Tag Archives: South Carolina primary

Black Lives Matter activist brilliantly brings Queen Billary Clinton to heel

"I'm not a Superpredator, Hillary!": Black Lives Matter protestors confront Clinton at South Carolina fundraiser

The video grab above shows brilliant and brave activist Ashley Williams crashing Billary Clinton’s $500-a-head fundraiser at a mansion in South Carolina on Wednesday, putting Billary’s own ugly, dehumanizing, racist words right in her own face. Unfortunately, Billary very most likely still will win South Carolina by double digits today.

I find it interesting that the crashing of Billary Clinton’s exclusive, $500-a-head fundraiser at a private mansion in South Carolina this past week by a Black Lives Matter activist hasn’t received nearly the same amount of mainstream media “news” coverage that the crashing of Bernie Sander’s public appearance in Seattle in August did.

Methinks that the members of the corporately owned and controlled “news” media believe that the corporation-friendly Billary is “inevitable,” even though with 46 more states to go after today, polls have her down to only 5 percent or 6 percent ahead of Bernie Sanders among Democrats and Democratic leaners nationally — her smallest lead over Bernie ever, and dropping (see here and here) — and they don’t want to lose access to the “future” President Billary by pissing her off with any unflattering coverage now.

I note, first, that Black Lives Matter isn’t monolithic, that BLM has little to no control over who calls him- or herself a BLM activist, and that among BLM’s ranks are astute activists and, um, much less thoughtful slacktivists. The latter type crashed Bernie’s appearance in Seattle in August.

I mean, there are important differences between the two events.

In the August event, the two BLM (or self-identifying BLM) slacktivists’ main problem with Bernie apparently was (and probably still is) that he’s not black. (Yes, that is racist.) They had no coherent message or specific complaints about anything that Bernie had done or said himself. And they called the crowd of their allies gathered to hear Bernie speak “white supremacist liberals,” a wonderful touch, especially when words such as those were spoken by apparent black supremacists.

Also, of course, no one had been asked for a penny to hear Bernie Sanders speak that day at the city park in Seattle. And their constitutional (First-Amendment) right to gather peaceably was infringed upon by the BLM slacktivists, as was Bernie Sanders’ First-Amendment right to speak (and the audience’s First-Amendment right to hear him speak and perhaps ask him questions).

You don’t get to violate others’ constitutional rights like that, and the two self-identifying BLM morons who commandeered Sanders’ appearance at that city park in Seattle in August should have been asked to leave by law enforcement and then hauled away if they refused, as the constitutional rights of the many do actually outweigh the “rights”* of the few — even in “white-supremacist-liberal” Seattle.

But the slacktivists were not, to my knowledge, even asked to leave, and they certainly weren’t physically forced to leave. No one put hands on them, and ultimately Sanders left the venue in exasperation, without giving his planned speech.

By contrast, the pay-to-play Billary Clinton fundraiser that a lone BLM activist, Ashley Williams, crashed on Wednesday was at a private residence in Charleston, South Carolina. Indeed, the foyer in which Billary was blathering is reminiscent of the Southern mansion featured in the movie “Borat” in which Sacha Baron Cohen as Borat brings a woman posing as a black hooker to dinner, to the shock and horror of his white dinner hosts.

As Billary pontificated at her fundraiser on Wednesday, apparently on the topic of how much she cares about black people, Williams unfurled a sign that read, “We have to bring them to heel,” words that Billary spoke in a January 1996 speech that she gave in New Hampshire. (More fully, she said in that speech: “They are not just gangs of kids anymore. They are often the kinds of kids that are called ‘super-predators.’ No conscience, no empathy. We can talk about why they ended up that way, but first we have to bring them to heel.”)

Of course, the quotation is an excellent example of how Billary and Billy Boy always have tailored their words for their audience. Billary’s audience on that day in New Hampshire in January 1996 apparently was an all-white or mostly-white crowd, and apparently the topic was “criminal” “justice.” (Similarly, she told a crowd in Ohio just in September that she’s “moderate and center.” Today, she is a “progressive.”)

On Wednesday at that swank home in Charleston, Ashley Williams, apparently the only black person there at the fundraiser, said to Billary, “I’m not a super-predator, Hillary Clinton,” and “Can you apologize to black people for mass incarceration?”

If you want to see an actual crowd of “white supremacist liberals,” look at how the people at the swank fundraiser reacted to Williams. And unlike happened at Bernie’s event in August, hands were put upon Williams and she was physically escorted out.

Thankfully, it was captured on video and released for all of the world to see. It’s graphic evidence of the usually-secret world of the limousine liberal, the rich, usually white, person who talks about caring about the disadvantaged and the dispossessed but whose actions and luxurious lifestyle reveal something else altogether.

Oh, I’m not claiming that Ashley Williams didn’t violate anyone else’s rights at that tony Charleston house on Wednesday — I mean, I suppose that we could talk about a “right” to dutifully listen to Billary Clinton robotically drone on and on about how she cares about some group of people when all that she ever has cared about is power and money for herself and her close circle — but it was a brilliant piece of activism.

It was, entirely unlike the August debacle in Seattle, well thought-out. Williams paid the $500 to be able to be there among the almost-all-white limousine liberals and then she unfurled a banner with rather devastating words that the then-first lady had uttered herself. I mean, you talk about dogs “heeling,” not human beings. The term “super-predator” also is quite dehumanizing. 

And yes, Bill and Billary Clinton, because of her support for him, indeed are responsible for the fact that today we have and for far too many years now we have had way too many non-white men and women behind bars for “crimes” that did not involve physical violence (especially drug “crimes”).

Williams appropriately called Billary out on her hypocrisy and lies. What Williams was exposing was far more important than were the lies that Billary mechanically, second-naturedly was spewing at that fundraiser for rich people to be able to rub elbows with Queen Billary Herself (and even get selfies with Billary with which to impress their friends and family members!).

So bravo, Ashley Williams! You are one hell of an activist. You are brave, and your critique of Billary was fair, dead-on and devastating.

Unfortunately, I still expect Billary Clinton to win the South Carolina primary by double digits today.

Sadly, even if Williams had exposed Billary significantly earlier, I don’t think that it would have lost South Carolina (and the rest of the South) for her.

I mean, people who vote for and otherwise support Billary (unless they are rich) inherently are pretty fucking stupid — to vote against your own best interests, you have to be pretty fucking stupid — and so they are immune to facts and to the evidence (even evidence on video, like Ashley Williams’ gem) that Billary Clinton is, at best, just another Repugnican Lite.

*I use quotation marks because violating others’ First-Amendment rights is not a right.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

With narrow Nevada win, Billary is one step closer to losing the White House

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton arrives with former President Bill Clinton to give a victory speech at Caesars Palace in Las Vegas Saturday, Feb. 20, 2016. Clinton edged out Bernie Sanders on Saturday in Nevada's Democratic caucuses, capitalizing on a more diverse Democratic electorate to propel her to a critical win and give her momentum as the presidential campaign shifts toward the South. (Las Vegas Sun/Steve Marcus via AP)

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (R) and husband Bill Clinton (L) wave to a cheering crowd after winning the Nevada democratic caucus at Caesar's Palace in Las Vegas, Nevada on February 20, 2016

Las Vegas Sun/Associated Press and AFP photos

Billary Clinton celebrates her relatively narrow win in today’s caucuses in Nevada. (Of course Billy Boy is there, since she needs all of the help with likability that she can muster.) However, Bernie Sanders beats or at least ties all of the Repugnican Tea Party presidential contenders in match-up polling, whereas Billary in match-up polling loses to Ted Cruz and to Marco Rubio — and even to John Kasich. The lemming-like Billarybots fairly clearly have us all headed for a cliff.

Unfortunately, apparently Democrat in name only Billary Clinton won the Nevada caucuses today. With 82.7 percent reporting, Politico reports as I type this sentence, it’s 52.4 percent for Billary to 47.5 percent for Bernie — a difference of just under 5 percent.

The Billarybots can celebrate today, but Nevada demonstrates that about half of the Democratic Party and those of us who lean toward the party don’t want Billary as our standard-bearer in November.

And yes, the state of Nevada apparently is fairly representative of the nation as a whole. As Wikipedia notes of Nevada:

Nevada has voted for the winner in every presidential election since 1912, except in 1976, when it voted for Gerald Ford over Jimmy Carter. This includes Nevada supporting Democrat Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, Republican George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004, and Democrat Barack Obama winning the state in both 2008 and 2012. This gives the state status as a political bellwether. Since 1912, Nevada has been carried by the presidential victor the most out of any state (25 of 26 elections).

Nevada also is a purple state — yes, Obama won it in 2008 and 2012, but George W. Bush won it in 2000 and 2004. Its governor is a Repugnican and one of its two U.S. senators is a Repugnican. So a blue state it ain’t.

Considering that fact, democratic socialist Bernie Sanders did well in Nevada today.

Billary very most likely will win the South Carolina primary a week from today, and so apparently she gets to go into “Super Tuesday” on March 1 having two clear wins under her belt (Nevada and South Carolina) to one clear win for Bernie (New Hampshire) and a tie (Iowa, although of course the Billarybots won’t admit that Iowa was a tie).

“Super Tuesday,” on which 11 states hold primary elections and caucuses, will be a real test for Bernie, but whether Bernie ultimately wins the Democratic Party nomination or not, that he has done as well as he has thus far demonstrates that Billary Clinton is not a strong candidate.

Billary is going on her surname and the widespread belief that “it’s her turn,” as well as the belief of the New Feminists that women who don’t vote for other women like they’re told to go to hell (one wonders: Did this “feminist” fatwa also apply to the likes of Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina?), but the one critical thing that Billary doesn’t have is very much enthusiasm among the electorate, which probably will put the Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate, whoever it turns out to be, into the White House if Billary is the 2016 Democratic Party presidential nominee.

If you think that I’m just being a “Bernie bro”/Chicken Little, know that while Billary beats Donald Trump in polling match-ups (but only by about 3 percentage points), she loses to Marco Rubio (by almost 5 percentage points) and even to Ted Cruz (and get this: John Kasich beats Billary by more than 7 percentage points).

Bernie Sanders, on the other hand, in the match-up polling beats or at least ties ALL of the Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidates. (He beats Trump by almost 8 percentage points, beats Cruz by almost 5 percent, ties Rubio and beats Kasich, although admittedly not by a lot.)

Chew on that fact, Billarybots!

So yes, it’s quite possible that Billary wins the Democratic Party nomination but then loses in November. Not only is it quite possible, but I’d say that it’s more likely than not to happen if she wins the nomination.

The Repugnican Tea Party traitors, after eight years of “socialist” Barack Obama, will be a lot hungrier in November than will the Democrats. They will vote.

If Billary wins the Democratic Party presidential nomination, I — and many, many other Berners — won’t vote for her in November. That’s all that there is to it. And I don’t care what anyone thinks of me.*

The Democratic Party has become a shell, a husk of its former self, a pro-plutocratic, pro-corporate Repugnican Lite Party, and I cannot and I will not support it as it is now.

I am a registered Democrat now only so that I can vote for Bernie Sanders when California finally has its primary in June. (Even if he has dropped out of the primary race by then, if he still is on my primary-election ballot, I’m still voting for him.)

Billary Clinton at a “town hall” recently criticized Bernie Sanders’ past criticisms of “Democratic” sellouts, saying, “Maybe it’s because Senator Sanders wasn’t really a Democrat until he decided to run for president.” (She was booed by the audience, deservedly.)**

Bernie isn’t an actual Democrat but Billary Clinton is? Oh, really?

As a true progressive his entire time in Congress, I’d say that for some decades now Bernie Sanders has been one of only a relative handful of true Democrats in Congress. Center-right sellouts like Billary use the label “Democrat,” but true Democrats they are not.

Billary the uber-harpy can entertain herself and her “fem”bots with her bullshit charge that she’s the true Democrat. Fuck her. I’m not voting for her, giving her a penny, or supporting her in any way whatsofuckingever.

Unlike the legions of Billarybots, who are too fucking stupid to vote in their own best fucking interests, I, for one, will not help Billary Clinton to screw me, the common American, even more than she and her Democrat-in-name-only ilk already have, at least ever since she and her DINO husband turned the once-progressive Democratic Party into a slightly paler imitation of the Repugnican Party in the 1990s.

Fact is, come January 2017 I’d rather have a Repugnican Tea Party president than a President Billary. I’d rather deal with the obvious wolf than the wolf in sheep’s clothing.

If it takes another disastrous Repugnican Tea Party White House administration to finally drive a stake through the heart of The Vampire Clinton, then so be it.

I want the Democratic Party back, and it won’t come back with Billary Clinton in the White House.

*Fact is, if Billary is the Democratic Party presidential candidate, in November she will win my very blue state of California and all of its 50-plus electoral votes anyway. Therefore, my vote already doesn’t count, not really.

All of the fucktards who quite ignorantly would say that by refusing to vote for Billary I helped the Repugnican Tea Party presidential candidate to win sorely need Civics 101, including education on how the U.S. president is chosen by the Electoral College (which sorely needs to be abolished), not by a popular vote.

**For years my party registration has alternated between the Green Party and the Democratic Party, and that’s because the Democratic Party establishment makes me want to vomit.

So when Queen Billary slams Bernie for not embracing the craven Democratic Party establishment, which hasn’t deserved our support for many years, she slams millions of us Americans who are left of center and who want to vote on the Democratic Party ticket but who are disgusted with how far to the right the Clintons and their DINO ilk have dragged the party, which once stood for progressivism and for good, but which now stands for regressivism and for greed.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

‘Firewall,’ schmirewall: Could Billary be on the brink of spectacular collapse?

Billary Clinton must be shitting her pantsuit right about now.

Polls have the Nevada caucuses, which take place this Saturday, at a statistical tie between Billary and Bernie Sanders, and Billary’s lead in nationwide polling is dropping while Bernie continues to surge nationally.

Real Clear Politics’ average of the admittedly-too-few recent polls of Nevada right now has Billary at 46.5 percent and Bernie at 46 percent. The Huffington Post’s average of the Nevada polling right now has Billary at 48 percent and Bernie at 47 percent.

Bernie very well might take Nevada.

Real Clear Politics’ average of the nationwide polling right now has Billary only 12.8 percent ahead of Bernie, whereas HuffPo’s average of the nationwide polling right now has Billary up only 7.7 percent on Bernie.

If that doesn’t mean much to you, here is HuffPo’s graph that illustrates the trending in nationwide polling starting from January 12, 2015, to the present:

On January 12, 2015, the graph’s beginning, Billary stood at 60.8 percent to Bernie’s 4 percent.

Today, they stand at 48.2 percent to 40.5 percent. Um, yeah.

Team Billary’s propaganda has been that sure, Bernie would do well in Iowa and New Hampshire, but then rather immediately thereafter, he would crash and burn once he hit Billary’s “firewall.”

But Bernie might take Nevada, which would throw iced water on Billary’s post-Iowa-and-New-Hampshire “firewall,” dealing Team Billary a crushing blow.

Even if Billary takes South Carolina on February 27 — I expect her to, since RCP right now has her leading there by 21.2 percent and HuffPo right now has her leading there by 23.3 percent — if Bernie wins Nevada, I expect Billary’s “firewall” to collapse; South Carolina would prove to be an outlier, not the rule.

(If Bernie actually ekes out a win in South Carolina, then Billary definitely is toast, but again, unless something big happens between now and then, such as a federal indictment of Billary, I expect her to win South Carolina.)

As the Huffington Post’s graph of nationwide polling from January 2015 to the present indicates, the more that people learn about Billary and Bernie, the less they like her and the more they like him.

“Saturday Night Live” already has called the Democratic Party presidential primary battle, it seems to me. It recently had Billary Clinton singing Bonnie Raitt’s “I Can’t Make You Love Me” to Berners:

Yup.

Pretty much.

I don’t agree with all of the sentiments expressed in the skit, such as that Billary is the most qualified candidate for president we’ve ever had (oh, please) and that we Berners don’t go on substance but only on “vibe” (methinks that we go on both) — the writers wrote this bullshit, I have to suspect, to be able to say that they were “fair and balanced” to both candidates — but overall it captures where we’re at.

That said, as I’ve written before, what does it say of Billary that her strength is in the South? The South reflects the Repugnican Tea Party’s values and beliefs much, much more than it does the values and beliefs of the base of the Democratic Party.

I, for one, never would brag about being the darling of the South.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Michele, we hardly knew ye (and other notes on the horse race)

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann announces the end of her presidential campaign in West Des Moines

Reuters photo

Repugnican Tea Party U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann announces today that her sixth-place finish in yesterday’s Iowa caucuses has induced her to quit her quest for the White House.  

We won’t have Michele Bachmann to kick around anymore. At least not for a while.

Bachmann dropped out of the Repugnican Tea Party horse race after garnering only 5 percent — sixth place — in the Iowa caucuses yesterday. 

Yahoo! News quotes Bachmann’s communications director as having told reporters of Bachmann, “She doesn’t see where she made mistakes. None of us, you know, see where there were mistakes made.”

Gee, maybe that was their primary problem: their inability to recognize their mistakes. 

I remember when “President” George W. Bush, on at least one occasion before a television camera, struggled to come up with any mistakes that he’d made as “president” when a reporter had asked him to list any.

The inability to enumerate any of one’s mistakes is a pretty fucking serious pathology.

Speaking of Gee Dubya, it is interesting that his name rarely comes up in the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party presidential horse race when he was his party’s last occupant of the White House, for a full eight years.

It is as though extraterrestrials shoved memory-erasing probes up our collective national rectum, completely wiping out our collective memory of the years 2001 through 2008, idn’t it? Indeed, we went right from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, did we not?

Speaking further of Gee Dubya, about the only time He Whose Name Shall Not Be Mentioned has come up this quadrennial go-around is when people have asked if we really want another governor of Texas ascending to the Oval Office.

Speaking of Texas governors, unlike even Michele Bachmann, Texas Gov. Prick Perry can’t take a hint. Despite coming in at fifth place in the Iowa caucuses yesterday (with only 10 percent of the vote), Perry has proclaimed that he will compete in the January 21 South Carolina primary, where, he remarked, “real” Repugnican Tea Partiers will vote, as opposed to those “quirky” Iowans.

Iowans indeed are quirky, although “quirky” sounds like a dangerously minimizing euphemism for “bat-shit-crazy theofascist.” 

However, Perry should have done better in Iowa, with its plethora of “Christo”fascists to whom he is trying to appeal. If he doesn’t appeal to the “quirky” Iowans, it’s difficult to see him appealing to the Repugnican Tea Party nationally.

The Associated Press reports that Perry today “said voters in South Carolina share his values and that he feels confident he will do well there.”

Share his values? Is that code for Texas and South Carolina both being bastions of white supremacists who long for the “good old days” of the Confederacy? (“Quirky” Iowa, of course, never was part of the treasonous Confederacy, but both Texas and South Carolina seceded from the Union before President-Elect Abraham Lincoln even took office in 1861.) 

Prick Perry had an uphill battle as it was, joining the horse race relatively late and reminding everyone of the last governor of Texas who went to the White House — the “president” who was so shitty that the members of his own party pretend as though his two terms hadn’t even happened — but Perry blew it by acting like a drunken Alzheimer’s patient in the nationally televised debates and in other public appearances.

He might do fairly well in fellow secessionist state South Carolina, but only 11 states formed the Confederacy, and Perry would have to do much better than that to win his party’s nomination.

Perry has only himself to blame for his failure, not “quirky” Iowa or anyone or anything else (with the possible exception of Gee Dubya, of course, for having soured the nation, even his own party, on governors from Texas).

Hopefully, though, Perry will do horribly in South Carolina and we’ll be done with him then.

Ditto for Rick Santorum.

However, at least one pundit posits that Santorum, because he trailed permacandidate Mitt Romney, the party establishment’s choice (indeed, 2008 party presidential candidate John McCainosaurus just endorsed Romney), by only eight (yes, 8) votes yesterday in the Iowa caucuses, might make it even beyond “Super Tuesday” on March 6.

I can’t see Santorum winning the 2012 Repugnican Tea Party nomination. Do the Repugnican Tea Partiers really want to front against President Barack Obama a candidate who lost his last election (his 2006 re-election bid to the U.S. Senate for Pennsylvania) to his Democratic challenger by 18 percent, which Wikipedia calls “the largest margin of defeat for any incumbent senator since 1980 and the largest margin of any incumbent Republican senator ever”?

And how can Santorum, whose fundraising and organization lag woefully behind permacandidate Romney’s, catch up now, even if he does get the lion’s share of Newt Gingrich’s and Bachmann’s and Perry’s supporters? (Gingrich came in at fourth place in Iowa yesterday, by the way, which I’d find more encouraging if McCainosaurus also hadn’t come in at fourth place in Iowa in 2008 yet still won his party’s nomination.)

But I can see Santorum dragging the whole mess out, although hopefully not nearly as long as Obama and Billary Clinton dragged out the Democratic Party’s 2008 presidential primary season (in which Obama didn’t emerge victorious until June 2008).

Oh, well.

It will, I suppose, provide more blogging fodder, and a prolonged fight between the establishmentarian Repugnicans, represented by Romney, and their “tea party” wing, represented, for the moment, by Santorum, might only swing even more “swing voters” Obama’s way in November 2012.

Obama sucks* and does not deserve to be re-elected, but push come to shove — and you’d have to push and shove me pretty hard — I suppose that I’d prefer his re-election over another Repugnican in the White House. I, for one, have not forgotten the eight long years of unelected rule by George W. Bush.

P.S. How could I forget Ron Paul? He did, after all, come in third place in the Iowa caucuses yesterday (at 21 percent, just behind Romney and Santorum, who were tied at 25 percent), and anyone who makes the top three in Iowa generally is considered to be a viable candidate for his or her party’s presidential nomination.

Well, let’s face it: Paul has a few positions that even progressives like me agree with, and Salon.com columnist Glenn Greenwald is correct that Paul, while wrong on many if not most issues, has brought up some critically important issues that neither the Coke Party nor the Pepsi Party wants brought up in a presidential campaign. But the bottom line is that Paul isn’t taken seriously even by his own party, so what progressives think of Paul is a fairly moot point.

Ron Paul is treated like his party’s crazy old uncle, and having attained only to the U.S. House of Representatives, Paul never really had a chance anyway. (This was unfortunately true for Democratic Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who is treated like his party’s crazy uncle [he was my ideological favorite for 2004, but his nationally presidential unelectability was clear, and so I supported John Kerry, whom I viewed as much more electable] — and fortunately true also for Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann.)

If Ron Paul wants to run as an independent/third-party candidate, he has my blessing, though. Although many if not most Democrats deny it, it seems to me that the third-party presidential bid of billionaire H. Ross Perot (yet another Texas special) largely was a reason that Bill Clinton denied the first George Bush a second term in 1992.

*The Obamabots have easily toppled “defenses” of President Hopey-Changey — you should read Ted Rall’s recent column titled “How to Talk to an Obama Voter (If You Must)” for a list of a few of these “defenses” and why they’re bullshit. Here, I think, is the money shot:

Obamabot Talking Point: If I don’t vote for Obama, the Even Worse Republicans win.

Answer: So vote for Obama. Or don’t vote. It makes no difference either way. Voting is like praying to God. It doesn’t hurt. Nor does it do any good. As with religion, the harm comes from the self-delusion of thinking you’re actually doing something. You’re not. Wanna save the world? Or just yourself? That, you’ll have to do outside, in the street.

But perhaps Rolling Stone political writer Matt Taibbi delivers the most scathing criticism of President Hopey-Changey that I’ve seen (at least in a long time) in his recent piece titled “Iowa: The Meaningless Sideshow Begins.” The money shot of the piece, I think, is this (the links are all Taibbi’s and the emphases are mine):

… But the ugly reality, as Dylan Ratigan continually points out, is that the candidate who raises the most money wins an astonishing 94% of the time in America.

That damning statistic just confirms what everyone who spends any time on the campaign trail knows, which is that the presidential race is not at all about ideas, but entirely about raising money.

The auctioned election process is designed to reduce the field to two candidates who will each receive hundreds of millions of dollars apiece from the same pool of donors. Just take a look at the lists of top donors for Obama and McCain from the last election in 2008.

Obama’s top 20 list included:

 McCain’s list, meanwhile, included (drum roll please):

Obama’s list included all the major banks and bailout recipients, plus a smattering of high-dollar defense lawyers from firms like WilmerHale and Skadden Arps who make their money representing those same banks. McCain’s list included exactly the same banks and a similar list of law firms, the minor difference being that it was Gibson Dunn instead of WilmerHale, etc.

The numbers show remarkable consistency, as Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Citigroup all gave roughly twice or just over twice as much to Obama as they did to McCain, almost perfectly matching the overall donations profile for both candidates: overall, Obama raised just over twice as much ($730 million) as McCain did ($333 million).

Those numbers tell us that both parties rely upon the same core of major donors among the top law firms, the Wall Street companies, and business leaders – basically, the 1%. Those one-percenters always give generously to both parties and both presidential candidates, although they sometimes will hedge their bets significantly when they think one side or the other has a lopsided chance at victory. That’s clearly what happened in 2008, when Wall Street correctly called Obama as a 2-1 (or maybe a 7-3) favorite to beat McCain.

The 1% donors are remarkably tolerant. They’ll give to just about anyone who polls well, provided they fall within certain parameters. What they won’t do is give to anyone who is even a remote threat to make significant structural changes, i.e. a Dennis Kucinich, an Elizabeth Warren, or a Ron Paul (hell will freeze over before Wall Street gives heavily to a candidate in favor of abolishing their piggy bank, the Fed). So basically what that means is that voters are free to choose anyone they want, provided it isn’t Dennis Kucinich, or Ron Paul, or some other such unacceptable personage.

If the voters insist on supporting such a person in defiance of these donors – this might even happen tonight, with a Paul win in Iowa – what you inevitably end up seeing is a monstrous amount of money quickly dumped into the cause of derailing that candidate. This takes overt forms, like giving heavily to his primary opponents, and more covert forms, like manufacturing opinions through donor-subsidized think tanks and the heavy use of lapdog media figures to push establishment complaints. …

President Hopey-Changey can’t even pretend to be on the side of the 99 percent when it’s the 1 percent — the Wall Street weasels and their allies — who gave him many more millions than they gave even to McCainosaurus in 2008.

And it’s the numbers next to the bullet points above that explain why I refer to the Democratic Party and the Repugnican Party as the Coke Party and the Pepsi Party: the two are fairly indistinguishable. (I am, by the way, a registered member of the Green Party, and proudly so.)

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized