Dem "debate" CNN 13 Oct Las Vegas

[boutons_deux]

CNN’s Double-Standards on Debates

For decades, mainstream U.S. news outlets have bent over backwards to appease conservatives and avoid the stigma “liberal media,” but there has been no similar accommodation for progressives, as Jeff Cohen notes about CNN’s handling of the upcoming Democratic debate.

By Jeff Cohen

At the CNN-sponsored Republican Party debate last month at the Reagan presidential library, one of the three panelists CNN selected to question the candidates was conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, affiliated with the proudly right-wing Salem Radio Network. But at Tuesday’s upcoming Democratic Party debate, CNN is not planning to include a single progressive advocate among its panel of four questioners.

It’s clear that who gets to pose questions has impact on the tenor of the debate. For example, Hewitt used September’s Republican debate to declare that President Obama’s “knees buckled” over Syria and that every Republican candidate was “more qualified than” Hillary Clinton.

Hewitt pressed Jeb Bush from the right over his comment about making sure guns are not in the hands of the mentally ill:

“Where does it go from what you said last week, how far into people’s lives to take guns away from them?”

Along with Hewitt, the panel at CNN’s GOP debate was composed of two journalists CNN presents as neutral or objective: CNN anchor Jake Tapper and CNN correspondent Dana Bash. (Hewitt’s appearance was reportedly part of an agreement (http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/24/salem-cnn-team-up-for-three-gop-primary-debates/) by which CNN and the right-wing Salem Media company are teaming up on three GOP presidential debates.)

At CNN’s upcoming Democratic debate, the panel is to be composed of four journalists CNN presents as neutral: CNN’s Bash and three CNN anchors (Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, and Juan Carlos Lopez of CNN en Espanol.) Glaringly missing from this proposed lineup is an unabashed progressive advocate.

There are many qualified journalists for this seat — from respected progressive media institutions that haven’t taken sides in the Democratic primaries (like The Nation or Mother Jones, to name just two).

Today, the online activism group RootsAction.org (which I cofounded) launched a one-sentence petition to CNN: (http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=11689) “For the sake of basic fairness and balance, you should add to your panel an unapologetic progressive for Tuesday’s debate.”

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/09/cnns-double-standards-on-debates/

[ducks]

after the show their can call the hookers because they are just like them
they get bought

[DarrinS]

For decades, mainstream U.S. news outlets have bent over backwards to appease conservatives and avoid the stigma “liberal media,” ...


Lol

[boutons_deux]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=202&v=vBkwVvlB0cI

[hater]

No trump. Nobody will watch that snoozefest

[Clipper Nation]

It's already the cuckfest of the century.

[baseline bum]

Is Sanders shitting all over Hillary? As much as I don't like Trump, I'd love to see him make her cry.

[Blizzardwizard]

It's already the cuckfest of the century.

Rand and Ronnie aren't there so nah that can't be right.

[TheGreatYacht]

Already better than listening to Cuckald Dump, Christie Christina, Jeb B:lolsh, Ted Cruz, Dr. Ben Coonson :tu

[DarrinS]

Iraq Iraq Iraq

[Splits]

Dems are so fucked. 40% of the panel are Republicans. Shillary is basically a Republican. O'Malley is incoherent. Sanders is fumbling and doesn't know how to talk foreign policy.

This country is sooooo screwed.

[DarrinS]

Lol, Bernie needs a nap

[Splits]

:lmao Shillary is now defending the demolishing of Libya. LMAO pretending they're "democratic"

WTF?

[TheGreatYacht]

O'Malley would make Cuckald stutter his tan off

[Splits]

Holy shit Chaffee.

English, do you speak it mother fucker?

[Splits]

"Our greatest ally Israel"

:cry cyberwarfare :cry

:cry China :cry

Webb, go fuck yourself you ignorant faggot.

[SpursforSix]

Cooper says thirty seconds for all and cuts That dude off at 5 seconds.

[DarrinS]

Lol, climate change as biggest national security threat. Fuckin retard

[DarrinS]

Dems with the really weak bench here.

Mr. McGoo and Shillary. :lol

[Splits]

Lol, climate change as biggest national security threat. Fuckin retard

http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/612710


DoD Releases Report on Security Implications of Climate Change

DoD News, Defense Media Activity



PRINT (http://www.defense.gov/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=753&Article=612710) | E-MAIL | CONTACT AUTHOR (http://www.defense.gov/Contact/Contact-Author?articleurl=http://www.defense.gov/News-Article-View/Article/612710/dod-releases-report-on-security-implications-of-climate-change)
WASHINGTON, July 29, 2015 — Global climate change will aggravate problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries, according to a report the Defense Department sent to Congress yesterday.

The Senate Appropriations Committee requested the report in conjunction with the Defense Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2015, asking that the undersecretary of defense for policy provide a report that identifies the most serious and likely climate-related security risks for each combatant command and the ways those commands integrate risk mitigation into their planning processes.

Fragile States Vulnerable to Disruption
The report finds that climate change is a security risk, Pentagon officials said, because it degrades living conditions, human security and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations. Communities and states that already are fragile and have limited resources are significantly more vulnerable to disruption and far less likely to respond effectively and be resilient to new challenges, they added.

“The Department of Defense's primary responsibility is to protect national security interests around the world,” officials said in a news release announcing the report’s submission. “This involves considering all aspects of the global security environment and planning appropriately for potential contingencies and the possibility of unexpected developments both in the near and the longer terms.

“It is in this context,” they continued, “that the department must consider the effects of climate change -- such as sea level rise, shifting climate zones and more frequent and intense severe weather events -- and how these effects could impact national security.”

Integrating Climate-Related Impacts Into Planning
To reduce the national security implications of climate change, combatant commands are integrating climate-related impacts into their planning cycles, officials said. The ability of the United States and other countries to cope with the risks and implications of climate change requires monitoring, analysis and integration of those risks into existing overall risk management measures, as appropriate for each combatant command, they added.

The report concludes the Defense Department already is observing the impacts of climate change in shocks and stressors to vulnerable nations and communities, including in the United States, the Arctic, the Middle East, Africa, Asia and South America, officials said.

[DarrinS]

Bernie just did Hillary a solid.

Idiot

[TheGreatYacht]

"Our greatest ally Israel"

:cry cyberwarfare :cry

:cry China :cry

Webb, go fuck yourself you ignorant faggot.
Dude is embarrassing himself.

[SpursforSix]

They're all too fucking old and out of touch.

[TheGreatYacht]

They're all too fucking old and out of touch.
I don't see any of them talking about Reagan.... Oops

[DarrinS]

That whole pandering to BLM was embarrassing

[DarrinS]

Getting drowsy

[hater]

Thus country is so fucked :lol

[ColinB]

Legit feel bad for Chafee. Dude is so nervous.

[Splits]

Chafee and Webb need to join the other 19 reactionaries on the other stage.

[Splits]

O'Malley has a plan have a clean electric grid by 2050.... FIFTY!????? And compares it to putting a man on the moon.... in 35 years? What a fucking joke. The Dems are a fucking embarrassment outside of Bernie.

[ElNono]

Neocon Shillary is such a terrible candidate... if the GOP doesn't win against this bunch....

[Splits]

1. Sanders
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2. O'Malley
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
3. Shillary
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
4. Webb
5. Chafee

[Splits]

At least they're not just up on stage shouting "nigga nigga nigga" but damn that was bad.

[Clipper Nation]

Bernie is functionally retarded. When he gave that pathetic, stuttering answer on Putin, I was having flashbacks to Dukakis riding around in that tank. Russia, Mexico, Japan and China were licking their chops.

Chaffee... all I can say is, congrats, Dan Quayle, you're off the hook for the worst debate performance of all time.

Webb was the only sane person on that stage.

[Th'Pusher]

Bernie is functionally retarded. When he gave that pathetic, stuttering answer on Putin, I was having flashbacks to Dukakis riding around in that tank. Russia, Mexico, Japan and China were licking their chops.

Webb was the only sane person on that stage.
Remind us all who you're supporting again?

[Clipper Nation]

Remind us all who you're supporting again?
Th'Playtex

[Th'Pusher]

Th'Playtex
Incapable of an intelligent response.

[Clipper Nation]

Incapable of an intelligent response.

Yes, you are. Thanks for noticing.

[ElNono]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRPyiG5VEAAgsAM.jpg:large

:lol smh

[rasuo214]

A bunch of old white people running to lead the "party of diversity"...

[HI-FI]

curious what the ratings will be like on this sucka.

[Th'Pusher]

Yes, you are. Thanks for noticing.
Remind us all agin who you're supporting again? Is it Trump? Paul (Ron) :lol

Let the fake libertarian take a stand.

[Clipper Nation]

Remind us all agin who you're supporting again? Is it Trump? Paul (Ron) :lol

Let the fake libertarian take a stand.

Th'Playtex with the watered-down Chump Jr. schtick, per par.

[SuperCam]

Bernie cucking himself with the email answer :lmao

[Th'Pusher]

Th'Playtex with the watered-down Chump Jr. schtick, per par.
Just come out and tell us who you're supporting.

You're on the record as saying you're going to write in Ron Paul, but you also openly support Donald Trump. Don't be a fucking pussy. Clear up where you stand.

[Clipper Nation]

Just come out and tell us who you're supporting.

You're on the record as saying you're going to write in Ron Paul, but you also openly support Donald Trump. Don't be a fucking pussy. Clear up where you stand.
Th'Playtex getting emotional about who people on a message board are voting for.

[DMX7]

Bernie cucking himself with the email answer :lmao

Nah, it made him come across as confident. Like he can beat her straight up no matter what.

[pgardn]

So where is boots?

[Th'Pusher]

Th'Playtex getting emotional about who people on a message board are voting for.

Not emotional. Just asking for clarification on where the resident fake libertarian stands. Thanks for continuing to display your inability to take any sort of a principled stand on anything. :tu

[DMX7]

MSNBC is interviewing Wayne Newton right now. :lol

[Clipper Nation]

Not emotional. Just asking for clarification on where the resident fake libertarian stands. Thanks for continuing to display your inability to take any sort of a principled stand on anything. :tu

Th'Playtex desperate to deflect from the huge shit Bernie took on that stage tonight.

[Th'Pusher]

Th'Playtex desperate to deflect from the huge shit Bernie took on that stage tonight.
Bernie? I simply asked you to say who you supported. Initially you said you were going to write in RonPaul, then you came out in support of Trump.

I asked you to clarify and you couldn't.

Now you're talking about Bernie Sanders.

You're obviously a fucking moron who has no idea what you'r talking about, nor do you have the ability to formulate an intelligent opinion and defend it.

in short, you're an irrelevant time waste.

:lol

[DarrinS]

I liked O'Malley and Webb best, but they have no chance. Bernie says shit that makes the left moist, but his dream of turning America into Denmark or Sweden or (insert any uber white Euro socialist country here) is unhinged from reality.

[HI-FI]

Nah, it made him come across as confident. Like he can beat her straight up no matter what.
is the JudeoMarxist still your first choice, then Shillary?

[pgardn]

The Democrats need a professional black Witch to counter the Dr. Ben. She could boil white folk and cast spells while on the campaign trail. Counter Trump... I see a vagrant with a shopping cart slurring out whatever is on his mind, insulting Hillary's swollen ankles or something. The Democrats already have a candidate to match Nixon, Hillary was busy removing stuff, so the Dems ahead in that category.

Welcome Joe Biden into the race near future.

[spurraider21]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRPyiG5VEAAgsAM.jpg:large

:lol smh
:lol the first one is actually funny
:lol the second one reminds me of why i hate the gop

[ducks]

Cnn sets up fights for republicans and democrats a love fest

[DMX7]

is the JudeoMarxist still your first choice, then Shillary?

Donald Trump is my first choice, Bern Man is second, then Hillary.

[ElNono]

For those missing Intrade, there's a new site doing basically the same thing:
https://www.predictit.org/Browse/Group/53/President

[DMX7]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CRPyiG5VEAAgsAM.jpg:large

:lol smh


What the hell does that second tweet even mean?

[pgardn]

What the hell does that second tweet even mean?

Thats the reverend Huckster so he is saying we in the US don't really have a problem with skin color. We have a problem with people just plain being naughty, sin.

The sin and skin played off against each other in such a clever evangelical way. Huckster has not met m>s,
Infinitely Limited, etc..

[baseline bum]

I don't know how anyone could watch Clinton's old tired ass. She's the worst Dem since Gore.

[baseline bum]

Neocon Shillary is such a terrible candidate... if the GOP doesn't win against this bunch....

Look how bad a candidate 2012 Obama was though, and does the GOP have a candidate with as much appeal as Romney? That fucking twat is probably going to get elected, this field is truly horrible on both sides.

[SnakeBoy]

A bunch of old white people running to lead the "party of diversity"...

They elected their token. You didn't think they were going to do it again did ya.

[Jacob1983]

Sanders was a wimp in the debate. He basically licked Hillary's ass in the debate. He would bankrupt America with his free shit programs. O'Malley would be bankrupt America with solar and wind energy to fight evil climate change. Republicans would bankrupt America with more nation building. Oops, the Democrats would do that too. None of the dummies on stage talked about how Obama bombed a doctors without borders hospital in Afghanistan. This debate was a joke.

[rasuo214]

They elected their token. You didn't think they were going to do it again did ya.

Waiting for the token Mexican/Latino, then the openly LGBT candidate (or whatever they're called) candidate etc. Anything to milk gender, race and sexuality to election victories. Surprised they just went all in with Hillary.

[Blizzardwizard]

Sanders was a wimp in the debate. He basically licked Hillary's ass in the debate. He would bankrupt America with his free shit programs. .

They'd hardly be 'free shit' programs if they're being paid by an increase in tax dollars.

[Clipper Nation]

Sanders was a wimp in the debate. He basically licked Hillary's ass in the debate. He would bankrupt America with his free shit programs. O'Malley would be bankrupt America with solar and wind energy to fight evil climate change. Republicans would bankrupt America with more nation building. Oops, the Democrats would do that too. None of the dummies on stage talked about how Obama bombed a doctors without borders hospital in Afghanistan. This debate was a joke.
Actually, Chaffee brought up the hospital thing. It was ignored and quickly swept under the rug.

[rasuo214]

They'd hardly be 'free shit' programs if they're being paid by an increase in tax dollars.

Right, yet that is how it is advertised.

On Bernie's website:

"It’s Time to Make College Tuition Free and Debt Free"

I was interested in seeing if Bernie even offered a budget but all I saw was a bunch of tax proposals that would be lucky to cover the current deficit let alone fund all of his additional programs.

[ElNono]

Right, yet that is how it is advertised.

On Bernie's website:

"It’s Time to Make College Tuition Free and Debt Free"

I was interested in seeing if Bernie even offered a budget but all I saw was a bunch of tax proposals that would be lucky to cover the current deficit let alone fund all of his additional programs.

The proposal is charging 50c on every $100 worth of stock trades:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-18/bernie-sanders-wants-to-tax-stock-trades-to-pay-for-free-college

[rasuo214]

The proposal is charging 50c on every $100 worth of stock trades:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-18/bernie-sanders-wants-to-tax-stock-trades-to-pay-for-free-college

Does he have a full budget? I checked his senate page but only saw a bunch of tax/fee proposals. Does he plan on balancing the budget? If so, how? Stuff like that is very important.

According to the WSJ his new proposals would increase spending by $18 trillion over 10 years and his taxes/fees only bring in $6.5 trillion I just don't see how that is sustainable at all when current spending can't even be funded. You can only tax the rich so much before they're no longer rich.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511

[boutons_deux]

"the WSJ his new proposals would increase spending by $18 trillion over 10 years"

... 18 has been debunked by many sources. WSJ is political toilet paper,

[boutons_deux]

the question "do you think a democratic socialist can win the Presidency" was stupid, was a "personality" question, but that's how Americans vote, superficially, emotionally.

the question should have been, and will never be, "do you think your programs and policies can win the Presidency". (classic) socialism isn't in the picture.

Hillary's oppo shit "Sanders voted against the Brady bill 5 times" should have been answer "I get a D- grade from the NRA"

[hater]

I don't know how anyone could watch Clinton's old tired ass. She's the worst Dem since Gore.

[DMX7]

Huckster has not met m>s,
Infinitely Limited, etc..

:lol

[boutons_deux]

In Serious Gaffe, Sanders Treats Opponent with Dignity and Respect

LAS VEGAS — In a major slip that may prove fatal to his Presidential ambitions, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont treated his principal opponent for the Democratic nomination with dignity and respect on Tuesday night.

Calling it a gaffe of historic proportions, many political insiders were still scratching their heads Wednesday morning over Sanders’s bizarre decision to act toward his opponent as if she were a fellow human being.

“I chalk it up to pressure,” the political strategist Harland Dorrinson said. “Sanders has never been on such a big stage before, and in the heat of the moment he cracked and behaved with nobility.”

“It was one of those moments where everyone in politics was like, ‘What was he thinking?’ ” Dorrinson added.

Carol Foyler, a veteran political operative, said that Sanders has one more debate, “at the most,” to prove that his respect gaffe was just that—a regrettable but forgivable slip of the tongue, not to be repeated.

“Bernie Sanders’s behavior towards Hillary Clinton Tuesday night has raised some grave questions about him in voters’ minds,” Foyler said. “If he treats people with decency and civility now, what kind of President would he be?”

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/in-serious-gaffe-sanders-treats-opponent-with-dignity-and-respect?mbid=nl_101415_Borowitz&CNDID=&spMailingID=8154993&spUserID=MjczNzc0Njk0NDAS1&spJobID=781936678&spReportId=NzgxOTM2Njc4S0

[hater]

Saw that clip. Holy shit Hillarys laugh is so fake and forced.

I fucking hate that bictb :lol

[DarrinS]

In Serious Gaffe, Sanders Treats Opponent with Dignity and Respect

LAS VEGAS — In a major slip that may prove fatal to his Presidential ambitions, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont treated his principal opponent for the Democratic nomination with dignity and respect on Tuesday night.

Calling it a gaffe of historic proportions, many political insiders were still scratching their heads Wednesday morning over Sanders’s bizarre decision to act toward his opponent as if she were a fellow human being.

“I chalk it up to pressure,” the political strategist Harland Dorrinson said. “Sanders has never been on such a big stage before, and in the heat of the moment he cracked and behaved with nobility.”

“It was one of those moments where everyone in politics was like, ‘What was he thinking?’ ” Dorrinson added.

Carol Foyler, a veteran political operative, said that Sanders has one more debate, “at the most,” to prove that his respect gaffe was just that—a regrettable but forgivable slip of the tongue, not to be repeated.

“Bernie Sanders’s behavior towards Hillary Clinton Tuesday night has raised some grave questions about him in voters’ minds,” Foyler said. “If he treats people with decency and civility now, what kind of President would he be?”

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/in-serious-gaffe-sanders-treats-opponent-with-dignity-and-respect?mbid=nl_101415_Borowitz&CNDID=&spMailingID=8154993&spUserID=MjczNzc0Njk0NDAS1&spJobID=781936678&spReportId=NzgxOTM2Njc4S0


Why is your source link so tiny? Lol, Borowitz :lol

[boutons_deux]

Christian Taliban/American Supremacist/asshole tweet during the debate

I trust bernieSanders with my tax dollars like I trust a North Korean chef with my labrador! #DemDebate

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/14/mike-huckabee-manages-nights-big-loser-racist-tweet.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

[DarrinS]

Christian Taliban/American Supremacist/asshole tweet during the debate

I trust bernieSanders with my tax dollars like I trust a North Korean chef with my labrador! #DemDebate

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/14/mike-huckabee-manages-nights-big-loser-racist-tweet.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29



Old. Besides, I don't know what's so racial about it. Some Koreans do eat dogs.

[Infinite_limit]

Cringe Worthy Moment

Black lives matter question. Not until the 3rd candidate spoke (Webb) did he proclaim ALL LIVES MATTER


Look, Dems are the lesser of two evils when it comes to American foreign policy but domestically their values are cuckold. Liberal Euros dont even pander to ethnics this bad

[Spurminator]

The obvious plan was to bait responses about racism so he could play the Victim-of-Liberal-PC card. He needs the attention.

[boutons_deux]

Old. Besides, I don't know what's so racial about it. Some Koreans do eat dogs.

sure, Huck is your guy, so he gets a pass. Poor people eat what they can get, dogs, rats, racoons, squirrels, possums, horses. I suppose you trust the Christian Taliban like Huck with your tax dollars?

[DarrinS]

sure, Huck is your guy, so he gets a pass. Poor people eat what they can get, dogs, rats, racoons, squirrels, possums, horses. I suppose you trust the Christian Taliban like Huck with your tax dollars?


I don't like Huckabee, but his joke isn't the least bit racist.

[Infinite_limit]

sure, Huck is your guy, so he gets a pass. Poor people eat what they can get, dogs, rats, racoons, squirrels, possums, horses. I suppose you trust the Christian Taliban like Huck with your tax dollars?
Actually refugees in Dutch camps are complaining the food is boring and possibly not halal.

[boutons_deux]

DC insiders think Bernie Sanders lost the debate. Here's why they might be wrong.

1) After the first Republican debate in August, Marco Rubio was (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-07/why-marco-rubio-may-have-won-the-first-republican-debate) generally (http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/07/no-contest-why-rubio-is-clear-winner-of-debate.html) acclaimed (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/marco-rubio-won-the-main-debate-but-carly-fiorina-won-both/article/2569762) as (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/08/07/marco-rubio-and-carly-fiorina-win-the-republican-debate/)the (http://www.forbes.com/sites/jerryweissman/2015/08/10/republican-debate-marco-rubio-wins-with-7-for-7/) winner (http://www.vox.com/2015/8/7/9115737/won-debate-republican-who). Practically no one in the media thought Ben Carson had won, because his performance seemed so stylistically unimpressive. Yet it was Carson who suddenly surged in the polls, up to second place, where he currently remains (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary). DC insiders totally missed it.

2) Big majorities of post-debate focus groups conducted by CNN (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/10/13/majority_of_cnn_focus_group_think_sanders_won_firs t_debate.html), Fox News (http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/13/frank-luntz-focus-group-says-bernie-sanders-was-big-winner-democratic-debate), and Fusion (http://fusion.net/story/214234/bernie-sanders-wins-democratic-debate-focus-group/)all judged Bernie Sanders to be the winner. Now, focus groups are hardly scientific — the Fox News one after the first GOP debate thought Donald Trump had collapsed (http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/06/luntz-focus-group-overwhelmingly-turned-trump-gop-debate), yet he actually went up in the polls afterward. Still, it's interesting that all three came to the same conclusion.

3) Sanders has risen to second place in primary polls by repeating a few basic themes: He wants to challenge the power of the wealthy, to take on Wall Street and corporations, and to make America more like the social democratic Nordic countries. He hit those themes hard, and clearly, throughout the debate — in political parlance, he was "on message."

4) Political commentators like me have been covering Sanders for months (http://www.vox.com/2014/10/14/6839305/bernie-sanders-running-for-president-2016), and his message is old hat to us at this point. So we give him no credit for repeating those basic themes that have made him so popular on the left, and focus instead on moments where something "new" happens, like his awkward handling of the gun issue (http://www.vox.com/2015/10/14/9528871/debate-bernie-sanders-guns).

5) But many voters haven't been following the race so closely. Beforehand, a third of Democrats said they didn't yet know enough (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/poll-hillary-clinton-still-leads-democratic-race/) about Sanders to have an opinion on him. Even many of those who did know about him likely hadn't been exposed to him all that much. So when Sanders makes the case (http://www.vox.com/2015/10/14/9528873/bernie-sander-hillary-clinton-socialist-debate) at length for why he's a democratic socialist, many of these voters might not have heard that before — and might like it.

6) One of Sanders's most important moments in the debate — his defense of Clinton (http://www.vox.com/2015/10/13/9528383/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-emails-democratic-debate)and criticism of the media over the email issue — was generally scored by pundits as a victory for Clinton. My colleague Ezra Klein, for instance, suggested (https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/654136261981114368) it showed Sanders didn't have the instinct for the jugular that will be necessary to take down the frontrunner.

7) But to Democratic voters, it could also speak to Sanders's character, and mark him as a different kind of politician, who's not interested in negative campaigning. Indeed, Fox News's focus group wildly praised (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/14/1432069/-BERNIE-is-the-big-debate-winner-according-to-Focus-Groups#) Sanders for this — it was their favorite moment in the entire debate.

8) Sanders won the most new Facebook followers, according to data from Crowdtangle (http://crowdtangle.com/). He added more than 35,000, increasing his following by 2 percent, to 1.69 million. Clinton added about 18,000, increasing her following by 1 percent, to 1.54 million.

9) Sanders also dominated in Google search traffic of the candidates who were onstage. Political scientist John Sides wisely cautions (https://twitter.com/monkeycageblog/status/654278697365733377) that we have no idea why people were searching for Sanders, and what they might have thought of the results. Still, one of the biggest challenges for a non-frontrunner is to capture the interest of the public — and Sanders clearly did that.

http://www.google.com/trends/explore?hl=en-US#q=bernie+sanders,+hillary+clinton,+jim+webb,+ma rtin+omalley,+lincoln+chafee&date=now+1-d&cmpt=q&tz=Etc/GMT%2B4&tz=Etc/GMT%2B4

10) Overall, we won't know how or whether the debate moved the polls for some time. But over fifteen million people watched it (https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/654335949049098241) — enough to make it easily the most-watched Democratic debate in history. And it's worth remembering that those millions of people might be impressed by very different things than DC insiders.

?http://www.vox.com/2015/10/14/9530603/bernie-sanders-debate

[Infinite_limit]

Based on Last Night

1) Bernie
2) Hillary

3) O'Malley
4) Webb

5) Whoever that stump was

[boutons_deux]

biggest win for Bernie was the exposure, side by side with HRC.

[boutons_deux]

Bernie Won All the Focus Groups & Online Polls - So Why Is the Media Saying Hillary Won the Debate?

What the public wants out of a candidate and what the beltway press does appear to be two entirely different things.

Bernie Sanders by all objective measures won the debate. Hands down. I don’t say this as a personal analysis of the debate - the very idea of “winning” a debate is silly to me. I say this because based on the only objective metrics we have, online polls and focus groups, he did win. And it’s not even close.

Sanders won the CNN focus group, (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/10/14/cnn-focus-group-bernie-sanders-won-democratic-debate.html)

the Fusion focus group (http://fusion.net/story/214234/bernie-sanders-wins-democratic-debate-focus-group/), and

the Fox News focus group (http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/10/13/frank-luntz-focus-group-says-bernie-sanders-was-big-winner-democratic-debate) - in the latter, he even converted several Hillary supporters.

He won

the Slate online poll (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/democratic_debate_who_won_vote_in_our_poll.html),

the CNN/Time online poll (http://time.com/4071956/democratic-debate-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll-who-won/),

9News Colorado (http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/politics/2015/10/13/democratic-presidential-debate-poll-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton/73893908/),

The Street online poll (http://www.thestreet.com/story/13322968/1/poll-who-won-the-democratic-debate-who-will-win-the-nomination.html),

Fox5 poll, (http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/10/13/poll-who-won-the-cnn-democratic-debate/)

the conservative Drudge online poll (http://www.drudgereport.com/now.htm) and

the liberal Daily Kos online poll (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/14/1432016/-Poll-Who-won-the-debate).

There wasn’t, to this writer's knowledge, a poll he didn’t win by at least an 18 point margin.

http://www.alternet.org/media/bernie-won-all-focus-groups-online-polls-so-why-media-saying-hillary-won-debate?akid=13575.187590.19Pkhy&rd=1&src=newsletter1044066&t=2

[spurraider21]

"the WSJ his new proposals would increase spending by $18 trillion over 10 years"

... 18 has been debunked by many sources. WSJ is political toilet paper,
LOL it hasn't been debunked. You posted a shittt article that attempted to do so but failed miserably

[boutons_deux]

LOL it hasn't been debunked. You posted a shittt article that attempted to do so but failed miserably

it's been debunked

[spurraider21]

it's been debunked
You Lie.

[Ignignokt]

Already better than listening to Cuckald Dump, Christie Christina, Jeb B:lolsh, Ted Cruz, Dr. Ben Coonson :tu

nice try cucky. but we all know your party preps the bull 24/7.

[DMX7]

Based on Last Night

1) Bernie
2) Hillary

3) O'Malley
4) Webb

5) Whoever that stump was

I doubt he'll (#5) even be invited back.

[TheGreatYacht]

nice try cucky. but we all know your party preps the bull 24/7.
My party saved the economy, while yours is too busy pandering to dull WWE fans....

:cry every verse on the bible is my favorite :cry

[Infinite_limit]

I liked O'Malley and Webb best, but they have no chance. Bernie says shit that makes the left moist, but his dream of turning America into Denmark or Sweden or (insert any uber white Euro socialist country here) is unhinged from reality.
As someone that voted Dem twice, I also liked Webb. Switched to Fox News post debate to see their reaction and they had that thinking tank segment: Room full of Democrats and they voice their thoughts. They basically agreed that Webb shouldn't be invited back. LOL, he was the only one that even mentioned White people/culture and picked up the Democratic Party fumble on the question of BlackLivesMatter


My reaction to Bernie
Tax the rich & give to the Middle Class - Okay okay, I'm listening
Bend over to the Poor - You are diluting your message
Suck off the Blacks - Go away bernie



I guarantee that Hillary will defeat Bernie. Sanders will carry the most vocal [Liberal] voices but Hillary was the most centered candidate on stage last night [beyond Webb who was ignored]. People will ultimately reference Bill being involved in some parameter & her experience in high positions of Power. Meanwhile Bernie will crumble under his cuckolding of any/everything Non-White.

[Infinite_limit]

I doubt he'll (#5) even be invited back.
I dunno, Liberals didn't seem too keen on Webb. He was even blatantly ignored by the CNN Panel.

[Dancelot]

My party saved the economy, while yours is too busy pandering to dull WWE fans....

:cry every verse on the bible is my favorite :cry

:lol

[boutons_deux]

Texas Republican’s idiotic tweet: Jewish Bernie Sanders is a democratic socialist – just like the Nazis

State Rep. Jason Villalba said it was “ridiculous” to say he compared the Democratic party to the fascist dictator party responsible for the 20th century’s most well-known massacre of Jewish people.

“That awkward moment when… 1. Bernie Sanders admits he’s a democratic socialist 2. Nazis were democratic socialists 3. America fought an entire world war to stop the advance of democratic socialists. Sincerely, sane Americans.”

Under it, Villalba wrote, “The modern Democrat Party is filled with Democratic Socialists and soft socialists. Is this where we are in America?”

Villalba admitted that the Nazis were in fact “national socialists,” not democratic socialists.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/10/texas-republicans-idiotic-tweet-jewish-bernie-sanders-is-a-democratic-socialist-just-like-the-nazis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story% 29

[TheSanityAnnex]

CNN’s Double-Standards on Debates

For decades, mainstream U.S. news outlets have bent over backwards to appease conservatives and avoid the stigma “liberal media,” but there has been no similar accommodation for progressives, as Jeff Cohen notes about CNN’s handling of the upcoming Democratic debate.

By Jeff Cohen

At the CNN-sponsored Republican Party debate last month at the Reagan presidential library, one of the three panelists CNN selected to question the candidates was conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, affiliated with the proudly right-wing Salem Radio Network. But at Tuesday’s upcoming Democratic Party debate, CNN is not planning to include a single progressive advocate among its panel of four questioners.

It’s clear that who gets to pose questions has impact on the tenor of the debate. For example, Hewitt used September’s Republican debate to declare that President Obama’s “knees buckled” over Syria and that every Republican candidate was “more qualified than” Hillary Clinton.

Hewitt pressed Jeb Bush from the right over his comment about making sure guns are not in the hands of the mentally ill:

“Where does it go from what you said last week, how far into people’s lives to take guns away from them?”

Along with Hewitt, the panel at CNN’s GOP debate was composed of two journalists CNN presents as neutral or objective: CNN anchor Jake Tapper and CNN correspondent Dana Bash. (Hewitt’s appearance was reportedly part of an agreement (http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/24/salem-cnn-team-up-for-three-gop-primary-debates/) by which CNN and the right-wing Salem Media company are teaming up on three GOP presidential debates.)

At CNN’s upcoming Democratic debate, the panel is to be composed of four journalists CNN presents as neutral: CNN’s Bash and three CNN anchors (Anderson Cooper, Don Lemon, and Juan Carlos Lopez of CNN en Espanol.) Glaringly missing from this proposed lineup is an unabashed progressive advocate.

There are many qualified journalists for this seat — from respected progressive media institutions that haven’t taken sides in the Democratic primaries (like The Nation or Mother Jones, to name just two).

Today, the online activism group RootsAction.org (which I cofounded) launched a one-sentence petition to CNN: (http://act.rootsaction.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=11689) “For the sake of basic fairness and balance, you should add to your panel an unapologetic progressive for Tuesday’s debate.”

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/10/09/cnns-double-standards-on-debates/





Double Standard for sure, and Anderson Cooper admits it. CNN is a joke, both debates should have been run the same.



Before the Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library Sept. 16, CNN promised to stage what it called "actual debating."

"Is one of the goals for you … to spur more actual debating?" CNN's Brian Stelter asked debate moderator Jake Tapper a few days before the event. Stelter pointed to a moment in the August Fox News debate in which two candidates, Chris Christie and Rand Paul, had an extended and heated — and illuminating — exchange with each other.*

"That was my favorite moment from the debate," Tapper said. "Let's have as many of those as possible. So, yes, what the team and I have been doing is trying to craft questions that, in most cases, pit candidates against the other, specific candidates on the stage, on issues where they disagree, whether it's policy or politics or leadership. Let's actually have them discuss and debate."


That was then. Now, another CNN anchor, Anderson Cooper, will be moderating a debate, this time among Democrats, and he says there will be none of that raucous "actual debating" this time around.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2573943

[boutons_deux]

the CNN Repug debate was a joke, silliness, adolescent, unserious bullshit from assholes who don't GAF about govt or governing.

the CNN Dem debate was serious people being serious.

[Infinite_limit]

> Democrats Foreign Policy

> Republicans Domestic Policy

[DMX7]

I dunno, Liberals didn't seem too keen on Webb. He was even blatantly ignored by the CNN Panel.

He may not be back either. I love how he used so much of his time to complain about not getting enough time to speak.

[DarrinS]

What's with Hillary's constant "I won't take a back seat..."? Seems to me that CNN put her in the driver's seat.

[DMX7]

What's with Hillary's constant "I won't take a back seat..."? Seems to me that CNN put her in the driver's seat.

It's racist if you ask me, but I'm going to take the high road in the spirit of Donald Trump. Not gonna be overly PC.

[TheSanityAnnex]

the CNN Repug debate was a joke, silliness, adolescent, unserious bullshit from assholes who don't GAF about govt or governing.

the CNN Dem debate was serious people being serious.

Did the fact that CNN set it up to be like that just go completely over your head?

[boutons_deux]

Cooper red-baited Bernie Sanders with deceptive Soviet honeymoon claim (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/14/1432075/-Cooper-red-baited-Bernie-Sanders-with-dumb-Soviet-honeymoon-claim)

In his follow-up question to Bernie Sanders Tuesday night after the candidate had explained what he views as democratic socialism, CNN's Anderson Cooper returned to the matter of electability and noted, "You honeymooned in the Soviet Union."This despicable red-baiting (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Red-baiting) was a means of suggesting that Sanders is a commie without actually saying the word. Here's a guy, the implication runs, who's a secret Bolshevik, so in love with America's arch-enemy that he took his new bride to the U.S.S.R. instead of Niagara Falls or the Bahamas for their honeymoon.
A rancid attempt to gin up outrage and do Republican dirty work for them.

The honeymoon story began at Breitbart in late May, then moved on to other right-wing venues, finally getting play in George Will's Aug. 7 column in The Washington Post.

Most of his column was devoted to praise for ex-communist Robert Conquest, who had written about the prisons and other atrocities of the Stalin era and had just died at age 98. Will concluded (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-man-who-helped-kill-the-soviet-union-with-information/2015/08/07/41f08d54-3d3b-11e5-b3ac-8a79bc44e5e2_story.html):


"Conquest lived to see a current U.S. presidential candidate, a senator, who had chosen, surely as an ideological gesture, to spend his honeymoon in the Soviet Union in 1988. Gulags still functioned, probably including some of the ‘cold Auschwitzes’ in Siberia, described in Conquest’s ‘Kolyma.’ The honeymooner did not mind that in 1988 political prisoners were—as may still be the case—being tortured in psychiatric ‘hospitals.’ Thanks to the unblinking honesty of people like Conquest, the Soviet Union now is such a receding memory that Bernie Sanders’s moral obtuseness—the obverse of Conquest’s character—is considered an amusing eccentricity."

Will, of course, is a decidedly unamusing eccentricity. His "surely as an ideological gesture" implied—given the context of the rest of the column—that Sanders is a sneaky supporter of gulags and politically motivated famines and other stalinist depredations. In fact, Sanders' trip to the Soviet Union was official duty as mayor of Burlington, Vermont.You can read the more below the fold.

In 1956, President Eisenhower launched the program that a decade later would be called Sister Cities International, a program still in existence today. The idea was to promote peace and understanding through connections between cities in the United States and, at first, Western Europe. The program soon spread. In 1973, Seattle became a sister city of Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, then under Soviet rule. Other U.S.-Soviet sister cities soon followed despite the tensions of the Cold War.

In 1988, Burlington sistered with Yaroslavl, a city 160 miles north of Moscow. That was the same year Sanders married his second wife, Jane. In fact, the day after they married, they headed out to Yaroslavl. So, one could call it a honeymoon, and the pair have both done so, but jokingly or sarcastically.

The reason for that is that they didn't go alone. There were 10 other people from Burlington who went with them. It was a trip dotted with diplomacy, official meetings and numerous interviews. Not most people's idea of a honeymoon getaway.

As the Tampa Bay Times Pundit Fact feature reported (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/aug/12/george-will/george-will-reminds-readers-about-bernie-sanders-u/):


In a 2007 interview, Jane Sanders also recalled the peculiar timing: "The day after we got married, we marched in a Memorial Day parade, and then we took off in a plane to start the sister city project with Yaroslavl with 10 other people on my honeymoon."[...]Will made it sound as if Sanders was visiting to condone Soviet torture practices, but the Burlington trip was more of a dialogue-building exchange program. The Vermont weekly newspaper Seven Days reported in 2009 that the sister-city relationship "helped local residents who sought to ease tensions between the United States and Soviet Union by initiating citizen-to-citizen exchanges with a Russian city." [...]

Participation in the Burlington-Yaroslavl program has waned over the years, though it was viewed as a "glamorous endeavor" by many in Burlington at the time, program leader Howard Seaver said in 2009.


George Will is a hopeless case of arrested political development, stuck unbudgingly in a past era. But why did Anderson Cooper slip this sneak attack with its bogus implications into the early minutes of the first Democratic debate? Sloppy research? A bogus attempt to prove journalistic toughmindedness? Or malice aforethought?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/14/1432075/-Cooper-red-baited-Bernie-Sanders-with-dumb-Soviet-honeymoon-claim?detail=email

That's some really nasty slimy shit, AC.

[Infinite_limit]

Lol. Who are you voting for Bouton

[rasuo214]

"the WSJ his new proposals would increase spending by $18 trillion over 10 years"

... 18 has been debunked by many sources. WSJ is political toilet paper,

Do you want to link to those many sources?

[rasuo214]

> Democrats Foreign Policy

> Republicans Domestic Policy

Webb was the only decent one on the issues, too bad he spent most of the debate bitching about his speaking time and the rest stumbling over what he was saying. Still not as bad as Chafee.

[ElNono]

Does he have a full budget? I checked his senate page but only saw a bunch of tax/fee proposals. Does he plan on balancing the budget? If so, how? Stuff like that is very important.

According to the WSJ his new proposals would increase spending by $18 trillion over 10 years and his taxes/fees only bring in $6.5 trillion I just don't see how that is sustainable at all when current spending can't even be funded. You can only tax the rich so much before they're no longer rich.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511

No idea, tbh... I was just passing along what I heard. Difficult to take any "plan" seriously with the current Congress makeup, tbh

[MultiTroll]

Why are CNN and even Faux reporting Shillary won/maintained lead in the Demo debate?

I thought she was canned and phony sounding. Not Slick Willyette at all.

[Infinite_limit]

Why are CNN and even Faux reporting Shillary won/maintained lead in the Demo debate?

I thought she was canned and phony sounding. Not Slick Willyette at all.
Meh. She probably Won if you assume 'Email Questions' are now off the table.

[MultiTroll]

Meh. She probably Won if you assume 'Email Questions' are now off the table.
Even her competition Bernie said the US public is sick and tired of Repug witch hunt bullshit.
Farks sake grill (continually Ben Gazi! - email style) The Donald about his casino loans and then claiming *bankruptcy* to weasel out of it.

The Repugs are the faggot party whom after 8 years of a blanced budget and good economy tried to run Slick Willy on a farking blow job charge.
Losers!

[rasuo214]

Why are CNN and even Faux reporting Shillary won/maintained lead in the Demo debate?

I thought she was canned and phony sounding. Not Slick Willyette at all.

Bernie was shouting and then criticized others for raising their voices. Also conceded on Hillary's emails. Improved towards the end.
Chafee was a disaster
Webb spent a bunch of time complaining about speaking time.
O'Malley was meh.
Hillary may be phony/canned but that's how she has always been. She had some good zingers and even though she was the one getting attacked the most didn't really suffer any serious damage. I didn't like that she kept bringing up her gender.


I'm not a Dem and I'm not rooting for any of them so that was just my perspective. Personally I liked Webb the most because I agreed with a lot of what he said. Bernie is good at identifying problems but imo his solutions are atrocious. Hillary and O'Malley are bland. I felt bad for Chafee, he didn't belong on that stage.

[rasuo214]

No idea, tbh... I was just passing along what I heard. Difficult to take any "plan" seriously with the current Congress makeup, tbh

I still good to see a solid blueprint/vision. It's easy to make promises. Also I don't think the Congress is as bad as it seems, I just don't think Obama does a good enough job of working with them. Bill mentioned the same thing and he had to deal with a contentious Congress as well. You can't expect to get everything you want when the opposition is in charge and then complain when it doesn't happen. There is a lot of common ground that they can work on but instead they save all of it as leverage (both sides are doing this right now).

[boutons_deux]

I thought she was canned and phony sounding

she doesn't have a authentic bone in her body, without a single principle, totally scripted and fake. Even worse, she's in Wall St pocket and she's a neocon warrior.

that said, she's tons better than ANY Repug.

[Blizzardwizard]

Sanders didn't do a good enough job prying Hillary.

:lol people who think Hillary is a 'genuine people person that cares about my family :cry', one of the most programmed robotic out of touch with reality candidates I've seen, and I watched the GOP debate in full.

[boutons_deux]

Hilarious when Hillary said the rich people were gonna be made to pay for <something>.

Like every conventional politician she's owned by BigFinance, which has made her and hubby quite wealthy.

[boutons_deux]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AciwXaRfh3k

[boutons_deux]

Strong Debate Ratings Make CNN Consider Introducing Substance into Programming

NEW YORK — The strong ratings for Tuesday’s Democratic Presidential debate have surprised CNN executives, who are now tentatively considering introducing substance into their programming.

The president of CNN, Jeff Zucker, acknowledged that he was “baffled” by the high ratings for the debate, which focussed on the issues and featured few if any personal attacks.

“I was watching them talk about issue after issue, and I was like, ‘This show is gonna tank,’ ” Zucker said. “Substance is usually ratings poison.”

After reviewing the numbers for the debate, however, Zucker decided to launch a pilot program at CNN called Project Substance, which will introduce information and “substance-based content” into the network’s programming, on a limited basis.

“Just to be clear, we’re not suddenly going to flood our programming with substance,” Zucker said. “We know that would be jarring for our viewers.”

By implementing a “dash of substance here and there,” the network will be able to gauge whether viewers’ interest in substance is for real, “or just a passing fad,” Zucker said.

“If, at the end of the day, viewers aren’t interested in serious news, we’ll just go back to what we’ve been doing,” he said.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/strong-debate-ratings-make-cnn-consider-introducing-substance-into-programming?mbid=nl_101515_Borowitz_Report&CNDID=&spMailingID=8159505&spUserID=MjczNzc0Njk0NDAS1&spJobID=782067260&spReportId=NzgyMDY3MjYwS0

[boutons_deux]

Hillary Clinton's Take on Banks Won't Hold Up

The Democratic frontrunner seems to be counting on America's ignorance about the 2008 crash

One of the most revealing exchanges in the Clinton-Sanders tilt involved the question of Wall Street corruption. Sanders has always been a passionate crusader against Wall Street perfidy, but Hillary's take on the subject was fascinating.

Asked about it Tuesday night, she gave an answer that to me sums up her candidacy and the conundrum of the modern Democratic Party in general. She seemed to hit a lot of correct notes, while at the same time over-thinking and over-nuancing a question where a few simple unequivocal answers would probably have won everyone over.

The key exchange began with a question from CNN's Anderson Cooper:

"Just for viewers at home who may not be reading up on this, Glass-Steagall is the Depression-era banking law repealed in 1999 that prevented commercial banks from engaging in investment banking and insurance activities. Secretary Clinton, he raises a fundamental difference on this stage. Sen. Sanders wants to break up the big Wall Street banks. You don't. You say charge the banks more, continue to monitor them. Why is your plan better?"

Backing up: When Bill Clinton took office, it was still illegal in the United States for commercial banks to merge with investment banks and insurance companies. But toward the end of Clinton's second term, he signed a bill called the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that essentially created Too Big to Fail "supermarket" banks like Citigroup.

This isn't the only reason the financial system is so dangerous now. There's also the matter of the extreme interconnectedness of the financial services industry. This problem came violently into play in 2008, when the failure of a single idiot investment bank, Lehman Brothers, caused a chain reaction that nearly blew up the whole financial system.

This latter problem was partially a consequence of another Clinton-era law, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated derivatives like swaps that were the agent of many of those chain-reaction losses.

So Cooper's question to Hillary Clinton was really about a financial system that became dangerously over-concentrated thanks to multiple laws passed during her husband's administration. Her answer:

"Well, my plan is more comprehensive. And, frankly, it's tougher because of course we have to deal with the problem that the banks are still too big to fail. We can never let the American taxpayer and middle-class families ever have to bail out the kind of speculative behavior that we saw. But we also have to worry about some of the other players: AIG, a big insurance company; Lehman Brothers, an investment bank. There's this whole area called 'shadow banking.' That's where the experts tell me the next potential problem could come from."

A few observations:

First, it's definitive now that Hillary has no intention of reinstating Glass-Steagall. Cooper gave her a prime opportunity Tuesday night to announce otherwise, stories have filtered out of her campaign that she has no plans (http://thehill.com/policy/finance/247700-adviser-clinton-wont-push-glass-steagall-bank-bill) along those lines, and she's explicitly stated that she wants to find a "different way (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-08/hillary-clinton-s-plan-to-prevent-the-next-crash)" to reduce risk.

The second and probably more important observation is about Hillary's rhetorical choices.

Hillary, like her close advisor Barney Frank (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/hillary-clinton-barney-frank-wall-street-dodd-214532), has been pushing an idea that banks aren't at the root of any financial instability problem.

Last night, she pointed a finger instead at "shadow banking," non-bank actors like AIG, and a dead investment bank in Lehman Brothers. (Interesting she didn't mention a still-viable investment bank like Goldman, Sachs, which has hosted her (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/hillary-clintons-goldman-sachs-problem) expensive speaking engagements.)

This squeamishness about criticizing banks is laughable to people in the industry. But of course, that's probably the point – that the average voter won't know how absurd and desperate it is to point to faceless "shadow" financiers as villains when the real bad guys are famed mega-firms that are right out in the open, with their names plastered all over every second city block.
Companies like AIG and Lehman Brothers did, of course, shoulder blame for what took place in 2008. But there is no way to untangle what those non-bank actors did without also talking about the banks.

This stuff is all connected, and it's not really that hard.

The root of the 2008 crisis lay in a broad criminal fraud scheme, in which huge masses of home loans were given to people who couldn't afford them. Those loans in turn were bought back up by giant banks and resold to investors who weren't told how crappy the merchandise was.

AIG blew up because it insured this fraudulent market.

Lehman blew up because it overinvested in it.

But it was banks that financed the problem and that were possibly the most depraved actors in the narrative (apart, perhaps, from the Countrywide-style mortgage lenders who were handing loans out to anyone with a pulse).

We know this, among other things, because it was big banks like JPMorgan Chase (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-billion-witness-20141106) and Citigroup (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/citigroup-and-u-s-reach-7-billion-mortgage-settlement/?_r=0) that paid the biggest chunks of the $100 billion in fines Hillary later referenced in the debate. There is a vast record of documentary and witness (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/22/opinion/sunday/was-this-whistle-blower-muzzled.html) evidence now attesting to the mass fraud, which was of a type that can and probably will happen again. The policy issue is how to curb the impact of that inevitable next crooked scheme.

By going out of her way to downplay the influence of bank corruption, Hillary is probably signaling that she doesn't plan on leaning into the reform effort all that much. This is consistent with her history as a politician who has accepted an enormous amount of money (http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/13/investing/hillary-clinton-wall-street/) from Wall Street (both in donations and speaking fees) and has surrounded herself with policy advisors who in many cases bear primary responsibility (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/a-first-person-history-lesson-from-robert-rubin/) for the very messes we're talking about.

It's smart politics, well thought-out. Or is it? The modern Democratic Party seems forever to be looking for nuance, when taking a stand would do just as well. Let gay people be soldiers, don't invade the wrong country, break up dangerous banks. An idea isn't automatically bad just because it's simple.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/hillary-clintons-take-on-banks-wont-hold-up-20151014?page=3

[spurraider21]

No matter what she says, as long as Shillary is a female Democrat, every female who is remotely close to college age will vote for her

[boutons_deux]

No matter what she says, as long as Shillary is a female Democrat, every female who is remotely close to college age will vote for her

probably true, but Repugs lose the female vote wonderfully every election.

[rasuo214]

lol you Bernie supporters talking shit about Hillary will be the first to jump on the Hillary bandwagon when she wins.

[boutons_deux]

Anderson Cooper: Opposing Illegal CIA Wars Is "Unelectable"


A key reason that the US has so many wars is that big US media have a strong pro-war, pro-empire bias. You rarely see big US media badgering a politician for supporting a war that turned out to be a catastrophe. But it's commonplace for big US media to badger politicians for opposing wars, even catastrophic ones.

CNN journalist Anderson Cooper is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

Here's Anderson Cooper, badgering Bernie Sanders (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/politics/democratic-debate-transcript.html) at the first Democratic debate for opposing the CIA's illegal war on Nicaragua in the 1980s:

The question is really about electability here, and that's what I'm trying to get at. You - the - the Republican attack ad against you in a general election - it writes itself. You supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You honeymooned in the Soviet Union. And just this weekend, you said you're not a capitalist. Doesn't - doesn't that ad write itself?


http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/33248-anderson-cooper-opposing-illegal-cia-wars-is-unelectable

amazing, AC is 0.1%, inherited wealth, and pure establishment. On national TV, he's saying blatantly, simply that Bernie is unelectable.

[ducks]

probably true, but Repugs lose the female vote wonderfully every election.
just shows how many air head blonds they are in america

[ElNono]

I still good to see a solid blueprint/vision. It's easy to make promises. Also I don't think the Congress is as bad as it seems, I just don't think Obama does a good enough job of working with them. Bill mentioned the same thing and he had to deal with a contentious Congress as well. You can't expect to get everything you want when the opposition is in charge and then complain when it doesn't happen. There is a lot of common ground that they can work on but instead they save all of it as leverage (both sides are doing this right now).

Have you seen Congress lately? They can't even pick their own leader. The obsession with wedge issues like Barrycare, abortion, etc simply preempts them from getting anything done.

You need leadership to get the ball rolling, and there's none of that in Congress right now. On top of that, none of the frontrunning candidates from either party look presidential or the kind of leader that will dwindle down the polarization.

[boutons_deux]

"I just don't think Obama does a good enough job of working with them"

:lol holy shit. He was so stupidly naive when he came into office that he believed he could work with Repugs. They absolutely refused, even on bills THEY proposed, Obama said he supported the bill, then the proposing Repugs quit supporting their own bills BECAUSE Obama supported it.

[rasuo214]

"I just don't think Obama does a good enough job of working with them"

:lol holy shit. He was so stupidly naive when he came into office that he believed he could work with Repugs. They absolutely refused, even on bills THEY proposed, Obama said he supported the bill, then the proposing Repugs quit supporting their own bills BECAUSE Obama supported it.




So you disagree with Bill Clinton?

[rasuo214]

Have you seen Congress lately? They can't even pick their own leader. The obsession with wedge issues like Barrycare, abortion, etc simply preempts them from getting anything done.

You need leadership to get the ball rolling, and there's none of that in Congress right now. On top of that, none of the frontrunning candidates from either party look presidential or the kind of leader that will dwindle down the polarization.

That's what happens when there is a transition and they're trying to cling onto to their power. People give the Freedom Caucus shit but it's not like they're pushing an extremist to be speaker, he just happens to not be part of the establishment so it's a no-go.

I mean people hate Congress but then bitch at the people who try to change things. Whether it's a good change or a bad change at least it'll be something different.

[DMX7]

I still good to see a solid blueprint/vision. It's easy to make promises. Also I don't think the Congress is as bad as it seems, I just don't think Obama does a good enough job of working with them. Bill mentioned the same thing and he had to deal with a contentious Congress as well. You can't expect to get everything you want when the opposition is in charge and then complain when it doesn't happen. There is a lot of common ground that they can work on but instead they save all of it as leverage (both sides are doing this right now).

You can't be serious. They've tried to repeal Obama care like 50 times now. They're just there for show at this point.

[rasuo214]

You can't be serious. They've tried to repeal Obama care like 50 times now. They're just there for show at this point.

What does that have to do with Obama's willingness or capability of dealing with the current congress? Why is it shocking that one side pushes their agenda when both sides do it? The key is working on the stuff that both sides agree on or are willing to negotiate on and there is plenty of it, build the trust with the opposition so they don't feel like it's a trick/trap etc. and get it done instead of trying to leverage it to push shit that won't happen. A good leader is capable of doing that, Bill Clinton didn't have an easy road but he got things done.

I mean look at how things were handled when Obama had a super majority. If he can't work well with moderate Dems then how in the world is he gonna get shit done with Republicans?

BTW I say this as someone who voted for Obama his first go around. Didn't his second because he was a massive disappointment (no, I didn't vote for Romney).

[boutons_deux]

" both sides agree on or are willing to negotiate on"

Killing ACA, privatizing Medicare and SS, the budget, not raising the debt limit, are not negotiable by either side

[ElNono]

That's what happens when there is a transition and they're trying to cling onto to their power. People give the Freedom Caucus shit but it's not like they're pushing an extremist to be speaker, he just happens to not be part of the establishment so it's a no-go.

I mean people hate Congress but then bitch at the people who try to change things. Whether it's a good change or a bad change at least it'll be something different.

The problem is that they're holding the House hostage with their votes. It's akin to taking the ball home if I don't get what I want. That's not governing. Governing includes sitting down, compromising, being aware that you will not get all you want.

It's even more embarrassing since they're the majority and they can't even get their shit in order. Governing means governing for all your constituents, not just pandering to your base.

People are right to hate Congress, the partisanship and deadlock that followed means nothing gets done. It's ridiculous, these guys appear to work like 6 weeks a year whenever there's some "crisis" they created themselves due to their inaction or to score political points.

[Splits]

That's what happens when there is a transition and they're trying to cling onto to their power. People give the Freedom Caucus shit but it's not like they're pushing an extremist to be speaker, he just happens to not be part of the establishment so it's a no-go.



Name me one "Freedom" Caucus member that is not a batshit crazy extremist.



I mean people hate Congress but then bitch at the people who try to change things. Whether it's a good change or a bad change at least it'll be something different.

This has to be the stupidest thing I've read today. "I cut my dick off. It's a bad change, but at least it is something different!"

[rasuo214]

Name me one "Freedom" Caucus member that is not a batshit crazy extremist.



This has to be the stupidest thing I've read today. "I cut my dick off. It's a bad change, but at least it is something different!"

Justin Amash, Thomas Massie. Also like Sanford before his affair issue, not sure how he's been since being elected in the house. Also the person they're supporting for Speaker is not part of the Freedom Caucus (Daniel Webster). Daniel Webster is probably one of the more moderate members in the House, he had a lower conservative score than McCarthy.


:lol, maybe you need to read more.

[rasuo214]

The problem is that they're holding the House hostage with their votes. It's akin to taking the ball home if I don't get what I want. That's not governing. Governing includes sitting down, compromising, being aware that you will not get all you want.

It's even more embarrassing since they're the majority and they can't even get their shit in order. Governing means governing for all your constituents, not just pandering to your base.

People are right to hate Congress, the partisanship and deadlock that followed means nothing gets done. It's ridiculous, these guys appear to work like 6 weeks a year whenever there's some "crisis" they created themselves due to their inaction or to score political points.

If they were a different party would it even be a complaint? No one blames the Dems for holding the house hostage if they disagree with Republicans or vice versa. This is a taste of what it would be like to have more than 2 parties, it forces the Republican establishment to either work with Dems or work with the Freedom Caucus.

Then again I am biased since I enjoy the deadlock because congress usually passes awful legislation so the less they pass the better for the country imo. I hate the vote with the party BS, I elect my congress person to represent my district, not to represent their party. Stand up for what you believe in. Don't get me wrong though I certainly understand why people are frustrated but I'm a lot more frustrated at shit legislation than them not getting along, I don't give a fuck if they get along.


The crisis shit is all the establishment. They wait until the very end to pressure a vote instead of working on improving legislation or doing something good for the country. The Patriot Act renewal is a good example, McConnell thought if he waited until the last second the opposition would buckle under the pressure and renew it but he was wrong and it backfired for once. They constantly do it with spending issues.

[rasuo214]

" both sides agree on or are willing to negotiate on"

Killing ACA, privatizing Medicare and SS, the budget, not raising the debt limit, are not negotiable by either side

Then that's a problem with both sides because a few of those issues need to be negotiated (notably the budget, which includes Medicare and SS).

[ElNono]

If they were a different party would it even be a complaint? No one blames the Dems for holding the house hostage if they disagree with Republicans or vice versa. This is a taste of what it would be like to have more than 2 parties, it forces the Republican establishment to either work with Dems or work with the Freedom Caucus.

I've called Pelosi awful, terrible and corrupt plenty of times here, tbh. At least the Dems largely kept the infighting to themselves...


Then again I am biased since I enjoy the deadlock because congress usually passes awful legislation so the less they pass the better for the country imo. I hate the vote with the party BS, I elect my congress person to represent my district, not to represent their party. Stand up for what you believe in. Don't get me wrong though I certainly understand why people are frustrated but I'm a lot more frustrated at shit legislation than them not getting along, I don't give a fuck if they get along.

The crisis shit is all the establishment. They wait until the very end to pressure a vote instead of working on improving legislation or doing something good for the country. The Patriot Act renewal is a good example, McConnell thought if he waited until the last second the opposition would buckle under the pressure and renew it but he was wrong and it backfired for once. They constantly do it with spending issues.

I don't understand this "fight" against the "establishment". The "establishment" is the one you lauded in a prior post during the Clinton era... It's ok to reach out, compromise, to give something to the "bad" guys so the "good" guys can get something too. Yeah, it means you have to be more moderate, and that might not be perfect, but what's the non-establishment? The Tea Party? The obsession with abortion, gays, guns and christianity? bunch of old guys looking for a stupid purity test (no personal offense to you if you're a Tea Potty, just my opinion of the group as a whole). It's a pipe dream, demographically they're already on the losing end. Look at that clown Trump taking over because the "pure" ones are unelectable.

tbh, I'll also have to disagree with the rationale that this deadlock is "good" because it prevents Congress from passing awful legislation. IMO, the deadlock actually ensures only awful laws can pass. Instead of a budget we get never-ending CRs, instead of a serious discussion about surveillance, trade bills, etc, we get 11th hour rushed votes (if at all)... I despise the Patriot Act, but it's hard to say McConnell "lost", when it took 3 days to pass legislation basically moving the surveillance from the government to a private company (where the surveillance will go unfettered as usual and the government will likely pay 3x as much to access the same data).

Those are the little infightings that might elicit a fist pump from certain sectors of the party, but it does absolutely nothing for your average citizen.

[rasuo214]

I've called Pelosi awful, terrible and corrupt plenty of times here, tbh. At least the Dems largely kept the infighting to themselves...



I don't understand this "fight" against the "establishment". The "establishment" is the one you lauded in a prior post during the Clinton era... It's ok to reach out, compromise, to give something to the "bad" guys so the "good" guys can get something too. Yeah, it means you have to be more moderate, and that might not be perfect, but what's the non-establishment? The Tea Party? The obsession with abortion, gays, guns and christianity? bunch of old guys looking for a stupid purity test (no personal offense to you if you're a Tea Potty, just my opinion of the group as a whole). It's a pipe dream, demographically they're already on the losing end. Look at that clown Trump taking over because the "pure" ones are unelectable.

tbh, I'll also have to disagree with the rationale that this deadlock is "good" because it prevents Congress from passing awful legislation. IMO, the deadlock actually ensures only awful laws can pass. Instead of a budget we get never-ending CRs, instead of a serious discussion about surveillance, trade bills, etc, we get 11th hour rushed votes (if at all)... I despise the Patriot Act, but it's hard to say McConnell "lost", when it took 3 days to pass legislation basically moving the surveillance from the government to a private company (where the surveillance will go unfettered as usual and the government will likely pay 3x as much to access the same data).

Those are the little infightings that might elicit a fist pump from certain sectors of the party, but it does absolutely nothing for your average citizen.

I was just pointing out the Clinton did a good job of cooperating with people who didn't like him. It really isn't an establishment vs anti-establishment thing for me. There's just good legislation and bad legislation. I just don't see much good coming out of current leadership from either party, but hey if they prove me wrong then great. Clearly the American public is tired of the same ole same ole, that's why we see the rise of the Tea Party a few years back or why candidates like Trump, Carson and Sanders do well. It isn't so much a purity test (there is plenty of that going on) but I think people are fed up with the typical politician. I can't really fault purity tests because ultimately I think everyone has an issue that they aren't really willing to compromise on (maybe not but I know there are some for me), whether it be war, privacy, taxes, healthcare etc. Abortion, gays, guns and Christianity may not be the most important issues for you but they clearly are for some and I doubt that'll change anytime soon.


It was a loss for McConnell because he did not want the Freedom Act, they had a chance to pass the Freedom Act before the Patriot Act expired and McConnell refused so he could try and force a renewal of the Patriot Act. I do agree with you that the Freedom Act isn't much better but it was just a recent example of how leadership loves to use deadlines to force bad legislation through and that's completely bipartisan.

With the budget, they will never have a serious discussion on reform or cuts until leadership changes because they will always wait until the last second and say everything needs to be passed or we get a shutdown and the world burns. Why do those have to be the 2 options? That's part of why I like the Freedom Caucus because they aren't afraid to force the shutdown, yea a shutdown isn't a good option and it isn't smart politically (makes them the extremist bad guys) but it's the only thing they can do to call the bluff until we finally get politicians who are serious about improving this country into leadership roles. I wish there were a group of Dems who would be willing to do the same thing so we don't end up with shit like the Patriot Act or the Iraq war.

Just my opinion though, I know it isn't the most popular.

[boutons_deux]

Bill Maher reveals how Republicans’ ‘heads explode’ every time Bernie Sanders speaks (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TheRawStory/~3/DQB5OWDDfpc/)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx95g_UJ9Mc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx95g_UJ9Mc)

[ElNono]

I was just pointing out the Clinton did a good job of cooperating with people who didn't like him. It really isn't an establishment vs anti-establishment thing for me. There's just good legislation and bad legislation. I just don't see much good coming out of current leadership from either party, but hey if they prove me wrong then great. Clearly the American public is tired of the same ole same ole, that's why we see the rise of the Tea Party a few years back or why candidates like Trump, Carson and Sanders do well. It isn't so much a purity test (there is plenty of that going on) but I think people are fed up with the typical politician. I can't really fault purity tests because ultimately I think everyone has an issue that they aren't really willing to compromise on (maybe not but I know there are some for me), whether it be war, privacy, taxes, healthcare etc. Abortion, gays, guns and Christianity may not be the most important issues for you but they clearly are for some and I doubt that'll change anytime soon.

It was a loss for McConnell because he did not want the Freedom Act, they had a chance to pass the Freedom Act before the Patriot Act expired and McConnell refused so he could try and force a renewal of the Patriot Act. I do agree with you that the Freedom Act isn't much better but it was just a recent example of how leadership loves to use deadlines to force bad legislation through and that's completely bipartisan.

With the budget, they will never have a serious discussion on reform or cuts until leadership changes because they will always wait until the last second and say everything needs to be passed or we get a shutdown and the world burns. Why do those have to be the 2 options? That's part of why I like the Freedom Caucus because they aren't afraid to force the shutdown, yea a shutdown isn't a good option and it isn't smart politically (makes them the extremist bad guys) but it's the only thing they can do to call the bluff until we finally get politicians who are serious about improving this country into leadership roles. I wish there were a group of Dems who would be willing to do the same thing so we don't end up with shit like the Patriot Act or the Iraq war.

Just my opinion though, I know it isn't the most popular.

The only thing Billy did was ride a surging bubble economy, tbh. If the economy would've been in the shitter, there's no way that GOP Congress works with him. That's the same Congress with Newt that went for the shutdown, a completely shortsighted strategy that still hurts the GOP today. Political calculation was always on the table back then, politicos simply didn't have a problem sitting down and cooperating because the economy was rolling (even though it was a bubble). "Compromise" wasn't a forbidden word like it is today. You listen to Cruz, and it absolutely is a purity test. The scorecards from outside groups are a purity test. The Norquist pledge is a purity test. The "squishy" or "RINO" demotions are purity tests. Reagan today would've been labeled a "squishy" and a "RINO", tbh, with his deficit spending and tax hikes... whoever was a relative moderate on the GOP has been largely cast away, and it's a damn shame.

The democrats are not without their problems as far as their candidates (terrible), IMO. But what the GOP is doing to itself is terrible. I'm a big believer in pendulum swings to avoid entrenched power, and I don't get how they're planning to win a presidential election again without going towards the middle at least a bit. I suppose Trump can pull it off, since he can basically be anywhere on the spectrum on any issue at any time, but that's basically the "impure", the dreaded "establishment". Demographically, neither party can really win anymore with their own base, and you know the bases will largely hold their noses and vote for the party anyways... so I don't get the masterplan there.

I didn't grow up in this country, so the blue/red rah rah bullshit is largely of no interest to me. Like I said above, I'm interested in pendulum swings just on the basis of avoiding power-creep, and so I was hoping the GOP wouldn't screw up another prez election, but now I'm not even sure if they will manage. Time will tell, I suppose.

Good talking to you.

[spurraider21]

https://i.imgur.com/kwUIpTJ.jpg

[spurraider21]

The only thing Billy did was ride a surging bubble economy, tbh. If the economy would've been in the shitter, there's no way that GOP Congress works with him. That's the same Congress with Newt that went for the shutdown, a completely shortsighted strategy that still hurts the GOP today. Political calculation was always on the table back then, politicos simply didn't have a problem sitting down and cooperating because the economy was rolling (even though it was a bubble). "Compromise" wasn't a forbidden word like it is today. You listen to Cruz, and it absolutely is a purity test. The scorecards from outside groups are a purity test. The Norquist pledge is a purity test. The "squishy" or "RINO" demotions are purity tests. Reagan today would've been labeled a "squishy" and a "RINO", tbh, with his deficit spending and tax hikes... whoever was a relative moderate on the GOP has been largely cast away, and it's a damn shame.

The democrats are not without their problems as far as their candidates (terrible), IMO. But what the GOP is doing to itself is terrible. I'm a big believer in pendulum swings to avoid entrenched power, and I don't get how they're planning to win a presidential election again without going towards the middle at least a bit. I suppose Trump can pull it off, since he can basically be anywhere on the spectrum on any issue at any time, but that's basically the "impure", the dreaded "establishment". Demographically, neither party can really win anymore with their own base, and you know the bases will largely hold their noses and vote for the party anyways... so I don't get the masterplan there.

I didn't grow up in this country, so the blue/red rah rah bullshit is largely of no interest to me. Like I said above, I'm interested in pendulum swings just on the basis of avoiding power-creep, and so I was hoping the GOP wouldn't screw up another prez election, but now I'm not even sure if they will manage. Time will tell, I suppose.

Good talking to you.
solid read :tu

[Nbadan]

https://i.imgur.com/kwUIpTJ.jpg

Sanders populous strategy gets his supports motivated...but just like the supporters for all GOP candidates...they are a nitch...

[boutons_deux]

Anderson Cooper: Opposing Illegal CIA Wars Is "Unelectable"

A key reason that the US has so many wars is that big US media have a strong pro-war, pro-empire bias. You rarely see big US media badgering a politician for supporting a war that turned out to be a catastrophe. But it's commonplace for big US media to badger politicians for opposing wars, even catastrophic ones.

CNN journalist Anderson Cooper is a perfect example of this phenomenon.

Here's Anderson Cooper, badgering Bernie Sanders (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/politics/democratic-debate-transcript.html) at the first Democratic debate for opposing the CIA's illegal war on Nicaragua in the 1980s:


The question is really about electability here, and that's what I'm trying to get at. You - the - the Republican attack ad against you in a general election - it writes itself. You supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You honeymooned in the Soviet Union. And just this weekend, you said you're not a capitalist. Doesn't - doesn't that ad write itself?


http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/33248-anderson-cooper-opposing-illegal-cia-wars-is-unelectable

amazing, AC is 0.1%, inherited wealth, and pure establishment. On national TV, he's saying blatantly, simply that Bernie is unelectable.



Anderson Cooper Offers No Apology for Slandering Bernie Sanders

http://readersupportednews.org/images/stories/alphabet/rsn-W.jpgho was the richest person in CNN’s Democratic presidential debate?

The richest person in the Democratic presidential candidate debate on October 10 was not a candidate. The richest person on that Las Vegas stage was CNN moderator and Vanderbilt heir Anderson Cooper (http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html), whose $100 million net worth ($100,000,000) is greater than all the candidates’ worth combined (about $84,000,000).

In a very real, if unspoken sense, this “debate” was more like an exclusive club interview with Cooper vetting the applicants for their class credentials.

These class aspects of the debate went unmentioned. In American politics, class issues have traditionally gone unmentioned. The tacit understanding is that if you have the bad taste to ask, then you have no class. If you have class, you will have the right opinions. This year is different because of Bernie Sanders, part of whose popular appeal is that he is so clearly the scion of no great wealth and even less pretension. Sanders is calling for a social revolution against the ruling class of millionaires and billionaires, yet even he did not publicly object to having multi-millionaire Anderson Cooper of the One Per Cent running the show. Sanders likely understands that his best chance to win is not to confront the rich, but to surround them with everyone else whose net worth is more like his ($700,000) or less.

Net worth is notoriously hard to pin down with any accuracy, but ballpark figures are good enough at the highest levels, even if the numbers usually come from the candidates themselves. In a candidates’net worth listing published October 13 (http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/money/2016-presidential-candidates-net-worth-donald-trump-vs-bernie-sanders-and-more), the Democrats were evaluated as follows (with an alternative set of estimates (http://www.bustle.com/articles/116298-ranking-the-5-democratic-candidates-by-net-worth-to-see-whos-swimming-in-money-whos) in parenthesis):



Hillary Clinton: $45 million ($31.2 herself, with Bill $111 million)
Lincoln Chaffee: $32 million ($31.9 million, mostly his wife’s trust)
Jim Webb: $6 million ($4.6 million)
Bernie Sanders: $700,000 ($528,014)
Martin O’Malley: $-0- ($256,000)


By one recent measure, it takes a net worth of $1.2 million, minimum, to make it into the top One Per Cent of richest Americans (http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html) (usually accompanied by pre-tax income of more than $300,000 annually). A US senator’s salary is $192,600, which is amplified significantly by perks and benefits (http://library.clerk.house.gov/reference-files/114_20150106_Salary.pdf).

Cooper’s life of wealth illuminates his gift as a glib carnival barker

Like most debate moderators, Anderson Cooper seemed most interested in promoting a food fight among the candidates. While he had snark for everyone, his most provocative and least conscionable jibes were saved for Sanders, served up with class-based relish.

What does yellow journalism red-baiting sound like? Cooper started with the lurking horror of every unjustifiably rich person:

“Senator Sanders. A Gallup poll says half the country would not put a socialist in the White House. You call yourself a democratic socialist. How can any kind of socialist win (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/politics/democratic-debate-transcript.html?_r=0) a general election in the United States?”

How could such a horror happen in America? That’s the question he seems to be asking. But to ask it that way, Cooper has to be deceitful and spin the Gallup poll to fit his meaning (http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/47-percent-americans-would-vote-socialist-gallup-poll) (Cooper’s spin reflects the conventional coverage of the poll at the time). The real news from the June 2015 poll was that 47% of Americans were OK with electing a “socialist” (not further defined by pollsters).

That 47% is more than past polls, and those opposed to a “socialist” make up only 50%, a difference close to the margin of error. In other words, more than a year from the presidential election, Gallup finds America more or less neutral on the question of whether or not a candidate is “any kind of socialist.” For a Bernie kind of socialist, the simple answer to getting elected is to make the kind of progress in the next year that he’s made in the past six months.

Cooper’s approach uses “socialism” as something that is by definition pejorative and comes out of a deep, common bias in the US. The American ruling class has cultivated fear of “socialism” for close to two centuries, not because it’s a threat to people’s freedom but because it’s a threat to the wealth and power of people like the 158 families (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html) funding most of the 2016 race for the presidency.

Anderson Coopers class roots: Vanderbilt, Dalton, Yale, CIA

Anderson Cooper was not only born into wealth and power, he has lived the life of that class, as even his official CNN bio affirms. After attending New York’s Dalton School, Cooper graduated fromYale College in 1989 (http://www.cnn.com/profiles/anderson-cooper-profile) with a BA in political science and two summer internships at the CIA. He also studied Vietnamese at the University of Hanoi.

Cooper kept his CIA experience in the closet until September 2006, when an unnamed web site reported that Cooper had worked for the CIA. Cooper responded on his CNN blog (http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/anderson.cooper.360/blog/2006/09/my-summer-job-nearly-20-years-ago.html) in minimizing, dismissive fashion. He said the website didn’t have its facts straight, but cited no errors. His own facts are well fudged – “for a couple of months over two summers I worked at the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia…. It was pretty bureaucratic and mundane.” Cooper doesn’t say what he did (of course) or even what years he was there (1987 and 1988, in the aftermath of William J. Casey’s directorship).
Whatever Cooper did at the CIA, he was there when the CIA was running an illegal war in Nicaragua (and another in El Salvador) and the agency’s activities were subject to serious congressional efforts to curb them (the Boland Amendment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment)).

When Sanders offered no direct answer to the question of how a “socialist” could win a general election, Cooper followed up more vituperatively and dishonestly:

“The question is really about electability here, and that’s what I’m trying to get at. You — the — the Republican attack ad against you in a general election — it writes itself. You supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. You honeymooned in the Soviet Union. And just this weekend, you said you’re not a capitalist. Doesn’t — doesn’t that ad write itself?”

Cooper’s first dishonesty here is asking the “electability” question here only of Sanders. Yes, everyone assumes Hillary Clinton is “electable,” *but O’Malley, Chaffee, or Webb? They’re not even as close to getting nominated as Sanders. Why would anyone assume they’re electable in anything but a flip-of-the-coin sense? Cooper’s addressing the electability question only to Sanders may actually be a measure of how strong Cooper believes Sanders is or may be.

Then Cooper stated: “You supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua.” He said it as if there were no question that supporting the Sandinistas was a really bad thing. That’s the talking point on Breitbart, National Review, and other right-wing sites for whom Cooper was carrying water. On Just Foreign Policy, Robert Naiman (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/anderson-cooper-opposing_b_8297944.html) posted a prompt denunciation of Cooper for playing the knee-jerk, pro-war media honcho.

Cooper on record in support of illegal war supported by drug traffic

Supporting the Sandinistas in the 1980s was, and is, a principled position. The Sandinistas had overthrown the Somoza government, one of the most vicious of the US-backed dictatorships in Central America. President Reagan decided to wage an illegal covert war against the Sandinistas, using the CIA to recruit the Contra army to fight in Nicaragua, supported by CIA-supported drug traffic to the US. Cooper refers to none of this, which was all taking place while he was doing summer internships at the CIA. Is Cooper a CIA asset? Hard to know, but he plays one pretty well on TV. A Cooper-CIA tie is perfectly credible – there’s means, motive, and opportunity all round. And in 1988, Bob Woodward wasn’t getting any younger.

Supporting the illegal Contra war, run on drug money, is an unprincipled position, but Cooper clearly implies that it’s still his position. Like the US government, Cooper showed no respect for the International Court of Justice, which issued a 1986 ruling strongly supporting Nicaragua’s claims (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States) against the US, including the US mining of Nicaraguan harbors. The ruling awarded reparations to Nicaragua that the US never paid. The lone dissent in the decision came from Judge Stephen Schwebel, an American judge. The US defended its position in the UN Security Council in soviet-style, blocking any action with numerous vetoes. The UN General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in support of Nicaragua, with only the US, El Salvador, and Israel opposed.

For Cooper to say that Sanders supported the Sandinistas in Nicaragua would be high praise in most of the world. Only in the boxed-in, unilluminated world of American media can it pass for a criticism without bring the house down in laughter. That’s another of the US government successes brought on by secret agencies like the CIS and fellow-travelers like multi-millionaire Anderson Cooper.
Bernie Sanders challenged the yellow journalist on the issue of Hillary Clinton’s emails. His was an act of generosity and presidential stature. None of his fellow candidates had the courage or character to repudiate Cooper’s shameless red-baiting, not on Nicaragua, and not on his next slander, “You honeymooned in the Soviet Union.”

Integrity is not a quality Cooper showed much interest in

Almost surely Cooper knew that statement was a dishonest low blow, a neat way to brutalize the truth without actually lying. Again Cooper was irresponsibly peddling another right wing trope, used with similar hypocrisy by George Will and others.

As a Daily Kos blog details (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/14/1432075/-Cooper-red-baited-Bernie-Sanders-with-dumb-Soviet-honeymoon-claim?detail=facebook), the Sanders honeymoon was also part of a 1956 sister-cities program initiated by the Eisenhower administration. In 1988, Sanders and his wife Jane were married, marched in a Memorial Day parade, then headed off to the Russian city of Yaroslavl on their “honeymoon.” Somehow that doesn’t have the same impact as when Anderson Cooper lies about it.

Cooper’s last dishonesty was: “And just this weekend you said you’re not a capitalist.” Once again Cooper acted as if that was an undeniable evil, case closed.

But the instance he referred to on NBC (http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/bernie-sanders-is-not-a-capitalist-542522435717) was not so simple, and Cooper provided no context. On NBC, Sanders bristled when his interviewer asked if Sanders was a “socialist,” since Sanders has referred to himself a “democratic socialist” for decades. Sanders asked the NBC toady parrot if he ever asked others if they were “capitalists” and the guy cowered out. He asked Sanders if he was a capitalist. And Sanders said, yet again, that he’s a democratic socialist.

Returning to his distorted framing bias, a “Republican attack ad,” Cooper asked, “Doesn’t that ad write itself?” Well, so what if it does? That just means Republican ad writers have as little integrity as Cooper, and maybe that’s what they’re all paid for.

As Sanders put in on CNN at the end of his opening statement:

“What this campaign is about is whether we can mobilize our people (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/politics/democratic-debate-transcript.html?_r=0) to take back our government from a handful of billionaires and create the vibrant democracy we know we can and should have.”

We are at the beginning of what might be a long learning curve as we find out what our country is truly about. Bernie Sanders offers an opportunity to look at realities in broad daylight and make up our minds about them.

Anderson Cooper is but one of a legion of self-serving, self-preserving One Per Cent propagandists who will do all they can to keep the Sanders message in the dark.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/33022-focus-anderson-cooper-offers-no-apology-for-slandering-bernie-sanders