Morality is not determined by the church you attend nor the faith you embrace. It is determined by the quality of your character and the positive impact you have on those you meet along your journey
Facebook Inc. will show people which Russian propaganda pages or accounts they’ve followed and liked on the social network, responding to a request from Congress to address manipulation and meddling during the 2016 presidential election.
The tool will appear by the end of the year in Facebook’s online support center, the company said in a blog post Wednesday. It will answer the user question, “How can I see if I’ve liked or followed a Facebook page or Instagram account created by the Internet Research Agency?” That’s the Russian firm that created thousands of incendiary posts from fake accounts posing as U.S. citizens. People will see a list of the accounts they followed, if any, from January 2015 through August 2017.
It’s Facebook’s most direct effort to explain to users how they may have been affected by the IRA’s postings, which reached an estimated 150 million people and stirred up controversy over gun rights, immigration, race relations and religion in the U.S., sometimes prompting real-world protests on both sides of a debate.
“It is important that people understand how foreign actors tried to sow division and mistrust using Facebook before and after the 2016 US election,” the company said in the post.
I know my headline seems a little assholey, but even if you did not participate on Facebook, friends and family members who you spoke to very likely did.
So while they were expressing their political point of view to you, it is quite likely, whether they were conservatives or liberals, that the Russians helped to influence it just a little.
I told you about that one friend at the gym who said that he saw a photo of Hillary Clinton standing among dead bodies that convinced him she was a war monger.
I never saw such a picture, and believe me I looked for it, but it still bothered me. It manipulated my emotions to some degree.
In the end if you did not vote for Hillary Clinton, which seems to have been the absolute focus of this propaganda, then it is more than likely that you were at least subliminally influenced by something the Russians sent out on social media.
By now most of you have probably heard something about Donna Brazile's new book which makes the explosive allegation that the Hillary Clinton campaign made a deal with the DNC to bail them out financially in exchange for essentially commandeering the primary process.
I have not written anything about this before, because to be honest I was not sure exactly what was going on.
I read the initial article in Politico and felt that the evidence provided did not really support the allegations that Brazile was making.
And I think my initial hesitancy to accept the validity of these charges was warranted.
The Democratic National Committee struck a deal with Hillary Clinton in 2015 that gave her campaign input on some party hiring and spending decisions, but required they be related only to preparations for the general election, according to a memo obtained by NBC News. It also left the door open for other candidates to make similar arrangements.
The document provides more context to the explosive claims made by former DNC Interim Chair Donna Brazile in a forthcoming book, an excerpt of which was published this week.
The August 26, 2015, memorandum of understanding from Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook to DNC CEO Amy Dacey details the relationship between Clinton's campaign and the DNC long before she won her party's nomination.
Essentially the Clinton campaign offered up an initial 1.2 million up front and then offered to provide a monthly allowance as well as some additional funding moving forward.
However since the DNC had clearly mismanaged its funds the Clinton campaign wanted a say in how the money was spent. Which if you think about it makes pretty good sense.
But here is what was laid out in the memo that seems to have upset Donna Brazile so thoroughly:
However, the memo also made clear that the arrangement pertained to only the general election, not the primary season, and it left open the possibility that it would sign similar agreements with other candidates.
"Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process. All activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary," the memo states.
"Further we understand you may enter into similar agreements with other candidates," it continues.
In fact the DNC did enter into a similar agreement with the Sanders campaign, but they decided not to use it as they felt they could do better on their own encouraging smaller donations from their pool of supporters.
The contention is that this agreement allowed the Clinton campaign to have a say on who the DNC hired, and how some of the money was spent, which Brazile charges gave them undo influence.
The evidence that such influence took place appears to be mostly in Brazile's head, but her allegation received some support when Elizabeth Warren chimed in with this.
Seriously?
Well that certainly complicated things, because Warren makes it much harder to simply dismiss this as a DNC operative gone rogue.
Brazile writes that she considered a dozen combinations to replace the nominees and settled on Biden and Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), the duo she felt most certain would win over enough working-class voters to defeat Republican Donald Trump. But then, she writes, “I thought of Hillary, and all the women in the country who were so proud of and excited about her. I could not do this to them.”
Well gee how gracious of Brazile to allow the Democrats to keep the candidate that they had selected on the ticket.
We were shocked to learn the news that Donna Brazile actively considered overturning the will of the Democratic voters by attempting to replace Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine as the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees. It is particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both the Russians and our opponent, about our candidate’s health.
Donna came in to take over the DNC at a very difficult time. We were grateful to her for doing so. She is a longtime friend and colleague of many of us and has been an important leader in our party. But we do not recognize the campaign she portrays in the book.
That is from a letter signed by nearly 100 campaign staffers who certainly do not agree with Brazile's interpretation of their efforts.
A number of pundits have offered opinions on what motivated Brazile to set fire to so many bridges, she was frustrated by not getting the recognition she felt she deserved, she is positioning herself to have a place on the Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign, who knows?
All I know is that anything that allows Trump to tweet stuff like this...
Bernie Sanders supporters have every right to be apoplectic of the complete theft of the Dem primary by Crooked Hillary!
I realize that I will NEVER convince those Bernie supporters that the nomination was not stolen from them, especially after this.
However keep in mind that the Republicans are seriously concerned about their ability to win elections moving forward, and their only real hope lies with the Democrats sabotaging themselves with infighting and rampant mistrust within their ranks.
Donna Brazile just gave them an early Christmas present all wrapped up in a shiny bow.
So I hope her fucking book tanks, and she never finds a job working with any Democrats ever again.
I assume at some point we will see her on Fox News, where all progressive traitors seem to eventually find themselves.
And good riddance to her.
Update: Donna Brazile now says she found "no evidence" that the primaries were rigged in Hillary's favor.
I have to say that I pretty much agree with everything that Joy said here.
In fact I think it links up well with my post from yesterday.
Once again I will say that it is time to move forward.
But not forward to some internal revolution that tears the Democratic party apart in the search for progressive purity, but forward to a realization that we are all stronger together, and that the enemy we face is only made stronger by our lack of cohesion.
So essentially Sanders is pissed that Hillary wrote a book giving him some of the blame for her loss, even though his book is ALL about blaming her and the Democratic party for his.
And that crap about him having a better chance up against Trump is pure bullshit.
Bernie was barely known in many places throughout the country, and this was an election where marquee names played a huge part in attracting votes.
That's like suggesting a poodle would have a better chance in a fight against Godzilla than King Kong.
And this book kerfuffle is not the only place where Sanders is running a cheese grater across Democratic nerves.
Prominent Democrats are increasingly riled by attacks from Bernie Sanders' supporters, whose demands for ideological purity are hurting the party ahead of the 2018 midterms and 2020 presidential election, they say.
But it’s not just the outside agitators that Democratic lawmakers, operatives and activists are annoyed with: They’re tired of what they see as the Vermont senator’s hesitance to confront his own backers, either in public or through back channels.
Tensions boiled over recently when a handful of Sanders loyalists bashed freshman Sen. Kamala Harris — a rising star in the party and potential 2020 hopeful — as an establishment tool. Democrats were also rankled that other prominent Sanders allies said support for single-payer health care should be a litmus test for candidates.
In response, Democratic senators and outside groups have begun telling Sanders and friendly intermediaries that if he wants to be a leading figure for Democrats ahead of 2020’s presidential election, he needs to get his supporters in line — or at least publicly disavow their more incendiary statements.
The confrontations, they insist, threaten party unity ahead of a critical midterm election cycle, when Democrats have a shot at winning the House and several governor’s offices.
“The Democratic Party has treated Sen. Sanders exceptionally well. We collectively let him run in our primaries when he declared he wasn’t a Democrat — I count that as a great favor, and an opportunity almost no one else has ever received,” said former Democratic National Committee Chairman Don Fowler, who has called for the independent Sanders to formally join the party.
That last part is important to keep in mind. The Democrats allowed Sanders to run, and while inside their house he got up to all kinds of mischief and even caused some long lasting damage.
Sanders and his supporters were key to the Russian's ability to damage Hillary's reputation as they provided legitimacy to some of the most outlandish allegations made against her by retweeting them and posting them on their Facebook pages.
If Sanders had run as an Independent, and his supporters had remained on the outside of both major parties, the impact of what they promoted on social media would have been essentially innocuous.
But once they were making those allegations from what appeared to be the inside of the Democratic party, the damage was much more severe.
And it STILL is. Not so much to Hillary, but to up and coming Democratic stars like Kamala Harris who are still finding their way and can be fatally damaged by negative attacks from those who demand the kind of purity which is ultimately political suicide in a general election.
We have to face facts that a number of those who supported Sanders in the 2016 primaries, are not really Democrats, and have no intention of ever becoming Democrats.
They wanted to change the status quo, start throwing the furniture out of the windows, and undermine the whole process which they essentially view as corrupt.
Trying to woo them is a total waste of time and energy.
What we need to do instead is to remember who we are as Democrats, find ourselves some good talented candidates, and then circle the wagons around them for the battle that looms ahead.
If we do a good job of defining who we are, and what we represent, those Sanders supporters may find that they have a whole lot more in common with those of us on the Democratic side of the aisle than Donald Trump or even a Jill Stein.
Senator Elizabeth Warren announced on Thursday she's co-sponsoring Senator Bernie Sanders's "Medicare for All" bill, which is set to be introduced next week in the Senate.
In a statement, Warren said, "There is something fundamentally wrong when one of the richest and most powerful countries on the planet can’t make sure that a person can afford to see a doctor when they’re sick. This isn’t any way to live."
"I believe it’s time to take a step back and ask: what is the best way to deliver high quality, low cost health care to all Americans? Everything should be on the table – and that’s why I’m co-sponsoring Bernie Sanders’ Medicare for All bill that will be introduced later this month," the senator added.
In her statement, Warren applauded the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and former President Barack Obama's efforts on health care, signifying a desire to build off of his accomplishments.
"We owe a huge debt to President Obama. Because of the Affordable Care Act, health care coverage is better – more people can get the treatment they need and families are less vulnerable to the financial fallout from a serious illness or accident," Warren said. "But there’s so much more we could do right now to bring down the costs of quality health care for every American."
I am gratified to see Warren giving President Obama the props he deserves for getting the Affordable Care Act passed. There are those who are not quite as gracious.
Earlier rising Democratic star Kamala Harris also voiced her support for this bill so it appears that it is likely to become an official plank of the Democratic party.
And that is a good thing.
I told my friend just the other day that I think the Democrats need one unifying policy to rally behind, and I think this could be it.
I also want to give Bernie Sanders credit for pushing this idea and bringing people on to support it. I am so over Sanders at this point I had to check twice to remember how to spell his name, but this is a positive step forward, and he deserves to be recognized for that.
Hopefully this will inspire other Democrats to sign on and together we can get this thing done.
She took aim at Sanders for “impugning” her character during the primary, which she believed ultimately helped Donald Trump win in the election.
“Because we agreed on so much, Bernie couldn’t make an argument against me in this area on policy, so he had to resort to innuendo and impugning my character,” she wrote. “When I finally challenged Bernie during a debate to name a single time I changed a position or a vote because of a financial contribution, he couldn’t come up with anything. Nonetheless, his attacks caused lasting damage, making it harder to unify progressives in the general election and paving the way for Trump’s ‘Crooked Hillary’ campaign.”
Clinton expressed appreciation for the Vermont Senator for campaigning for her during the general election, but she also expressed her frustration that he himself wasn’t a Democrat to begin with and accused him of not necessarily wanting a Democrat to win the White House.
Ouch!
That is not the only place in the book where Hillary takes a shot at Bernie and his supporters.
I KNOW this is really going to piss off the Bernie-bots, but Hillary is not wrong here.
I saw this myself during the 2016 election cycle, and it drove me fucking crazy.
The worst part in my opinion was that Trump would use information hacked by the Russians against Clinton, and then the Sanders supporters would spread it like manure all across social media.
This gave false information and conspiracy theories the kind of legitimacy among the progressives that they could never achieve while quarantined over on Right Wing new outlets and conservative talk radio programs.
THAT was why the Russian propaganda machine not only targeted Trump supporters but Bernie supporters as well.
Essentially Hillary has nothing to lose by speaking the truth and getting all of this off her chest. In fact it may turn out to be very beneficial moving forward to our next election cycle.
I have said it before but it bears repeating, the ONLY people who can confidently say they were not in some way manipulated by the Russians are those who voted for Hillary Clinton.
Because EVERYTHING they did was directed at keeping her out of the White House.
Can't we all just get along? And for God's sake pay attention to me?
So apparently after all of the dust settled from that unfortunate shooting today in Virginia, which wounded Rep. Steve Scalise and three others, and resulted in the death of he gunman, Sarah Palin saw an opportunity.
So she contacted perhaps the only media outlet that still takes her calls. Breitbart News which itself is currently hemorrhaging advertisers at an alarming rate.
I will link to the website here, but feel in no way obligated to provide them with any clicks.
Here are the pertinent portions:
“Prayers for healing are raised for all victims of today’s horrific violence, while we with lift up thankfulness that lives were not lost,” Palin told Breitbart News. “While justice is now sought upon the capture of the deranged attacker, an additional prayer must be for no acceptance of a rush to destroy anyone else in this horrible incident. Those seeking political advantage reacted so recklessly and irresponsibly the last time a member of Congress was brutally attacked, as media inexplicably played a knee-jerk blame game assuming that attacker’s motives. Today’s shooter appears to be a Bernie Sanders supporter and campaign volunteer. But Bernie Sanders is not to blame. Maybe the media have matured enough to allow coverage of this most recent violence to focus on facts, because media integrity will be crucial as America witnesses today’s events unfolding and, on behalf of our Congressional Representatives, we all seek justice.”
Palin’s call for unity, and media responsibility—and her statement standing up for Sanders despite the shooter being a Sanders supporter—comes after she has been the target of vitriolic media rhetoric for years. Perhaps the worst example of the media targeting Palin was in the wake of the shooting of Giffords, where Palin was blamed inaccurately.
That's right Sarah Palin, who has fanned the flames of partisan rage and violence for years now, is suddenly calling for unity.
The only problem with the comparison of the Gabby Giffords shooting and what happened today is the existence of this:
Yes there are reports that this gunman once worked for the Bernie Sanders campaign, but there is no evidence that HE ever posted a map with gun sights on it that singled out a ball field in Virginia.
"I have just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign," Sanders said. "I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be: Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs against our most deeply held American values."
By contrast Palin came out four days after the shooting of Gabby Giffords and gave her incredibly insensitive blood libel speech during which she made it all about her.
Gabby Giffords, by the way, also issued a timely response to the shooting today in which she said the following:
"It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or a Republican, nor if you're a senator or a representative, nor a staffer or a sworn officer," Giffords said. "If you serve the institution of Congress, you're connected to your colleagues, current and former, by a shared sense of service to ideals far greater than yourself. This shooting is an attack on all who serve and on all who participate in our democracy."
"I am heartbroken for the pain of Congressman Scalise, the other victims, and their family, friends, and colleagues who survived," Giffords continued in her statement. "I am thankful for the great courage of the Capitol Police, who were my protectors after I was shot and became my friends. I also know the courage it takes to recover from a shooting like this, and I know Steve and everyone there this morning have such courage in great supply."
Another very appropriate, non-partisan response that offers good wishes and a speedy recovery to others while exerting no effort to engage in blaming the media or shining the spotlight on herself.
THAT is the difference between what happened today and what happened back in 2011.
As for unity, yes we can all stand together against gun violence, and I welcome my Republican brothers and sisters to join us in that fight, but as for the partisanship, so long as the Republicans are attempting to do away with everything that President Obama accomplished in eight years, I fear that battle is only just beginning.
When it comes to the story about Obama accepting speaking fees, it is important to note that the story was launched by Fox Business News. All of the sudden what previous presidents – both Democrat and Republican – had been doing for years was scandalized because we’re now talking about Obama. Our current so-called “populist” president once even bragged at a rally that he used to be paid a lot of money for speeches (as much as $1.5 million for a single speech).
Of course the folks at Fox knew this would trigger a dust-up on the left because of the fact that Hillary Clinton’s speaking fees had become such an issue in the 2016 primary. And of course, an awful lot of liberals took the bait.
I’m not saying that all of the arguments about speaking fees are without merit. Perhaps Democrats should have a proactive conversation about whether former presidents should continue to do so. But taking the bait Fox served up and using it to suggest that a particular former Democratic president is threatening our democracy is akin to the kind of circular firing squad for which Democrats have been famous over the years.
The article goes on to point out that before there was ever any mention of this speech that the former President had already spoken, for free, to young people in Chicago about gang violence, job skills, and employment opportunities.
Also from the article:
For the people who think that accepting fees for a speech indicates an erosion of our democracy, they should at least acknowledge that former President Obama is actually spending the majority of his time working with young people on civic engagement as well as reducing violence, poverty and unemployment around the country. Otherwise they are simply getting played by Fox News.
Personally I found it troubling that both Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders allowed themselves to get played by Fox News.
Warren said she was "troubled" by this news, however Sanders went much farther saying he found it "distasteful."
Do you know what I find distasteful, so called "liberal leaders" who allow the conservative media to pull their strings so effectively.
Remember this is the same thing the Russians did to split the Democrats during the primary, and to convince the so-called "Bernie Bros" that the nomination was stolen from their candidate, which led to many of them skipping the general election in frustration.
A bit of information that was tragically under reported about this so-called Wall Street speaking engagement is that the speech is being given at a health care conference.
How could we possibly expect the President who passed such an expansive health care reform, which was not in such danger of being undermined or repealed, NOT to show up something like that?
No the criticism directed at President Obama concerning this speech is completely unwarranted, and worse yet it is another indication that even the liberals are easily led around by the nose.
Dr. Thomas Rid of Kings College London’s Department of War Studies explained that polarization makes societies vulnerable to manipulation by disinformation campaigns.
Russia, Rid explained, according to CBS News, likes to use “unwitting agents” to carry out its work. WikiLeaks, Twitter and “overeager journalists” all contributed to Russia’s efforts to destabilize the U.S. by disrupting its 2016 election.
Democratic committee co-chair Sen. Mark Warner (VA) asked the panel if they had any doubt that Russia had attempted to interfere in some aspects of the 2016 election. Alexander said not only did he have no doubt, he could get very specific.
“Senator, I think what they were trying to do was drive a wedge within the Democratic Party between the Clinton group and the Sanders group,” said Alexander. “And then in our nation between Republicans and Democrats.”
Supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) reported earlier this month that during the 2016 election, their social media feeds and pro-Sanders Facebook groups were inundated with what they now believe were Russian bots spewing anti-Hillary memes including fake news stories about Clinton using a body double and murdering her ideological opponents. Over time the anti-Clinton online faction became known by the nickname “Bernie Bros.”
I think that many of us have already come to realize that this is true, however I think it needs to be repeated frequently so that we are all on guard the next time.
And it must also be pointed out that none of this trolling would have worked if there were not so many people desperate to accept the lies and to spread them far and wide around the internet.
I am sure that many of you watched in real time as I confronted some of this misinformation here on IM only to be labeled a "Hillary-bot" or accused of "working for my queen," or "supporting the Wall Street candidate."
And it worked. I lost thousands of visitors during the primary, and no matter how often I pointed out that people were being manipulated by false information, I was simply accused of "being in the tank for Hillary" and that was the end of the conversation.
If you look around today you can see it still happening, with people attacking the DNC and blaming them for Trump's victory, just as they have been directed to do by the Russian trolls.
Remember the Russians want to undermine our entire democracy, and the first step in doing that is to make people distrust the two parties.
So at this point we have to ask ourselves if we are part of the solution to this problem, or just another of the Russian's "useful idiots."
It is impossible to say what would have happened under a fictional scenario, but Sanders supporters often dangle polls from early summer showing he would have performed better than Clinton against Trump. They ignored the fact that Sanders had not yet faced a real campaign against him. Clinton was in the delicate position of dealing with a large portion of voters who treated Sanders more like the Messiah than just another candidate. She was playing the long game—attacking Sanders strongly enough to win, but gently enough to avoid alienating his supporters. Given her overwhelming support from communities of color—for example, about 70 percent of African-American voters cast their ballot for her—Clinton had a firewall that would be difficult for Sanders to breach.
When Sanders promoted free college tuition—a primary part of his platform that attracted young people—that didn’t mean much for almost half of all Democrats, who don’t attend—or even plan to attend—plan to attend a secondary school. In fact, Sanders was basically telling the working poor and middle class who never planned to go beyond high school that college students—the people with even greater opportunities in life—were at the top of his priority list.
So what would have happened when Sanders hit a real opponent, someone who did not care about alienating the young college voters in his base? I have seen the opposition book assembled by Republicans for Sanders, and it was brutal. The Republicans would have torn him apart. And while Sanders supporters might delude themselves into believing that they could have defended him against all of this, there is a name for politicians who play defense all the time: losers.
In the looming election, a solid majority of the American people could cast a ballot for Hillary Clinton. Yet, thanks to two guys from Washington state, Donald Trump could be sworn in as the next president of the United States.
Two men who were selected as members of the Electoral College in the likely event that Clinton wins the state of Washington, are, at the very least, uncertain that they will honor the will of the people of their state. Robert Satiacum told the Seattle Times that he is “absolutely not” voting for Clinton and that “I hope it comes down to a swing vote and it’s me,” because then “she ain’t getting it. Maybe it’ll wake this country up.”
The other likely elector, Bret Chiafalo, says that he has “not ruled out that possibility” of voting against Clinton.
The article goes on to point out that it is not impossible that this action could throw the state to Donald Trump.
So how does it happen that two simple minded dipshits like this got elected to the electoral college?
Simple.
The fact that two men who think they have the right to override the will of their states’ voters were chosen as Democratic electors appears to be the fault of an utterly reckless method the Washington Democratic Party uses to name those electors. Electors were chosen at the state party convention in June, an event where so-called Bernie-or-Busters were overrepresented.
In other words, rather than, say, allowing the party’s nominee to name reliable electors, the party chose to select electors during an emotional primary season at an event that could be gamed by a minority faction that was willing to sabotage the party if Democrats did not chose that faction’s preferred nominee.
Well I think my opinion of the Bernie Bros is fairly well known, and this does nothing but reinforce my belief that I was right about them all along.
The very idea that any progressive would throw the election to a thin skinned megalomaniac merely out of spite demonstrates that these morons are too immature and under educated to participate in the election process.
Speaking at an event with College Republicans in Wisconsin earlier this week, Ryan warned that letting the Senate slip back into Democratic hands might give Vermont’s democratic socialist one of the most powerful positions for shaping the federal budget.
“If we lose the Senate, do you know who becomes chairman of the Senate budget committee?,” Ryan said, according to the Nation. “A guy named Bernie Sanders. Ever heard of him? That’s what we’re dealing with here if we lose control of the Senate.”
Ryan’s hit on Sanders backfired, badly. Citing Ryan’s comments in a fundraising blast, Sanders was able to raise just under $2 million in two days for about a dozen Democratic Senate and House candidates — furthering his chances of actually becoming budget committee chair.
One of the biggest beneficiaries of the fundraising haul was North Carolina Democrat Deborah Ross, who could unseat Republican Sen. Richard Burr in the state, according to the Washington Post. Sanders has made helping in down-ballot races a big priority since exiting the presidential primary, and he was quick to jump at the opportunity created by Ryan’s remarks.
I would just like to point out that I called this the minute I heard that Ryan was using Sanders in this way, and pointed out that Ryan was messing with forces he clearly did not understand.
It's not that I'm a genius of anything, I am just smarter than Paul Ryan. Or actually ANYBODY who thinks that threatening voters with the idea of putting more power in the hands of Senator Sanders is going to motivate more conservatives than liberals to come out to the polls.
And I would suggest that that is also true of THIS tactic.
We cannot take four more years of Barack Obama and that’s what you’ll get if you vote for Hillary. #BigLeagueTruth
Let's face it, the majority of Americans know that the
country is doing significantly better under President Obama and
Democratic leadership than it was under Bush.
But if they want to keep on using these tactics who am I to dissuade them?
I don't think that Paul Ryan clearly understands the Bernie Sanders phenomenon.
If he thinks that arguing for conservative voter turnout by pointing out that Sanders might end up in charge of the Senate Budget Committee is going to be more effective for his side than for the Democrats, he must have been in a coma during the Democratic primary.
I can guarantee that every Bernie supporter who has been depressed about Hillary winning the nomination, and unsure if they would even bother to vote, will be given renewed purpose after seeing this.
And if the idea of Hillary Clinton in the White House, and Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Al Franken as part of the majority in the Senate does not fire you up to vote, well then you do not recognize victory when you see it.
Making her campaign trail debut for Hillary Clinton, First Lady Michelle Obama ripped into Donald Trump without directly naming him while also laying out her case for supporting Hillary Clinton as “one of the most qualified people who had ever endeavored to become president."
“No one in our lifetime has ever had as much experience and exposure to the presidency. Not Barack, not Bill, as he would say, nobody, and yes, she happens to be a woman,” the first lady said to a roaring applause at an event in Fairfax, Va.
“So, we can not afford squander this opportunity, particularly given the alternative. Because here is what we know: That being president isn't anything like reality TV. It is not about sending insulting tweets or making fiery speeches,” she continued.
The first lady, previously dubbed “the closer” for her effectiveness as a campaign surrogate during her husband’s presidential campaigns, was at one point interrupted by chants of “four more years” as she talked about the bittersweet feelings she is experiencing as her husband’s final term in office draws to a close.
As usual the First Lady knocked it out of the ballpark and reminded all of us just how amazing both she and her husband have been for this country.
And while she strongly spoke out in favor or electing Hillary Clinton she also reminded voters why they could NEVER even consider voting for her opponent.
“If a candidate is erratic and threatening, if a candidate traffics in project, fears, and lies on the trail, if a candidate has no clear plans to implement their goals, if they disrespect their fellow citizens including folks who made extraordinary sacrifices for our country, let me tell you, that is who they are,” she said.
"When she didn't win the presidency in 2008, she didn't throw in the towel," the first lady said of Clinton. "She once again answered the call to serve, keeping us safe as our secretary of state. And let me tell you, Hillary has the resilience that it takes to do this job. See, because when she gets knocked down, she doesn't complain or cry foul. No, she gets right back up and she comes back stronger for the people who need her the most."
"When I hear folks saying they're not inspired this this election, I disagree. I am inspired," she said, urging the crowd to register to vote and actually cast ballots for Clinton.
So much for those rumors of animosity between Hillary and Michelle.
Asked about a New York Times/CBS News poll released Thursday showing that a third of voters under the age of 30 plan to vote for third-party candidates, Sanders offered his “pitch” to those younger voters, who overwhelmingly supported him in the Democratic primary.
“Look, I was a third-party candidate. I began my career running as a third party, getting 2 percent and then 1 percent,” Sanders said. “I'm the longest serving independent in the history of the U.S. Congress, but I think that before you cast a protest vote, because Clinton or Trump will be president, think hard about it. This is not a governor's race. It's not a state legislative race. This is the presidency of the United States.”
“And I would say to those people out there who are thinking of the protest vote, think about what the country looks like and whether you're comfortable with four years of a Trump presidency,” he continued.
Well Hillary herself may not be the bestwhen it comes to campaigning, but damn when you include President Obama, Bill Clinton, and Elizabeth Warren into this mix, she certainly has the strongest group of surrogates that one could possibly hope for.
Do you remember the moment Bernie kicked off the political revolution?
Bernie Sanders has spent his life fighting against injustice and inequality. But it was his eight-hour long filibuster in 2010 that turned him into a national leader. As Charles Chamberlain explains in the email below, Bernie took to the Senate floor to challenge a deal President Obama had cut with Republicans that included an extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
His speech wasn't just about that bad deal. He used his time to speak about corporate greed, the recently announced Citizens United decision, and the decline of the middle class. His speech laid out his early vision that became the people-powered campaign that rocked the foundations of the Democratic Party. Bernie's vision should still motivate us today -- and that's why DFA is offering a chance to read this amazing document while helping build a political revolution.
Do you want to read the speech that started the "political revolution"? Pitch in $37 or more now to support DFA and we will send you your very own copy of Bernie's "The Speech: On Corporate Greed and the Decline of the Middle Class" -- we will even cover the shipping charges for you!
Your donation will not only get you this historic book by Bernie -- it will also help DFA continue the work we began during the primary. We're building the political revolution across the country, and fighting for candidates who share Bernie's values. We're even training thousands of activists to help win in November and beyond.
Thank you for spreading the word about Bernie's speech -- and helping change America.
I am not going to bother sharing all of it with you but it goes on to accuse President Obama of "cutting a deal with the Republicans that was filled with goodies for the 1%," smears all "Washington politicians," and of course makes Sanders out to be some kind of modern folk hero.
It also continues to push the meme that Bernie and his supporters are going to change politics in this country and that it can all be done if they just keep donating to the "revolution" and of course buying his books.
Of course all of us here have seen this before, and we know how it ends.
And lines like this, "Every penny of your donation will go toward helping elect Bernie-style truth-tellers to every level of government, from City Council to the U.S. Senate, this November and beyond," should not fool anybody.
I know that the true believers will have difficulty accepting this, but this political grift has been going on for years now.
We have already seen the damage that it can do as evidenced by the Republican party.
We just don't need to see it happen on the Democratic side.
If we want to change how money influences politics we need to overturn Citizens United, which can eventually happen with the help of Clinton selected Supreme Court justices, and work to pass campaign finance reform, for which we need more Democrats.
We don't need a revolution, we just need to keep our eye on the ball and continue making the same kind of progress that President Obama has already helped to put into motion.
Let me be as candid and transparent as possible: I was a very strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, and until the past four weeks, held out great hope that he would become our next President. Over the course of the past month, I have had to do a great deal of reflecting and ask myself where does this seemingly irrational antipathy for Hillary Clinton come from? Why have I participated in it? After doing some research and looking hard at systemic misogyny, I have had to confront myself with the truth that I bought into a narrative about Hillary Clinton that has been produced, packaged, and perpetuated by mostly the GOP with the help of many democrats and independents.
This narrative is a 30-year-old vilification of a woman who is bright, independent, wealthy, and powerful — a woman who asks for what she wants and needs. How very dare you, Ms. Clinton? How dare you have a mind of your own? How dare you be bright and powerful? How dare you ask for what you want and need? Don’t you know these rights are still exclusively for white, Christian, cisgender, able-bodied, heterosexual men?
My research indicates that the reality — the facts (I realize facts are immaterial when talking to many Trump supporters) — are that Hillary Clinton is one of the most honest politicians tracked by the Pulitzer Prize winning fact-checking project Politifact.
I never tire of sharing this graphic.
The author sums up his remarks thusly:
I truly believe that Hillary and her platform are beneficial to targeted communities: people of color, people in poverty, people with disabilities, veterans, LGBTQ people, and all of the intersecting identities thereof. She is a hard-working, fundamentally honest person for whom — as she so nicely framed it — “the service part has always come easier than the public part.”
This article is actually from the beginning of this month, but I thought it important enough to share with all of you this morning.
You see the thing that all of us who support Hillary have had to contend with is this deeply ingrained belief that Hillary is untrustworthy, a liar, a cheat, etc.
I actually came up against that with my own daughter who was adamant that Hillary was deeply, deeply flawed.
However when I asked her for examples she kept resorting to responses like "You just know by looking at her," or "You just feel it," and "Everything she says feels like a lie."
In the end she really could not provide any factual examples (Except the Bosnia sniper story. That really was bullshit.), in the end she had to admit that most of her "feelings" about Hillary's trustworthiness were the result of the opinions of her friends, and not really based on actual empirical evidence.
The thing that is so frustrating is that these opinions are baked into the narrative about Hillary Clinton.
And even after you reveal that the bakers were the folks at Fox News, or The Drudge Report, or Info Wars it is still a struggle to undo that perception and correct all of those lies.
Which of course is exactly what those bakers were counting on when they first fired up the ovens.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz — the former head of the Democratic Party — appears to be leading by about 10 points in her primary against progressive challenger Tim Canova.
Canova was backed by Bernie Sanders in a Miami area district that overwhelmingly voted for Hillary Clinton in the presidential primary. Some progressives say the fact that the race is even that close is a win of sorts for their movement. (Thought not, as of now, an actual win, in the sense of receiving more votes.)
Oddly enough while Schultz has had both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden out campaigning with her, Sanders has not bothered to show up to support Canova.
And though former aides to Bernie Sanders did work on the campaign for a short time, they all left abruptly with no reason given as to why.
As I have said in the past I am not exactly a huge fan of Wasserman Schultz, but neither am I terribly critical of her time as head of the DNC.
Ultimately I think it is good for the Democrats that Schultz wins this race and that it sends the kind of message which I am sure the Republican party would have liked to have sent to the Tea Party back in 2010.
The last thing the Democratic party needs right now is their own version of a grass roots revolution challenging their every decision and playing the obstructionist when the party needs to negotiate of compromise with the Republicans in order to move forward.
In other news it appears that Sanders has no intention of giving up his mailing list, even though it could greatly benefit the party which graciously allowed him to run in their primary.
Despite his plan to help the Senate Democrats win a majority, Sanders still intends to draw the line on support somewhere: He will not turn his donor list over to the DSCC.
Instead, according to a source, he will send his own fundraising pitches on behalf of candidates.
So clearly Sanders wants to "help," but only so much, and only those candidates who pass his litmus test.
He clearly has no intention of giving away his bargaining power.
Another recent event in the world of Bernie Sanders was the release of a study which claims to show that he would have won the primary by a landslide if not for Targeted voter suppression, Registration tampering, Illegal voter purges, voting machine tampering, and unsecured voting machines.
Now if your bullshit meter started pinging, good for you, because as the folks at Daily Kos and Reddit quickly pointed out the poll was conducted by unqualified individuals, with no experience, and with a very obvious agenda.
From one Daily Kos visitor put it:
Wow, I just did some searching on Election Justice USA (which appears to have been established in April 2016), and found it’s staff had some VERY impressive credentials. One of the main authors of the report is Lulu Fries’dat, who’s claims she is an “Investigative Journalist”, but who’s IMDB page lists her as an editor, who’s many contributions to investigative journalism include:
“In 2004, she developed, directed and edited a series of voter registration public service announcements for VH1 featuring Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. “
Seems legit!
I love the smell of bullshit propaganda in the morning...
Do you think 3 months is enough time to do an analysis of primary elections in all 50 states for a new unknown organization? Hmm…. I doubt it.
The problem with this, besides the sloppy methodology, is that it perpetuates the same myth which the Republicans are pushing, and that is that the Democratic party is corrupt and Hillary Clinton cheated to win the nomination, and will cheat again to win the general.
While in fact we are seeing in real time the Russian government attempting to cheat on Trump's behalf, and the Republicans resorting to every dirty trick in the book.
So these never say die Bernie supporters, whether they know it or not, are essentially working in tandem with the Republican party and the Russian government to undermine American democracy.
If we really want to keep this country moving towards progressive goals we need to work together to fight against foreign hackers and GOP merry tricksters to keep Donald Trump out of the White House.
If there are liberals who do not yet understand that cold hard fact, they might want to go up to the nearest mirror and ask themselves who they really are, and what they really believe.
Courtesy of the Washington Times: Wednesday marks the debut of Sen. Bernie Sanders‘ reinvention. The former presidential hopeful is launching “Our Revolution”, a new activist outreach to his many fans, in an online broadcast to 2,600 “watching parties” in every state — as far flung as Fort Yukon, Alaska; Gouldsboro, Maine; Brownsville, Texas; Naalehu, Hawaii, and Minot, North Dakota. The address begins at 9 p.m. ET. In addition, Mr. Sanders will publish a book titled “Our Revolution: A Future to Believe In.” The work is due on book shelves Nov. 15, primarily recapping his campaign trail experiences and underscoring his progressive ideas for America.
Oh so Sanders is helping to launch a grassroots organization for the Democrats just like that Tea Party "grass roots" organization for the Republicans.
One and he's writing a book too?
(Don't make comparisons to Sarah Palin, don't make comparisons to Sarah Palin, don't make comparisons to Sarah Palin!)
Oh that's nice.
However I understand there might be some problems already plaguing this fledgling campaign.
Courtesy of Politico: The revolution is already tearing itself apart. Less than a week before its official launch on Wednesday, Bernie Sanders’ new political group is working its way through an internal war that led to the departure of digital director Kenneth Pennington and at least four others from a team of 15, and the return of presidential campaign manager Jeff Weaver as the group’s new president. “Kenneth chose to leave the organization. He’d worked on the campaign from the very beginning … he decided to do something else I guess,” Weaver said Monday evening, but “we’re very happy to be putting the A-team back together.”
And here's more from NBC News: The dispute is both strategic and personal. The staffers who quit had clashed with Weaver on the campaign, calling him domineering and questioning his judgement, and they joined Our Revolution only on condition he would not be involved. They say they envisioned Our Revolution as a small-dollar-funded group that would use grassroots organizing to help elect progressive candidates, along the lines of Democracy for America, which grew out of the 2004 Howard Dean presidential campaign. Weaver has other ideas. He wanted to supplement the group's organizing and online fundraising efforts with independent expenditure TV advertising and larger checks from major donors. Internal critics say that contradicts the spirit of Sanders' movement, which was built around fighting big money in politics. The shakeup reflects a long-running rift in the Sanders campaign between its older leadership, like Weaver, and its younger staffers, who saw themselves as more ideologically committed to the revolution and thought the consultants at the top were using the campaign to line their pockets.
To be fair there have been plenty of very successful enterprises that started off a little shaky.
However I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief that this is happening to some bodunk, doomed to fail Tea Party ripoff, and not happening to a campaign that is actually on the glide path to taking up residence in the White House.
Sen. Bernie Sanders has pushed hard for transparency on U.S. trade and campaign finance, but has been far less aggressive in disclosing his own personal finances.
Now his wife and campaign confidante, Jane O'Meara Sanders, is defending the senator's decision not to file a candidate personal finance disclosure and talking about the purchase of a new vacation home.
Sanders and his campaign asked the Federal Election Commission for two 45-day extensions, in mid-May and late June, on filing the personal finance disclosures candidates are usually required to produce, and then decided not to file at all once he dropped out of the race and endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, Jane Sanders confirmed Thursday.
"I guess our campaign just said 'why bother'," said the wife of the Vermont independent senator who challenged Clinton for the Democratic nomination.
Jane Sanders went on to explain that there was really no new information about their finances to share anyway.
Speaking of no new financial information Jane also talked about that new house they purchased. On another financial matter, Jane Sanders said she and her husband paid cash — $575,000 — for the four-bedroom summer house they recently bought in North Hero, Vermont, on the Lake Champlain shore. She said she sold her share of her family's long-time vacation home in Bridgton, Maine, to her brother for $150,000, added some money from her retirement account and from an advance her husband got on a book he is writing to come up with the money to buy the couple's third home.
They also own property in Burlington, Vermont, and Washington, D.C.
Oh so their share of the family vacation home only came to $150,000. Interesting.
In other, completely unrelated news Sanders is still accepting donations for "Our Revolution" which is scheduled to launch next week:
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) will address supporters on Aug. 24 to tout "Our Revolution," a new organization intended to harness the energy of his supporters and help progressive political candidates across the country.
The independent senator also wants to empower “the next generation of progressive leaders by inspiring, recruiting and supporting progressive candidates across the entire spectrum of government – from school board to U.S. Senate.”
Damn, I am getting such a feeling of deja vu here.
A failed campaign, a new house, a PAC dedicated to "changing politics in America." Hmm, where have I seen all of this before?
