Monday, February 1, 2016

What's the Matter With Iowa

I've been informed by such establishment outlets as the New York Times that Iowa is actually deciding the presidential election of 2016. If Trump wins this teensy-weensy caucus, he wins the GOP nomination. If Sanders loses Iowa, he loses the entire nation. Game over, people. Your votes, as ever, will not really count.

This is what they want you to think, of course. Iowa is just the convenient excuse for the ruling elite to get what they want. And let's face it, what they want is the downfall of democracy. By making it as hard as possible for "folks" to attend the caucuses, they ensure that very few people will have the energy, money, transportation and time to participate in the selection process. The "grassroots democracy" of the Iowa caucuses is overgrown with choking weeds. The only beneficiaries of this endless spectacle are the TV networks and the SuperPacs raking in the dough from the contrived, horse-race frenzy of it all.

Marty Kaplan of The Jewish Journal is right on the money (the really big money) when he writes:
What a dangerous distraction the Iowa spectacle has been from the dysfunction and unfairness of democracy as we now know it. No, worse, what a cynical celebration of it. Pitifully few Americans vote, and shockingly few of them are young or poor or people of color, yet we give wildly disproportionate influence to the white rural voters of one small state whose priorities, like subsidies for corn-based ethanol, are nationally marginal, and whose disposable time for caucus-going is unimaginable to parents working multiple shifts at multiple jobs.
At the same time, what a bonanza it’s been for the state’s TV and radio stations, which have raked in tens of millions of dollars in attack ads, and what a bordello it’s been for the billionaires and special interests who’ve anonymously funded those air wars.
What a misbegotten surrogate for civic seriousness this interminable campaign has become, with news networks getting in bed with parties to co-sponsor debates, selling national ad time for those debates at Super Bowl rates and polluting public discourse with bloviating “strategists” and accountability-free predictions.
And the excellent Paul Street, who knows whereof he speaks because he actually lives in Iowa, damns the state's caucuses as a classist slap in the face to democracy. People are expected to drop everything just after dinner to cast their votes. Shift-workers are denied the chance to have their voices heard. Aged and disabled people are expected to venture out in the ice and snow. Struggling parents have to find a few spare dollars for child care. 
  Many of these folks would seem to be precisely the sort of working class people one might expect to gain from the enactment of Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ progressive domestic social agenda, including a significant increase in the federal minimum wage and single-payer (Medicare for All) health insurance. But most early evening workers can’t participate in the Iowa presidential Caucus pitting Sanders against the corporate Democrat Hillary Clinton next Monday night. There’s no federal or statewide Election Day law requiring employers to let those workers participate in the “beloved Iowa political ritual.” The prime-time workers who want to Caucus have to ask for special permission (so their bosses can find replacements) and give up lost wages to go sit and stand through hours of political deliberation.
Street goes to  describe what amounts to a classroom session from hell, in which boring professorial types run the show and have undue influence on the outcome of the D-Party "vote." Anybody who's ever been trapped in a company boardroom for the putative purpose of airing employee grievances knows just how this psychological warfare works. They'll wear you down, and wear you down, until your eyes bleed and you'll do anything, anything at all, to just escape and go home.

Amazingly enough, Street says, the Republican Iowa caucuses are actually more human-friendly than the Democratic variety. You simply write your choice down on a paper ballot and you're done. Voters with short attention spans are just what the right-wing doctor ordered.

Is it any wonder that the participation rate for the Iowa caucuses is only a measly 16 percent? This makes the recent, worst turnout-in-modern history Congressional midterm elections look like an overwhelming plebiscite in comparison, with a whopping one-quarter to one-half of eligible voters bothering to show up in a burst of enthusiasm.

 I'm treating Iowa the same way that the Oz Gatekeeper advised Dorothy to pay no attention to the little man operating the controls behind the curtain. The show is corny, and the directors are doing their unlevel best to rig the outcome. They'll try to convince us that what happens in Iowa won't stay in Iowa. Subsidized ethanol will escape the Heartland to melt the icy climes of New Hampshire before it chemically pivots to solidify the "Black Firewall" of South Carolina,  and then creeps its greasy way back west to Nevada. 

Unless, of course, Bernie Sanders ekes out a victory over Hillary Clinton. If that comes to pass, we'll be told that Iowa doesn't matter after all. What counts are the Super Delegates.

 So I, for one, plan to spend this evening watching the third installment of The X-Files. If the truth is anywhere out there, it's certainly not going to be coming from the prattle of CNN's Panel of Experts, or the New York Times' cracked-corn team of Live Bloggers.


Scully: "Any thoughts as to why anybody would be growing corn in the middle of the desert?"

34 comments:

Pearl said...

In response to comments on last column from Karen:

This bill presented by John Conyers some years ago is still awaiting passage:


National Health Care Act[edit]

The United States National Health Care Act (Expanded and Improved Medicare for All Act) (H.R. 676) is a bill submitted to the United States House of Representatives by Conyers which, as of 2015, had 49 cosponsors. It was first introduced, with 25 cosponsors, in 2003,[18] and reintroduced each session since then. The act calls for the creation of a universal single-payer health care system in the United States, in which the government would provide every resident health care free of charge. In order to eliminate disparate treatment between richer and poorer Americans, the Act would also prohibit private insurers from covering any treatment or procedure already covered by the Act.


Nasreen Iqbal said...

The pundits are notoriously bad at predicting what is about to happen, although they try and convince us they know exactly why the last thing happened like it did.

The 2008 race was going to be Clinton v. Giuliani. I mean, they were sure!

I'll be watching X-Files, too.

Meredith NYC said...

Karen....this is one of your best ever. Why doesn't Dr. Oz of TV fame run for president? Maybe he'd get the overwhelming plebiscite.

Our campaign debates shouldn't be run by news network show hosts, but by detached, objective 3rd party organizations.

I've checked the TV listings and there's nothing on tonight. On TCM are mammoth productions--Lawrence of Arabia and Bridge on the River Kwai. Might be good for comparing Alec Guinness performances in each. Can you imagine him playing the part of a US presidential candidate?


So which way is progress now for the USA???

We usually think of being progressive as good. Progress means liberating from imposed constrictions. But our political center has moved so far to the right that we need to go backward--'regressive?' now to make progress –back toward the greater equality of our past generations. Move backward in time in order to catch up with the now better upward economic mobility of other 1st world nations.

Now to achieve our previous generations’ equality and middle class security Sanders proposes we conserve not the wealth of the 1 percent, but restore the tried and traditional policies that build our middle class to the world’s most prosperous---existing along with business profits.

These were centrist, not left wing. See Gop Eisenhower with 91% marginal tax rate, expansion of social security, preservation of union bargaining power. big govt projects like the national highway system, and no talk of repealing Glass Steagall, which helped protect us from big crashes for over 80 years. All that has been thrown to the winds by both Gop and Dem presidents.

American economic mobility was famous for being far greater than Europe’s, now it’s lower.

Se article: Politifact: Is it easier to obtain the American Dream in Europe? Mostly True
The United States is "behind many countries in Europe in terms of the ability of every kid in America to get ahead."
— Steven Rattner on Monday, December 16th, 2013 in a segment on MSNBC's "Morning Joe"
Steve Rattner is a finance guy who op eds for the Times.

Meredith NYC said...


The Dem Iowa caucus live on cspan was more interesting than I thought. They form groups per candidate choice, count them, then realign the uncommitteds or the ones for O malley which are too small to be a ‘viable’ group.....after discussing the pros/cons of each. We see people talking to each other.
All procedures are voted on....well organized.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Why is it so quiet in here? Trump turns out to be weaker––and Bernie stronger––than predicted. Cheers!

I can understand why the NYT digital edition downplays the Democratic side of yesterday's Iowa vote––the Cruz over Trump story tops their report, but shouldn't the rest of us be celebrating? Against the odds, some of which were listed in this post by Karen, Bernie is right next to Hillary at the Iowa finish line.

annenigma said...

NEWSFLASH FOR THE CORPORATE MEDIA: The Political Revolution has begun! (Shhh, don't tell. It's Top Secret)

"I'm a much better candidate now and I've got a stronger organization" Hillary boasted just days ago after being blessed for the Presidency by President Obama's tacit endorsement. Yet she can only eke out a tie? They're going to have to spin this one into outer space.

Yes, she has everything and everyone going for her except the People whose vote are the determining factor. You can't bake a cake without heat, even if you do have the finest ingredients. Berning Man has the heat - us!

Wouldn't it be just rich if Hillary won the Iowa caucus based on coin to$$e$? The Universe speaks.

Patricia M. said...

Jay - Actually, in all probability, Bernie is ahead of Hillary, Her self-proclaimed win includes the improbability of winning coin tosses in six precincts. Coin tosses. Six out of six in favor of Hillary.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2016/02/02/sometimes-iowa-democrats-award-caucus-delegates-coin-flip/79680342/

The beat goes on, too, for Hillary in the mainstream media. The NYT hasn't changed their Sanders/Clinton headline since last night. NPR proclaims Hillary's win by a "slim margin." I don't have television, so I don' know what their spin is, thank goodness. It keeps my blood pressure down.

But - 0.3% is a win? By tosses of a coin?

annenigma said...

One year ago today the NBC-Marist poll showed Iowa 68% for Hillary vs 7% for Bernie. You've come a long way Bernie!

I dread how down and dirty the Clinton Cabal is going to get now. I hope they undo themselves in the process. I read even the Obama alums have been stabbing and slashing Bernie viciously for dissing Obama's 'progressive' legacy.

Bernie is threatening Obama's hopes and plans to take his former army of supporters with him to advance his continuing agenda post-Presidency, such as Michelle's political future. Bernie is 'stealing' his peeps and the DNC probably fears the same. We're going rogue with Bernie!

Karen Garcia said...

I'm trying to ignore the post-Iowa hype. That a very narrow "victory" has been awarded to Hillary by virtue of a coin-toss is just another hint that we live in an oligarchy.

Let the spin-meisters spin and collapse on top of each other in a dizzy sweating writhing heap for all I care.

I can see it now, January 2017, as a white haired old guy intones "I Bernard Sanders do solemn sweah...." and the neoliberal pundits churlishly chiming in that he doesn't "really" have a mandate because he only barely defeated Clinton in the primaries, and then he defeated Ted Cruz only because Ted Cruz spontaneously combusted from his own fire and brimstone.

The plutocrats will never go down without a fight. Elections all by themselves will change nothing unless the American public wakes up and figures out how to do some old-fashioned solidarity.

The important thing now is not rigged elections, but that the small-d democratic message is getting out, against all odds. For that alone, we can proclaim victory.


Karen Garcia said...

P.S.

Krugman wrote a blog=post moaning that both he and Hillary lack "the uplift thing" that he attributes to Bernie's popularity. He continues attacking the mythical Bernie Bros who are nipping at his heels like rabid little terriers.

My response:

"If it's 'the uplift thing' that you think that you lack, Mr. Krugman, there's always the Bernie Bra. It'll do wonders to counter your tired, sagging arguments for why No, We Can't."

Pearl said...

Well, at least the NYtimes can no longer ignore Bernie. In fact they published some fairly decent articles about his feat. The results were far better than I had hoped for and exposed some of the tricky things happening at the end (coin tossing, inadequate reports from precincts, etc.). I think Bernie should demand a recount and investigation of some of the reports of casual handling of returns (with videos taken by voters)in order to create better care taken of voting results in future.

A good night, especially loss of strength of Trump.

Wonder what Krugman will have to say about it all. Good comment from you Karen - this should inspire further interesting reports as the race heats up and we need the usual translations from your columns. I am sure the attacks on Bernie will increase as things enroll.

annenigma said...

I saw a great comment elsewhere: 'Guess Hillary will have to cry in New Hampshire again.'

Jay–Ottawa said...

Open the second article in this morning's digital Times, "Little Separates Bernie...." Then go to the "Readers' Picks." Without exception the entire first page (till you get to "Read More"), is for Bernie, plus a sharp comment now and then for the Times' biased coverage.

Iowa? Surprise! Nothing the matter there at all. Think I'll send him a little check for last night's entertainment.

annenigma said...

Here's one of the best takes on Hillary's performance that I've read, and it's by Amy Chozick who has written so many puff pieces for and about Hillary - up to now. Be sure to read the whole thing slowly so you can savor every word! It's delicious.

'Hillary Clinton Campaign, Unnerved by Iowa, Braces for New Hampshire'

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/03/us/politics/democratic-race-iowa-clinton-campaign.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region

Patricia M. said...

Karen - Did you note the commenter in an opinion piece (on I believe) last Saturday or Sunday who nominated you as a columnist, replacing Dowd and Collins in the NYT. His comment was trending when I read it.

Karen Garcia said...

Hi Patricia,

I guess I should be ashamed to admit that I've been mostly skipping the NYT opinion section lately. It's a wasteland of partisan/establishment talking points, for the most part. But - I am not ashamed to admit I am flattered that a reader would recommend me for a columnist gig!

Pearl said...


Hillary Clinton Campaign, Unnerved by Iowa, Braces for New Hampshire http://nyti.ms/205dwhT



Another good article in the NYtimes today: quite critical of Hillary. Karen it is becoming safer to read some of the articles in the Times these days as some of the writers seem to have changed some of their snotty attitudes if I can correctly recall their previous ones.

Pearl said...

Annenigma: I see you mentioned the above in your comment and I missed it. So the writer has indeed seen the light which will be an effective voice. I wonder whether the nytimes will continue to print her articles after this revelation.

Pearl said...


Jay: this is the man who wrote the article you liked and his background.
sounds great and could be new blood adding to the reporting this year.





Times moves Patrick Healy over to 2016 beat http://politi.co/15xdES9

Jay–Ottawa said...

I'm on record at this site saying American voters were, at best, 'uninformed.' Well, maybe I used harsher words. I now retract those statements. Look forward (cough, cough). I also shunned the word "hope" after BO redefined it as "No, we can't."

In comes Bernie Sanders. In our cynicism we suspected he was sheepdogging for the DNC in return for a plum job in the cabinet of Hillary the Anointed. I now believe he's hungry for power and is reaching for the whole enchilada. He has served as a loud alarm bell, and people are waking up, even to sit through the deadening muddle of a thousand Iowa caucuses.

If Hillary won last night, how come so many in her entourage are speaking like the defeated? Look at the before and after pictures of the same campaign workers watching caucus results streaming into Clinton headquarters. Early in the evening, open mouths to cheer with hands held high and fingers splayed; later, they watch the same big screen in shock with their fingers gripping themselves.

Got a minute? First, see the photo from the Chozick piece Anne linked, above. Then the same people in this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/us/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-democratic-iowa-caucus.html?emc=edit_th_20160202&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=48169905&_r=0

The DNC's spinners behind desks say, no, no, Iowa is insignificant. In any event Hillary really did win. An example of such winspin can be found in Krugman's latest blog post.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/02/02/iowa-as-a-media-focal-point/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

So remember this: Hillary herself and her cause have not been defeated. The problem is/was her organization, which wasn't tuned properly; or the strategy, which wasn't right for 2016; or maybe the Friends of Bill should have been called in sooner; or maybe Hillary's too cerebral, as distinct from that white-haired, arm-waving emoticon; or maybe it was the approaching winter storm. Whatever, get this straight: the problem isn't/wasn't Hillary.

Oh, and get this straight too: the problem most certainly isn't/wasn't whatisname (I-VT) and his message.

Meredith NYC said...

Patricia M...i'd like to read the nyt commenter who wants to replace dowd/collins with Karen. Or has anyone else seen it? I’ve long felt the Times needs more and improved woman writers. And I’ve said so in my comments. The Times is way behind the times in their number and quality of women columnists. Those 2 are just silly—no other word for them.

The op ed page is getting to be a wasteland, sadly. More evident lately. The readers are showing their negative opinion of it too, especially criticizing Krugman. That’s something at least.

Did you read that the Washington Post fired Harold Meyerson, the columnist who more than any others, addressed issues of working people, labor unions, and income inequality?

Pearl said...


Bill Clinton: Bernie Sanders Is No Obama http://nbcnews.to/1QYQxET via @nbcnews



He now has trouble talking and what he is saying is arrogance in speaking about Bernie. This should encourage people to fight even harder to get rid of the Clinton dynasty. It is really sad to see his physical deterioration but I have no respect for him politically. Voters should remember his wife relies on his wisdom.

Pearl said...

I just happened to tune into CNN and Wolf was interviewing Bernie Sanders. His questions were very apropos and Bernie did a splendid job. Nothing new in the responses but very clear and concise especially when asked what the differences were between him and Hillary. Wolf then played a portion of her speech where she spoke about her being a progressive and how she was going to win by a landslide. It was not a flattering video of Hillary that was shown and Bernie made some comment about being a progressive one day and a moderate another and then mentioned that the progressives he knew did not vote to go into Iraq, did not hesitate on various decisions he listed that she had, etc. He was in top form and very effective especially in comparison to her grandiose video.
His clarity and intelligence really came to the fore and Wolf seemed impressed. When Wolf tried to lead him into condemning Hillary further, Bernie spoke graciously of some things that she does that are admirable (certain organizations helping children etc.) He also was asked about Isis and had a chance to give an abbreviated version of how the Islamic countries must involve themselves in this fight and also made a strong statement about religious bigotry. Bernie was at his effective best on this one on one interview both politically and personally and spoke strongly but not angrily or shouting. I hope it is repeated especially with all the endless coverage of the Republican nuts going on for comparison.

The win last night has given him an air of strong confidence and I think he will be speaking out more and more as time goes on and the presidential battle heats up.

annenigma said...

I wonder when the corporate-sponsored debate moderators will ask a question about the TPP. Considering that it's been kept hidden away in the closet along with Bernie, it's not likely to come up now, but it should.

Obama will be signing the TPP tomorrow, so it's high time to put Hillary on the spot. How does she square her recent opposition to the TPP with her pledge to preserve, protect, and defend Obama's legacy? What is she willing to do to oppose it? Speak out against President Coattails? Personally,

I hope Obama FAILS to arm-twist a ratification vote in Congress before the Presidential elections.

Pearl said...

correction:
Sorry, the win was 2 nights ago but since it dragged on so long it seemed like a final decision yesterday but actually they never really clearly resolved things and I believe Bernie plans to check the raw data. The whole way of computing these votes and delegating delegates (who may vote differently)is very complicated and regarding super delegates who Hillary has many more of (how did she get them) could turn a final decision around. Not very comforting. I think they have spoken in Congress about changing to a total numbers national win in the past which would be more straightforward and easier (Florida would not have been able to influence the Bush win under that system when they hid all those deciding votes in Florida I believe). If anyone has more information on this conundrum would like to learn more about it.

Patricia M. said...

Meredith (and for your information, too, Karen):

The comment re Karen was made in reply to a previous post, decrying the columns of Dowd and Collins. It appeared in the Comments Section of a(nother) vacuous Maureen Dowd column on January 30th: “Here’s the Beauty of Trump.” Both commenters are "Trusted.”

Kirk Tofte (Des Moines, IA): “Maureen Dowd and Gail Collins give female journalists a very bad reputation. Each is equally horrible. They are trivial and catty. The New York Times could have any one do their jobs--male or female--and hardly do worse.”

MetroJournalist (NY Metro Area): “I vote for Karen Garcia.”

A sidelight – Today, when I went back to the column, Tofte’s comment seems to have disappeared. I was able to find “replies” to it but not his original post. When “In reply to . . . “ is clicked, it takes you back to the top, father than to the original post (I’d copied it yesterday, along with Metro Journalist’s reply.) Does this happen often?

Finally, Meredith, I was unaware of the firing of Harold Meyerson by the Washington Post, but it is not surprising. In my lifetime (long), I have never seen a newspaper that had a "Union/Labor/or Workers" section next to its "Business" section. This has been effective in keeping people uninformed and propagandized, resulting in what Karen so well described in her “Chips, Dips, Chains and Whips” piece, and many others.

Jay–Ottawa said...

If the first electoral step walks like an Iowa caucus, and the next one struts like a super delegate, and the next is programmed like a paperless voting machine, and the next pledges like an unpledged elector from the Electoral College, and the last step can cancel out all of the above by giving the last word to the Supremes anyway, then just maybe no one really gives a damn which lever you pull on election day.

Pearl said...

During the discussion at CNN preceding the evening debate, this topic, annenigma, about Hillary following Obama's agenda was brought up and the question of how progressives who don't like Obama's record will vote. And a comment was made like oh, well, this is part and parcel of the voting process which I would have liked discussed more. Perhaps, this means that Cooper may ask that question hopefully getting more out of Hillary which I felt many of the pundits felt was needed. I keep getting a feeling that they are not sure how Hillary will handle these issues if the topics are brought up which could be prove worrisome but to whom wasn't clear.

In answer to Wolf's question about how things may go with Bernie tonight, someone stated that Hillary has a far better and stronger set up in many states for getting her message out and contacting people especially since Bernie will not have the young voters as available as now nor her past connections. Wolf also held up a list of items that Bernie is covering and just hearing all these problems was mind boggling but it was treated in a dismissive manner I believe, and of course stating it is a foregone conclusion in New Hampshire but she has better results to expect afterwards.
Well, we shall see.

Gloria Borger did not seem happy with Hillary's financial connections for money and listed some of them while seeming to admire Bernie's more honest arrangements from lower income voters. I don't think she is in love with Hillary as some of the others.

Agitator Pearl said...

Jay: I think you should warn Bernie about your unhappy conclusions. However, I am sure he knows and is the reason he is so focused on cleaning up the money in the voting system. Maybe marches in the streets will be more effective than voting.
By the way when in Florida, we learned how easily electronic voting machines can have voting results changed and never be replaced. I wonder how this will work next November.

I understand the Canadian system is simpler and more foolproof.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Here's a great "comment" that followed a NYT editorial:


The Times, in its sweeping editorial endorsement of Hillary Clinton and its brushoff of Bernie Sanders’s candidacy, does not reflect its own newspaper reporting about her actual record.

Domestically, Mrs. Clinton supported the deregulation of Wall Street. As senator, she failed to face up to the financial industry’s worsening abuses that took down the economy in 2008. She waited until April 2014 to support the modest, staggered $10.10 per hour minimum wage bill of her Democratic colleagues in Congress.

Mrs. Clinton voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. Later, she pressed, against the opposition of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, for an unauthorized war on Libya that has led to chaotic violence there and in neighboring countries.

Being such a war hawk and Wall Street supporter hardly qualifies for the “confidence and enthusiasm” The Times has bestowed upon her.

RALPH NADER

Washington

annenigma said...

Bernie is falling for Hillary's bait - Progressive vs. Moderate. 'What Difference Does It Makes!?' They're two flavors of 'likable enough'.

He, of all people, should stick with the issues instead of labels. After all, he's running as a Democratic despite not being one. He's registered as an Independent despite never voting that way. He identifies as a Democratic Socialist which is undefined by a party. He's a Progressive despite favoring protections for small guns shops which many would consider Moderate. I love Bernie, but he wants to be a Man For All Seasons and a party of none. Or all.

If Bernie makes it to the general election, what labels stick to him? It would be 'Progressive' - aka LIBERAL per the media - and 'Socialist' - aka COMMUNIST per the Republicans.

Bernie had better get his inner FDR tuned up and turned to full blast soon or people are going to start hearing Hillary intonating like FDR. I actually heard her do that once recently, probably a practice run while she's taking coaching lessons in preparation to go full-bore FDR. We already know Hillary talks to Eleanor:

"According to an account published by Bob Woodward, the Washington investigative journalist of Watergate fame, Clinton ‘communed’ with Eleanor Roosevelt in the White House solarium. Jean Houston, an author [Aquarian Conspiracy] with something of the New Age about her, was visiting the First Lady at the White House, and proposed, Woodward writes, that Clinton "search further and dig deeper for her connections to Mrs. Roosevelt." Clinton closed her eyes, and spoke to Roosevelt—and then she spoke as if she were Roosevelt herself. Houston later told the New York Times that this was more “brainstorming” session than séance."

She spoke as if she were Roosevelt herself? Wow, either she started practicing her intonation skills even then or ... never mind!

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-13/hillary-clinton-channels-eleanor-roosevelt-on-the-stump

Pearl said...

Hillary's religious comments about her beliefs are almost fundamentalist and she interpret's various biblical statements for her own personal agenda. I found
Bernie's explanation of his beliefs very simple and moving and his deep concerns for people genuine contrasting with Hillary's.
This kind of questioning of candidates is unique and uncalled for and I think Bernie felt that way.
If indeed Hillary channels Eleanor Roosevelt, even for practice, it indicates lack of her own confidence and presentation of self which is what causes people to question her real beliefs which seem to change with the wind according to gathering the most votes.
I don't recall any discussion or information about FDR's religious beliefs or Eleanor's which were viewed as personal and private.

annenigma said...

I noticed a photo this morning of Hillary that struck me because it didn't look much at all like Hillary. At first I thought it was due to lack of makeup or something, but it went beyond that into almost facial structure. I couldn't quite place who she looked like but then I noticed the caption that said she was being interviewed by Lena Dunham whose back was to the camera.

Hillary is a Shape Shifter!!! She doesn't just shift policy, she shifts her very essence. Scary.

(I can't locate the photo right now but if I find it, I'll link it.)

Oh, and from that same Bloomberg article, here's another quote apropos to Hillary being Progressive:

Cook said of Hillary Clinton, “I think she’s a closeted progressive, and that’s why she’s attracted to Eleanor Roosevelt— but she’s a politician. We can only hope that she comes out of the closet.”

Hillary just outed herself!

Pearl said...


Clinton blasts Wall Street, but still draws millions in contributions http://wpo.st/pSz81



Interesting article from the front page of the Washington Post with details of the
financial help for her presidential run. Not the behavior of a Progressive.