastic entitlement (as I said, in the 2008 marathon she was the hare), and her stunning low character (to the list of examples of which I’ll add the fact that she kept her State Department e-mails on her own server entirely under her own control [control freak much?]).

However, it’s so much easier and so much more convenient to ignore one’s own glaring shortcomings and falsely claim that he or she is a victim based upon his or her mere membership in an historically oppressed group of individuals. (Vote for Hillary or you hate all women!)

I criminally have dragged my feet here in pointing out than in 2008 even the Repugnicans cast their vote for the ticket of John McCainosaurus and Sarah Palin. Given the fact that McCainosaurus was 72 years old when voters went to the polls in November 2008, there was a good chance that had McCainosaurus won the White House, we would have seen a President Palin, especially if McCainosaurus had eked out a second presidential term. (The life expectancy for an American white male is around 76 years. The oldest president in U.S. history, the execrable Ronald Reagan, was almost, but not quite, 70 years old when he was inaugurated in 1980.)

So given that even the wingnuts were poised in 2008 to potentially put the first woman in the Oval Office (albeit via the vice presidency), for Billary to claim that it’s a novel idea today is bullshit.

And it can’t boost Billary’s chances for 2016 that a Pew Research Center study released in early 2015 showed that “In all, 38 percent of Americans said they hope that a woman is elected [president] in their lifetimes, while 57 percent said it doesn’t matter to them.”

My stance is that I’m fine with having our first female president — just not Billary Clinton, who has demonstrated amply over many years that as president she would be lackluster at best. (And, of course, I could write a whole separate piece on how beyond fucked up it is that the American national political imagination is so bankrupt that we still have presidential candidates with the surnames of Clinton and Bush.)

The quality of the presidential candidate trumps his or her possession of the XX or the XY chromosomes, just as it does other superficial considerations, such as race, national origin and sexual orientation.

I want the most progressive president that we can get — period.

During the 2008 Democratic presidential primary season I supported Obama over Clinton, hands down, and race and sex had nothing to do with it; I perceived Obama as the more progressive politician of the two (and I still do, although perhaps that’s not saying much, given how much Obama squandered his political capital, especially in the critical years of 2009 and 2010).

As I have noted, my pick for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination is U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who probably isn’t running (it’s unlikely but not absolutely impossible that she’ll run). However, even if a yet another white male candidate emerges as a viable candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination (and if Warren doesn’t run, as probably will be the case), if he strikes me as progressive enough, I will support him, as much as I’d like to see Warren in the White House.

For diversity’s sake I’d love the 2016 Democratic Party standard-bearer to be Warren, who is a woman and progressive — a real Democrat, not the self-serving, dynastic DINO sellout that Billary is — but always, when push comes to shove, I’m going to support the most progressive candidate, regardless of his or her demographics.

Except for Billary.

If it comes down to only Billary — if she faces no viable challenger for the Democratic Party’s 2016 presidential nomination — then I will sit 2016 out. I will not participate in the fucking charade that Billary Clinton would make even a minimally acceptable president.

And I don’t think that I’m alone.

Most Democrats won’t admit how boring and unexciting the charisma- and character-free Billary is — she has co-opted the “Democratic” label, and they won’t go against the label in “polite” company — but the enthusiasm that Billary cannot and will not/would not instill within the Democratic Party base cannot bode well for the party in November 2016 if Billary is the party’s presidential candidate.

If Billary wins the nomination next year, the Repugnican Tea Party traitors will be much more enthusiastic than will be the Democrats in November 2016, and thus the members of the Repugnican Tea Party will turn out in droves to vote, especially after having been, in their sick and twisted minds, exiled to the wilderness during the eight-year run of the Communist Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama.

The brick wall is right in front of the Democratic Party, in plain view, but I expect the Democratic Party to be true to itself and drive right into it nonetheless.

After all, monarch Billary tends to get what she wants — whether it’s good for the rest of us or not.

P.S. I just watched “Saturday Night Live’s” clever and rather scathing (but deserved) cold open from last night. I always have suspected that Tina Fey’s spot-on Sarah Palin hurt the McCainosaurus-Palin ticket, and I have to wonder if, similarly, Kate McKinnon’s spot-on Billary Clinton is going to hurt Billary.

P.P.S. How could I have forgotten to mention Billary’s vote, as a carpetbagging U.S. senator for New York, for the unelected Bush regime’s illegal, immoral, unprovoked and unjust Vietraq War in October 2002?

It was, as a Huffington Post commentator has put it, probably the most important vote of Billary’s U.S. Senate career, and she wholly fucked it up. She did not vote for what was wise or what was right, but voted in the way that she calculated would most benefit her politically. (Twenty-one Democrats in the U.S. Senate voted no to the 29 Senate Democrats, including Billary, who voted yes, so it’s not like Billary had to vote yes; and the one Repugnican in the U.S. Senate at the time who voted against the Vietraq War, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, now is considering running for the White House as a Democrat.)

As the Huffington Post commentator notes of the October 2002 vote to give the Bush regime authorization “to unleash military force against Iraq at any time, without further consultation with Congress, let alone a declaration of war”: “The disastrous impact of that hideous example of strategic miscalculation is still with us, witnessed by the tectonic convulsions ripping the Arab world, and the rise of the Islamic State, which emerged out of the cauldron created by the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.”

Not to mention the more than 4,000 U.S. troops killed in Vietraq, the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who have died because of the Vietraq War, and the cost of the Vietraq War to the U.S. taxpayers of more than $2 trillion — all of this at least in part because Billary and her craven ilk caved in to the post-9/11 hysteria which the unelected Bush regime used like the Reichstag fire.

*In  the end, Queen/King Billary pretty much got her way, unsurprisingly. As Wikipedia notes:

None of the top candidates campaigned in Florida or Michigan. The events were described in the media as “beauty contests,” and voter turnout in both states was relatively low when compared with record-high turnout in other states. Nevertheless, Clinton claimed wins in Florida and Michigan, and she flew to Fort Lauderdale on the night of the Florida election to thank supporters for what she called a “tremendous victory.” [Gee, reminds me of someone else who falsely claimed a victory in the state of Florida…] 

As the primaries continued, various groups tried to negotiate a resolution to the standoff between the [Democratic National Committee] and the state parties. The Clinton campaign advocated first for the results to stand and then for a new round of voting to take place in Michigan and Florida, while the Obama campaign deferred the matter to the DNC, while expressing a wish that the delegations be seated in some form. On all sides, Democrats worried that a failure to resolve the problem could lead to a rules or credential fight at the convention and low Democratic turnout in the general election in November.

On May 31, 2008, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee voted unanimously (27-0) to restore half-votes to all the Florida delegates, including superdelegates. The Michigan delegates were also given half-votes, with 69 delegates pledged to Hillary Clinton and 59 to Barack Obama; this proposed change [passed] by 19-8.

Michigan and Florida had flouted the pre-established rules and should have suffered the consequences. And how Billary was awarded more delegates for Michigan than was Obama when Obama hadn’t even appeared on the ballot escapes me, other than more evidence of the fact that the Clintons are fucking bullies with a colossal sense of entitlement — indeed, they wish to be a Dynasty.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Run, Liz, run!

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Nov. 13, 2014, after Senate Democrats voted on leadership positions for the 114th Congress. From left are, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., Warren, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.    (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

Associated Press photo

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachussetts speaks during a news conference in Washington, D.C., last month. Warren has the support for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination of Democracy for America and MoveOn.org, the latter of which has just created Run Warren Run, a campaign to draft Warren to run for the White House. Below is a bumper sticker produced by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, an apparent take-off from Howard Dean’s proclamation that he represented “the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.” (Which, apparently, Dean borrowed from the late U.S. Sen. Paul Wellstone.)

Progressive political activist groups MoveOn.org and Democracy for America (the latter of which grew from Howard Dean’s campaign for the 2004 Democratic Party presidential nomination) have thrown their political weight behind U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren to run for the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination.

In online voting last month, Warren was the choice of 42 percent of Democracy for America’s membership (myself included), with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders at No. 2 (with 24 percent) and Billary Clinton at No. 3 (with 23 percent). After 81 percent of MoveOn.org’s membership (myself included) recently voted that MoveOn should encourage Warren to run for president, MoveOn launched the Run Warren Run campaign, which is at runwarrenrun.org.

In response to MoveOn’s move, Democracy for America today began another online survey of its membership, simply asking, “Should DFA draft Elizabeth Warren to run for president?” The survey closes on Tuesday. (DFA’s website indicates that if enough DFA members vote yes on drafting Warren, DFA would have its own draft-Warren effort, but it seems to me that DFA and MoveOn [and other progressive groups] could and probably should work together instead of in parallel, duplicating efforts.)

The Progressive Change Campaign Committee’s home page right now prominently features an article on and an image of Elizabeth Warren and offers for sale in its store (via its home page) a T-shirt that reads “I’m from the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party.” (When you click through to buy the T-shirt, however, you see an image of the T-shirt that reads “I’m from the Elizabeth Warren wing of American politics.” I’ve sent the PCCC an e-mail to find out, I hope, which of those two not-so-subtly different messages the T-shirt [and the bumper sticker that you also can buy] actually convey.) I see no Billary gear (or gear for any other politician) offered up on the PCCC’s website.

The Clintonistas and other assorted unimaginative and dismissive types blow this stuff off, no doubt, but remind yourself that your Democratic Party primary voters and caucus goers are significantly further to the left — that is, progressive — than are your general election voters among whom Billary might not do too terribly (should she get that far).

And recall that Billary “Crown Me Already” Clinton came in at third place in the 2008 first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses, behind the No. 1 Barack Obama and the No. 2 John Edwards, a stunning blow from which she never recovered, eventually losing, of course, to Obama.

Given that Billary is not the choice of the majority of MoveOn’s and Democracy for America ’s membership of progressives (nor, of course, is she the choice of the PCCC), how well can she do in Iowa in 2016 (and in the following 2016 primary-season contests) if she has a viable, more progressive (well, just an actually progressive) challenger?

But Elizabeth Warren won’t run, you protest.

It’s true that in the end she might not run – it remains, after all, her choice – but it sure would be easier for Warren to run with these outside progressive groups clamoring for her to run, wouldn’t it?

Warren truthfully could point to popular demand as having compelled her to jump into the race.

Such popular demand would give her at least some degree of political cover from the anti-democratic “Democrats” who believe that anyone who dares to challenge Queen Billary’s Claim to the Throne in the Oval Office should be excommunicated from the Democratic Party (if not executed altogether; yes, Billary would make a great decapitation-happy Red Queen).

If Warren does indeed run after all and the Clintonistas are too shrill in their anti-democratic attacks that no one should oppose Billary the Great for the party’s presidential nomination, they will look like the anti-democratic fascists that they are.

Even if Warren ran for the 2016 nomination but lost, surely she’d come in no lower than at second place, positioning her well for future presidential contests.

I can’t see Warren politically losing, really, from running for the White House right now.

If Billary Clinton wins the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination, however, we all lose — whether she wins the general presidential election in November 2016 or not.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized