Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Bernie Politely Asks Dems To Play Nice

It could have been worse. The New York Times could have waited to dump  Bernie Sanders's prayerful op-ed until the long holiday weekend. That it has received such pride of place in the middle of the week, in bold headlines, even rising (albeit temporarily) above Thomas Freedom Friedman's latest elite whine, is proof positive that the Establishment no longer considers Bernie much of a threat.

They decided to humor the guy by reprinting the gist of his stump speech and most important, allowing him to drop a couple of subtle hints that he's supporting Hillary Clinton against Doctor Greater But Less Effective Evil.

Commenter Jay-Ottawa condensed the Sanders op-ed in his usual pithy fashion:
Hey, gang! Bernie's talking on the NYT op-ed page this morning. Allow me to give you the executive summary coming through his bullhorn.

BERNIE: "As I've said repeatedly in all my campaign speeches, this economy sucks. The rich keep getting rich; the rest keep getting poorer. Allow me to reel off the statistics measuring how far the 99% has nose dived (because people just love to hear me rant about the problem). These developments are terrible, terrible, terrible.

"Therefore, don't vote for Trump because he'll lead us into an American version of Brexit. What we've got to do, instead, is make the global economy more fair, be nice and all that. That's why I'm sticking with the Democratic Party and Hillary.

"Anyway, as I ought to say at this point, here's what I intend to do to correct the horrors of globalism:

[silence … his op-ed space seems to have run out at this point….]"
Sanders slugged his op-ed: Democrats Need to Wake Up. If he were more forthright, he would have called it Democrats Need To Divest From the Corporate Oligopoly, or even Democrats Should Just Go the Hell Away and Make Room for a New People's Party.

But that would have been a bridge too far, and might have endangered Sanders's high placement on some of those coveted Senate Committees, where he can play the part of Loyal Opposition to the Clinton White House and to the Republicans who are now flocking to her, right and left far-right.

Still, he made his fear-mongering quixotic plea to the fearless, clueless, careless and heartless Empress-in-Waiting:
Let’s be clear. The global economy is not working for the majority of people in our country and the world. This is an economic model developed by the economic elite to benefit the economic elite. We need real change.
But we do not need change based on the demagogy, bigotry and anti-immigrant sentiment that punctuated so much of the Leave campaign’s rhetoric — and is central to Donald J. Trump’s message.
We need a president who will vigorously support international cooperation that brings the people of the world closer together, reduces hypernationalism and decreases the possibility of war. We also need a president who respects the democratic rights of the people, and who will fight for an economy that protects the interests of working people, not just Wall Street, the drug companies and other powerful special interests.
 In this pivotal moment, the Democratic Party and a new Democratic president need to make clear that we stand with those who are struggling and who have been left behind. We must create national and global economies that work for all, not just a handful of billionaires.
As of this writing, there were nearly 1500 reader responses to Bernie's column. From "Josh," here's the top-rated comment:
 Bernie, we've read your campaign speech. We progressives agree with your direction. Now please offer policy solutions. Now please work to get support in the houses. Now please campaign to get the right people in at the state and local levels. Now please start drafting legislation. Don't lose the momentum you've built. Your critique of our system is totally accurate. If Hillary is perceived by many as 'fake', you are perceived as a critic that is good at finding flaws but not so good at fixing them. I hope that both of you prove your opponents wrong.
I sneaked mine in toward the back of the pack:
 Bernie, get a clue. When Clinton's Democratic Party platform reps refuse to include the goal of true universal health coverage and refuse to take a stand against the Trans-Pacific Partnership even in what is ultimately a meaningless document, all the editorializing in the world won't sway their allegiance away from Global Oligarchia and into the realm of the common good.

No matter how you slice it, dice it, dress it or poach it, a rotten egg is still a rotten egg. Not only does it still taste awful, it's bound to make you sick.

Bernie: with millions of votes and millions of dollars in small donations, you have amassed some extremely powerful political capital. To continue wasting it on a corrupt political machine which has thwarted, reviled, and dismissed you and your voters at every turn, it's a slap in their faces to continue to associate yourself with Democrats any longer. They'd just as soon grind you to dust as look at you.

Why not take Jill Stein up on her offer and run on the Green Party ticket? I know, I know - you don't want to be a "spoiler." But the Libertarian Party is already polling high enough to be included in the debates, and Stein is now at seven percent, and climbing. Why not make it a four-way race?

Our "official" choice between a neo-fascist loon and a money-grubbing warmonger is not only no choice at all, it's voter blackmail.

So if we start the revolution without you, Bernie, so be it. About 90% of us have nothing left to lose.


Nonni Muss said...

He and his family have no doubt been threatened, so I expect an endorsement sometime before the convention. Alas. But what the party apparatchiks can't seem to understand is that the great mass of his supporters stand ready to ignore any endorsement by him, of Hillary Clinton.

mc said...

Some say the world will end in fire, some say ice. For the world of any possible chance at gov't of the people, by the people, and for the people, Trump may be roaring fire but we know Clinton is suffocating ice. Of the two, Trump will likely be easier to recover from, but who wants to bet on that? Our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be forced to overcome and rebuild what of that principle can still be found, and when they look back and ask, how the hell could you let this happen? what did you do??, they will be looking at Sanders and Warren as much as at the Koch boys and Murdoch. But they won't be looking at me.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Thanks, Karen, for picking up the mumblings and moans of a disheartened voter and giving them another whirl.

Bernie reminds me of the racehorse that gets out ahead of the pack by a dozen leads, then stops short of the goal post to smell the roses and admire the horses he passed as they pass him by to the finish line. Or that time when Don Juan who, after warming things up quite a bit during his dalliance with the marchioness du jour, stops short to light up the post-coital cigarette before the job is done. Who will blame the marchioness for what she then said. We, the cheated voters, are the marchioness. (Or, depending on your orientation, the cuckolded marquis.)

Bernie has climbed to a remarkable state of cluelessness; and now he's telling other people to wake up? Like it or not, we're in a class war. Bernie spoke loud for revolution when he started out; now he sounds like Mr. Rogers putting on his slippers.

Pearl said...

Add your name to tell the DNC Platform Committee to make sure the party's platform includes our amendment to prevent the disastrous TPP trade deal from ever coming up for a vote.


Pearl -

Our struggle over the Democratic Party platform is about making clear that we intend to create an economy that works for all of us, and not just the wealthy and powerful.

Now, we’ve made some great progress to include a number of very important initiatives that we have been fighting to achieve during this campaign. Major accomplishments that will begin to move this country in the right direction like breaking up huge financial institutions and enacting a 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, a historic expansion of Social Security, taking on the greed of the pharmaceutical companies, banning private prisons, eliminating super PACs, and moving to public financing of elections, and more.

But more needs to be done. And the most important issue is to make it clear that we must defeat the disastrous Trans-Pacific Partnership.

So I want you to mark July 8 on your calendar – that is the next meeting of the Democratic Platform Committee in Orlando, Florida. Between now and then, our job is to do everything we can to rally support for an amendment to the platform in strong opposition to the TPP.

And I believe that if we all make our voices heard between now and then, we can win this fight:

Add your name to tell the DNC Platform Committee to make sure the party's platform includes our amendment to prevent the disastrous TPP trade deal from ever coming up for a vote.

Let me be clear: this is not about embarrassing anyone. This is about preventing the outsourcing of jobs, protecting the environment, stopping pharmaceutical companies from increasing the price of prescription drugs, preserving our democracy, and respecting human rights.

This is about you and millions of other people making our voices heard that we need to create a Democratic Party which fights for working families and not wealthy campaign contributors.

If we succeed, we will be in a very strong position to stop a vote on the TPP and to fundamentally rewrite our trade agreements to end the race to the bottom and lift up the living standards of people in this country and throughout the world.

That is the work of our political revolution, and you are the revolutionaries. And I believe that if we continue to stand together and fight for the values we share, we will transform the Democratic Party.

But that starts with bringing the entire party together and speaking with one voice in opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership:

Add your name to tell the DNC Platform Committee to make sure the party's platform includes our amendment to prevent the disastrous TPP trade deal from ever coming up for a vote.

It is imperative that this platform be not only the most progressive in the history of the Democratic Party, but that it includes a set of policies that will be fought for and implemented by Democratic elected officials.

I am going to do everything I can to rally support in Orlando for our amendment opposing the TPP. But I want to be clear that if we fail there we are going to take this fight to the floor of the Democratic Party convention in Philadelphia next month.

In solidarity,

Bernie Sanders


Anonymous said...

TBG here,

In some ways, I'm puzzled by the response to Sanders from both sides. Clintonites wrote insulting, condescending responses to his piece in the NY Times because they insisted he was somehow a "spoiler" rather than someone trying to pull the Democratic party back to its New Deal ethos. Comment after comment harangued him for failing to endorse her in the piece, or (and this seemed to really get their proverbial goat) for refusing to even name her as the presumptive nominee.

Here at Sardonicky, he is also criticized, but here it is for falling in line with Clinton (a fact the Clintonites would strongly dispute), even though his piece refused to endorse her, or even name her. I find that also surprising and refreshing since, from early on in his campaign, he stated that he would vote for her if she were the nominee. But I think his ultimate reveal has always been timed for the convention, which is also something he's consistently alluded to.

But Nonni Mouse makes an excellent point, which I think is really the point. After all this, Sanders supporters will likely not be voting Clinton this fall, rather Jill Stein. By doing what so enrages the Clintonites - repeating the same speech over and over again - Sanders has effectively imprinted on the collective psyche of the younger population what was the traditional platform of the Democratic Party under FDR. And with that imprinting, it is impossible to vote for Clinton, regardless of Sanders eventual endorsement/non-endorsement/whatever happens at the Convention.

Sanders has been a great vehicle; the vehicle hasn't yet come to a stop. We're not at the convention yet. But those of us who contributed our time and monies to his campaign likely won't be voting for Clinton in the fall. Jill Stein is a great option, and who knows what will happen post-convention. I fail to see how that wouldn't be regarded as an achievement at Sardonicky, however, it is also true that those of us who are still working our tails off are far more in the position of appreciating the whole compendium of small steps toward democracy than a messiah. If change really is accomplished from the bottom up, then Sanders has his role to play, he brings the ball forward and we must take it from there.

I do wonder if there is a little jealousy in all this outrage against Sanders for not doing exactly what, Clintonite or anti-Clintonite, everyone else thinks he should do. His anti-charisma, for which many of us would be punished for, has endeared him to a very large group of younger voters. The old man has achieved a popularity that most bloggers might envy, and it appears they do. He acted on his conscience, and it seems (although we won't know until the convention) within the parameters of what he pledged from the early days of his campaign. But what he actually achieved was much larger, and in the long run I believe will be much more potent than we can predict.

Pearl said...

TBG: Thank you for taking the time to give us a solid picture of what is transpiring. I did not know how to answer his critics, but today I received his statement to his Democratic members and it is obvious he is not sitting around filing his nails while thinking how he can ingratiate himself with the Queen.

Bernie answered his critics quite well I believe and also in his articles in the NYTimes and elsewhere clearly stating his intentions.

His answer to Andrea Mitchell about when he would be endorsing Hillary was interesting when he stated it was not the question to be concerned about as he listed clearly what was to be his agenda leading to the Convention and what he would be presenting to Hillary. It was titled an 'eerie' interview with some other strange comments along with stranger comments from other media about this interview.
It seemed pretty straitforward to me in that he could not endorse anyone until they responded to his expectations.

Jay–Ottawa said...

The Democratic Party Platform is nothing more than a sand table.

What Sanders intends is ambiguous at best. Best to judge him at every step of the way by his actions, not hope and promises and rose-colored glasses used to interpret his intentions or his psyche. Lots of people who judge by actions and results were Third Party a long time ago, as early as 2012, long before Bernie stepped onto the big stage. Eventually, a political scientist will tell us with numbers how many new voters turned to Third Party as a result of Bernie's rhetoric and how many he rounded up for Hillary.

Look, Trump is not going to win; you heard it first here. As things now stand, Hillary is seen as "safe" and will win by a landslide. Bernie could bust up that scenario with some bold moves. Amazingly, he's let them all pass. Instead, he's wasting time and diverting other people's energy, in nonsense like the one above about toughening up the platform. Of the corrupt party owned by the elite. More words, words, words, instead of action.

Anonymous said...

Jay-Ottawa--Exactly. Sanders has certainly been better than Warren, but he's protecting his position, not fighting for the future. There is no evidence other than words that Trump is worse than Clinton, who has a definite record now set out well in the Democrat platform. As that wise man John Mitchell said, don't look at what we say, look at what we do. Our hope is that the young people fired up by Sanders will be able to get past what he says and will activate what they see as necessary to do once they clear the power positions of the people he has criticized but enabled. Our grandchildren will only see that he voted for Hillary. That will be his legacy. The young people who will inherit the future Hillary has left behind her will be his judge. Not the commenters on any blog.

annenigma said...

The candidate who promises Wall Street the most 'certainty' for them is the one who will win. The corporate media will make certain of that.

Donald Trump is too independent and thus unpredictable AND he opposes the TPP and NAFTA. So Hillary, who used to call the TPP the gold standard of trade deals before she went silent about it as a candidate, will win - unless she's indicted, then Joe Biden from the corporate state of Delaware will be tapped and win the Presidency.

Pearl said...

If our truly knowledgeable grandchildren read that he voted for Hillary, they will also read that he fought tooth and nail to destroy her establishment concepts and the vote was for denying Trump and holding the party together for the election.

The differences between so many people about Bernie's true purposes will be proven by what he does when the election is over by following his agenda which is very clear. The proof is in the pudding.

Neil said...

Don't worry about HRC getting indicted, I am fairly certain BO has a presidential pardon already drafted, ready to add the final details.

Valerie said...

I agree the Democratic platform is nothing. It is a wish list that is totally non binding. Go back and read the Democratic Party Platform in 2008. Did Obama do any of that? Furthermore, who were his first cabinet appointments? Did they even line up with the Democratic platform?

However, the fact that Bernie has so little influence with the DNC that he can't even get his most important issues on the wish list, shows the contempt the DNC has for Sanders and his supporters. They are totally counting on the Lesser of Two Evils meme to get them the votes they need. I wonder if they are even worried much about getting the Sanders' supporters' votes. As annenigma says, "The candidate who promises Wall Street the most 'certainty' for them is the one who will win. The corporate media will make certain of that."

If all of Bernie's supporters turned out for the Greens, we MIGHT see a little change. It MIGHT scare the Democrats a little to the Left. But honestly, we just have to vote so that there IS a future for the Greens and other Third Parties. We have to give up on this idea that the Democratic Party is going to change. They are too far gone - corrupted to the core.

To give the Republicans credit, at least they recognised their shallow politicians for what they are. Donald Trump isn't ideal and quite honestly, he really DOES scare me, but at least enough Republicans have the courage to vote for someone who is basically outside the traditional Republican Party platform. Why can't the Left come together and do the same?

Valerie said...


I suppose many of us thought that in the end, after receiving so much support for his message which was the antithesis of what Hill was preaching, that Bernie would break away and actually start a revolution. The fact that this is it, a neutral endorsement of sorts for Clinton when he says he will be voting for her, seems disappointing. It feels like he doesn't have the courage to give up those cushy positions in Congress and fight along beside his supporters. He has clearly bought into the spoiler meme and somehow that makes him seem weak. I think he IS a good man but in the end, people hoped he would be the commander that would lead them into battle not the commander who surrenders politely.

Nonni Muss said...

If he is going to or mount a third party campaign, he cannot do so until after the convention.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Hi Nonni Muss

Please explain. Why must Bernie wait until after the convention? Do you believe he has a chance of becoming the nominee? Do you believe, if he were to become the nominee, he could make significant headway in un-corrupting the Democratic Party?

Nonni Muss said...

They would deny him credentials if he quit before Philly. I believe that I have a better chance of getting the nomination than he does. That said, I think there's some value in playing out this farcical process. Some (most?) Dems are still in denial about how corrupt the party is. Perhaps a conk on the noggin like a complete refusal to even play lip service to progressive ideology (see e.g. Platform Ccttee) or to lowercase D democratic principles would wake them up.

Jay–Ottawa said...


Thanks. I see your point. It would be good for the TV audience to witness Bernie and his better ideas getting dissed live as it happens, followed by a revolution of sorts inside Convention Hall by Bernie delegates. You could be right: a bit of chaos in face of disruptive protests––not violence inside or outside the hall––might help as a multiplier of disgust among viewers and a fresh spur sending decent people in greater numbers to third parties.

ABT-ABC. Code for a new bumper sticker: Anything But Trump; Anything But Clinton.

Neil said...

One thing I see missing from discussions of Sanders is the role played by thousands of influential government employees who support the favored party candidate. Those who owe patronage for their government job to the party.

I believe this is especially true of the powerful Clinton political machine that spans decades. That’s why I find it odd that Sanders joined the Democrat Party last year, after spending most of his political career as an independent socialist outside the two party duopoly. How did Sanders expect to get the support of the Democrats? Through his purported good ideas? That is a naive perspective, in my view. The two parties have hijacked our nation, our elections, everything.

Forgive me if I refer to Sanders and not "Bernie". I’m just not into the cult of personality. Candidates are not our friends. We don’t know what a candidate really thinks, except you can be sure they mostly work for their own self-interest.

A recent story by Anita Kumar in McClatchy DC is worth reading,

"Donor promised to make Clinton ‘look good’ if appointed to board"

"A major Democratic donor personally lobbied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s office for a seat on a sensitive government intelligence board, telling one of her closest aides that if appointed he would make Clinton "look good.""

"Rajiv Fernando acknowledged that he may not have the experience to sit on a board that would allow him the highest levels of top-secret access, but he assured deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin in newly released 2009 emails that he was talking to two professors who were "getting me up to speed on the academics behind the field.""

"Fernando, who contributed to Clinton, her family’s foundation and Barack Obama, described himself as one of "Hillary’s people" and mentioned that he recently had sent an ailing Clinton flowers to wish her a speedy recovery."

"The emails shed new light on how Fernando got a spot on the International Security Advisory Board. He resigned in 2011, days after his appointment and after his selection was questioned."

Elizabeth Adams said...

I don't think Bernie Sanders is naïve at all. As much as he was blacked out by the DNC and mainstream media as a Democrat, it would have been much worse had he remained a third party. He has done so much good getting words and ideas into the mainstream -- things that have not been uttered at all by any politician within the duopoly. Ralph Nader himself thinks Sanders was smart to go the route he did.

This nomination, while thought to be in the bag by most, isn't over until after July 25. The Republican-sponsored Democratic Convention in Philadelphia is going to be crazy on the inside and outside, and I admire the people who are not quitting before the super delegates actually vote. And whatever Bernie decides to do at that time, I am thankful for his run, which has opened many eyes to the corruption of our election process and the sham that is called democracy in the U.S.

Pearl said...

Elections are, in the words of Noam Chomsky, "occasions on which segments of private sector power coalesce to invest to control the state."

Neil said...

Hello Elizabeth, thanks for your comment. Like you, I don't think Bernie Sanders is naïve at all. My inartful comment was meant for Sander’s supporters, some of whom appear to believe his purported good ideas would carry the day. I believe that premise is naive.

The two party duopoly must be destroyed or rendered impotent. Party patrons would have sabotaged Sanders if he got elected in place of HRC. After all, it’s Hillary’s turn to be POTUS.

On its face I still find it odd that Sanders joined the Democrat Party last year, after spending most of his political career as an independent socialist outside the two party duopoly. By joining the Democrat Party, Sanders appears to have strengthened the party. Sanders is not naive. So what really happened? HRC was not going to take any chances this time, not after getting trounced in 2008 by an upstart named Barack Obama.

Did HRC and the DNC make a deal with Sanders to join the party and play his bit in the kabuki theater, in exchange for something? Was Sanders threatened, as Nonni Muss suggested? Perhaps a combination of deal/threat, otherwise known as dirty politics as usual.

The two party duopoly must be destroyed or rendered impotent. I believe Sanders’ presence has strengthened the Democrat Party. And why is Trump self-destructing on a daily basis? Did Trump have a change of heart about being president? Or was Trump threatened?

You are correct, the Democrat Party nomination is arguably still open. It also appears the Republican Party nomination is not a done deal either. As I noted in previous posts, I believe our current election process is unconstitutional. Will someone make a legal challenge?

Elizabeth Adams said...

I believe the Democratic Party is strengthened only so long as Sanders is still in the race for the nomination. Bernie-or-Busters who haven't left the Party yet will do so by July 28, should Clinton's nomination be finalized. I do think most of us are aware that the Democratic Party is unsalvageable. I look at the Party more like a vehicle, which provided the most expeditious route on a road closed to third parties.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Happy Canada Day, everybody! (That's like the 4th of July, only north of the 49th parallel and a few days earlier.) Lots of folks in the streets of Ottawa all day wearing smiles and something red. Around 12:30––oh, oh! Here they come, cover your ears!––a handful of fighter jets will roar––ARE NOW ROARING––over Parliament Hill to the cheers of thousands. Red ribbons on lampposts, on baby carriages, on yapping mini dogs (how small do they get?). And of course the red tunics of our Mounties doing fancy maneuvers on scary horses on the great lawn in front of Parliament. Big fireworks tonight over the Ottawa River. Always a great show.

Feel sorry for the tourists who came up here to take pictures of beautiful Parliament Hill only to discover that a number of those buildings will be serially surrounded forever by green-draped scaffolding. Well, there's always postcards of Parliament for a loonie or a twoie, over there where you buy the popsicles.

The NY Times ran a nice story today about how goodly we are in taking in Syrian refugees. Gotta say I'm on a minor subcommittee of a big committee of two parishes that have raised enough dough and personal commitments to support and settle in a Syrian family of five for a year. Personal atonement for my part once upon a time overseas as part of NATO.

But not all is well here. The Three Amigos of NAFTA were in Ottawa this week to tell us they will continue to be the three amigos all in for the TPP. Former PM Harper (Conservative) absent and exiled to Alberta; current PM Trudeau (Liberal) present. On this issue, what's the difference, eh? Big money doesn't like change. At least Trudeau is nice on those all-important social issues. Guess it's up to you folks south of the 49th to snuff the TPP. We'll take care of the Syrian refugee thing.

Pearl said...

Yes Jay: and for snuffing the TPP will you give Bernie credit for speaking loud and clear about this item to be brought up strongly at the Convention? If you missed his statements on this topic I can look it up and refresh your memory.

Jay–Ottawa said...

Pearl, you're right. During the campaign Bernie got Hill to change her mind, at least before the debate podium, about TPP and maybe NAFTA too. Or so she said. What counts is what she does behind the big desk in the Oval Office.

Of course, Bernie is not and never will be in a position to do anything meaningful about TPP, other than to raise consciousness among a minority of voters, which is something. Maybe a paragraph in the plank; hold your breath until July 28. Bet you a loonie that as soon as the Clintons are sworn in, she'll revert to type and promote the TPP as effectively as Obama. The pen is mightier than the word.

Pearl said...

Anyhow we can agree that we are all having a bit of a revenge with that meeting between Bill and the new Attorney general whose name escapes me. All the newspapers responded with raised eyebrows when we were told they merely chatted about their grandchildren which is why all phones and texts were not allowed(?) One reporter had the following comment: upon being asked about the meeting Bill replied "I never had sexual relations with that woman!"

Also the press was not kind to Bill and felt he had not helped Hillary so one wonders if she knew about it or not and how that will turn out. I wonder how they will get along in the White House. Also reading back about the new Attorney General's duties, are to report and comment on the results of such an investigation so it is obvious she will keep silent and keep her job.
A proper successor to Holden.
Waiting for more to come for sure.

Investigator Pearl said...

Subject: Attorney general pledges to ‘accept’ FBI and Justice findings in Clinton email probe from The Washington Post

Jay–Ottawa said...

The name of the new AG is Lynch––wonderful name. Let's see how many and which ones she hangs. In the Hillbill case, the hardest thing she'll have to do is nothing, just stand around and look on as others do their best.

Pearl said...

Subject: Hillary Clinton Hints at Giant, Trump-Like Giveaway to Corporate America

Interesting report from Intercept

Jay–Ottawa said...

The NY Times isn't playing nice anymore.

The NY Times Book Review is doing something this weekend it has never done before. (Cymbals, please. !!*!! Thank you, that's enough.) They have engaged an "acclaimed" novelist––whose complicated name I can't pronounce let alone spell––to write a short story about the 2016 presidential race. Specifically, Donald Trump through the eyes of Melania. That's his wife, in case you don't keep up with these things. This short story about The Donald and Family copies the opening scenes of Woolf's Mrs Dalloway. No kidding.

The Book Review is not just reviewing campaign propaganda, it's churning it out. The story gets very up close and really personal, a wonderful hatched job in fictional form about the Great Evil One. Who needs investigative reporters or the opinion pages to do him harm with lines like this?

"They were drawn to Donald’s brashness and bluster and bullying, his harsh words, even the amoral ease with which untruths slid out of his mouth."

Stuff like that about Trump, and then Melania herself, whose dishing out all these gems in her stream of consciousness, without realizing how superficial she comes off in her streaming. I feel sorry for Donald, his wife and the kids (who also make it into the story). Trump should sue. In any event, he's sure to be upset about the bedroom scenes. Un-huh, bedroom scenes.

Oh, there's more. The Book Review editor tells us she has another short story, which will be held back until the fall, presumably just before election day. She's keeping secret the name of the author of short story 2. I'll bet you'll never guess who the main character will be in that one. (Hint: it ain't Bernie.)

Neil said...

For anyone interested in Hillary and Bill Clinton’s speeches and associated fees, from Zerohedge

The Complete Breakdown Of Every Hillary And Bill Clinton Speech, And Fee, Since 2013

Since 2013 Bill Clinton has been paid $26.6 million for 94 speeches; Hillary's grand total is slightly less: $21.7 million for 92 private appearances. Below we present the full breakdown of every publicly disclosed speech event by Hillary Clinton, together with the associated fee.

Hillary Clinton’s speeches with the associated fees. (click image to enlarge)

Bill Clinton’s speeches with the associated fees. (click image to enlarge)

Additional linked stories

Hillary Clinton releases health, financial records

Hillary Clinton Defends High-Dollar Speaking Fees

Clintons made $25 million in speeches since 2014

Clinton Foundation donors include dozens of media organizations, individuals

Nonni Muss said...

The grand total for speeches, since 2001, is $153 million:

Neil said...

Thanks Nonni, I was looking for the speech amounts going back further than 2013.

In other HRC news, "U.N. Official 'Accidentally' Crushes Own Throat Right Before Testifying Against Hillary Clinton" by Zero Hedge

"Call it conspiracy theory, coincidence or just bad luck, but any time someone is in a position to bring down Hillary Clinton by testifying they wind up dead. In fact, there’s a long history of Clinton-related body counts, with scores of people dying under mysterious circumstances."

"Perhaps the most notable is Vince Foster. Foster was a partner at Clinton’s law firm and knew the inner workings of the Clinton Machine. Police ruled that death a suicide, though it is often noted that Foster may have been suicided."

"Now, another official has found himself on the wrong end of the Clintons. That John Ashe was a former President of the United Nations General Assembly highlights the fact that no one is safe once in their sights."

"And as you might have guessed, there are major inconsistencies with Ashe’s death. It was not only conveniently timed because Ashe died just a few days before being set to testify against Clinton in a corruption case, but official reports indicated he died of a heart attack."

"The problem, however, is that police on the scene reported Ashe died when his throat was crushed during a work-out accident."

Disgraced ex-UN official’s death ‘conveniently timed’ - Page

"The death by barbell of disgraced UN official John Ashe could become a bigger obsession for conspiracy theorists than Vince Foster’s 1993 suicide."

"Ashe — who was facing trial for tax fraud — died Wednesday afternoon in his house in Westchester County. The UN said he’d had a heart attack. But the local Dobbs Ferry police said Thursday that his throat had been crushed, presumably by a barbell he dropped while pumping iron."

"Ashe was due in court Monday with his Chinese businessman co-defendant Ng Lap Seng, who is charged with smuggling $4.5 million into the US since 2013 and lying that it was to buy art and casino chips."

"Ng was identified in a 1998 Senate report as the source of hundreds of thousands of dollars illegally funneled through an Arkansas restaurant owner, Charlie Trie, to the Democratic National Committee during the Clinton administration. (Ng was not charged with any crime.)"

"Ng and Trie had visited the White House several times for Democratic fundraising events and were photographed with then-President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton."

"One source told me, "During the trial, the prosecutors would have linked Ashe to the Clinton bagman Ng. It would have been very embarrassing. His death was conveniently timed.""

"Ashe’s lawyer Jeremy Schneider told me he is sure Ashe’s death was an accident. "There is not one iota of evidence that it was homicide. This is nothing at all like Vince Foster.""

"Police in Dobbs Ferry village are keeping the investigation open pending an autopsy by the Westchester medical examiner."