A guy who marched with King in 1963 versus a Goldwater Girl.
I do not get it.
I do not get it.
I don't understand her purported support from the African-American community.
A guy who marched with King in 1963 versus a Goldwater Girl. I do not get it. |
|
I think it's probably an exposure thing
South Carolina will be the proof one way or the other. How'd you like last night's results? Bernie outperformed his polling by 9 points, which is amazing. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. |
|
That's what you call a whoopin' :0)
I actually feel a little guilty for not being able to feel sorry for Hillary. That's probably some latent residue of my old Southern upbringing (not being unkind to a lady and so forth). But I swear, she (and increasingly her husband) make almost impossible for me to have any sympathy for them. I mean, the absolute pass she gets from the media is reminiscent of Reagan's Reign of Error that, too, went unchecked by major media. Here's a classic example: Hillary is veering from the truth when she suggests her $225,000 per speech fee, paid three times by Goldman Sachs, was "what they offered." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/les-leopold/hillary-not-truthful-abou_b_9185412.html I heard Bernstein saying that she had to release the transcripts of those speeches and do it quickly because if she stonewalled, whether or not there's anything incriminating in them, people will begin to view those speeches as analogous to Nixon's tapes. She and her husband have always been Wall Street Shills (how many Progressives can you name who sat on the board of directors at Walmart?) but sheesh, man, she is really coming off as dishonest. As big a Bernie supporter as I am, I'm not certain how much he won NH and how many voted for him as a no-confidence vote for Hillary. |
|
actually no, in delegates won it was a tie
she had 6 superdelegates locked up going in always look out for number one and don't step in number two |
|
SC and NV should be interesting.
It would have been surprising if Bernie hadn't done well in NH. AFAIK, the margin was about what was expected (especially considering most D voters made up their minds a month ago according to some exit polls), but as Box says, she's still way, way ahead in delegates (and that's what matters). She and her team learned how to count after 2008. ;-) HRC locked up lots of minority endorsements early. But people can change their minds... I still expect her to win the nomination relatively easily, and I expect that these bumps in the road will force her to be better at getting her message out, and force her to lock up her troglodyte old lady supporters... We'll see. Cheers, Scott. |
|
It's the content of her character that's her trouble.
Briefly, it's "I'm with Gold |
|
Ancient, really ancient history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton#Wellesley_College_years In her junior year, Rodham became a supporter of the antiwar presidential nomination campaign of Democrat Eugene McCarthy.[26] In early 1968, she was elected president of the Wellesley College Government Association and served through early 1969.[24][27] Following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., Rodham organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students to recruit more black students and faculty.[26] In her student government role, she played a role in keeping Wellesley from being embroiled in the student disruptions common to other colleges.[24][28] A number of her fellow students thought she might some day become the first female President of the United States.[24] Given the attacks she's suffered for decades, it's surprising that she doesn't poll lower than she does... FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
So, when she was more "idealistic" she was more right wing?
The point stands. Bernie's *always* been on the side of the angels. Can you say that about her? Heck, even Biden said that the "poor" were a new thing for her. |
|
People don't pick their parents. She ended up on the right side.
Bernie and HRC are both good candidates who both have a lot of baggage. Neither one will be able to do much on their own - they need coat-tails. Cheers, Scott. |
|
You said the magic word..
Coat-tails. An LP by Melvin Van Peebles &, of course, several by Gil Scott Heron, contemporaneous to early Last Poets LP's, open this range of poetry. I vividly recall Gwendolyn Brooks insisting that we pay close attention to Van Peeble's poem/LP cut "Lily Do the Zampougi Every Time I Pull Her Coattails." I can come up with the LP title if you're in need of this detail. Is there a CD or LP of Haki Mahadbuti/Don Lee reading work from the "Don't Cry, Scream" era? As saved for posterity here. Somehow this rendition (which I recall from way-back) must have some cosmic connection to the huge Elephant-in-the-Room that is the Murican daily fantasy: that ours is a democracy ... and if we'll all just 'vote' ... ... why, the entire hegemony will just Obey. The. Public. Will. (Cheney will simply sign-over all his military investment proceeds from the WMD confabulation; the other multibillionaires will thereafter do likewise. Because they all be honorable men.) And there are Unicorns. Oblig: cha. cha. cha. |
|
NV comes first due to a quirk of Democrat scheduling
I was a little off in my memory: Sanders outperformed by 5.5%. He was expected to get 54.5% of the vote. Sanders mainly has an exposure problem. Winning NH by a blowout and tying in Iowa is fixing that. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. |
|
538 says he was expected to win by 17%
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-needs-more-than-the-tie-he-got-in-iowa/ from February 2: But neither Clinton nor Sanders did so well as to make me think either candidate will gain momentum heading into the New Hampshire primary next week. Sanders is likely to win in the Granite State — he has either an 89 percent chance or a 96 percent chance of winning there, depending on whether you look at FiveThirtyEight’s polls-plus forecast or polls-only forecast. Still, the results in Iowa suggest that polls in New Hampshire may tighten. That’s because the states look similar demographically. Even taking into account that Sanders lives next door in Vermont, Clinton probably shouldn’t be behind by 17 percentage points in the New Hampshire polling average right now. AFAICS, that analysis is still holding. :-) Cheers, Scott. |
|
Things have changed *a lot* since 2008.
Two-thirds of voters in the Democratic primary said that they are liberal, up from 56 percent who said the same in 2008, the last time there was a contested Democratic primary. http://www.nytimes.com/live/new-hampshire-primary-2016-election/ideology Also, https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/02/ExitDraft_V1_d_new.jpg&w=1484 |
|
And he won by 22.5%
Which is what I said, no? He outperformed the polls by 5.5%. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/09/us/elections/new-hampshire-democrat-poll.html Still, the results in Iowa suggest that polls in New Hampshire may tighten. That’s because the states look similar demographically. Even taking into account that Sanders lives next door in Vermont, Clinton probably shouldn’t be behind by 17 percentage points in the New Hampshire polling average right now. See above. They didn't tighten, Sanders outperformed. Sanders won very liberal voters over Clinton by 19 percentage points, but he lost self-identified somewhat liberals and moderates to Clinton by 6 percentage points and 23 percentage points, respectively. That’s bad for Sanders because even though 68 percent of Iowa Democratic caucus-goers identified as liberal this year, only 47 percent of Democratic primary voters nationwide did so in 2008. Sanders won every demographic group in NH except > 65 and > $200K/yr. He also won every category of very liberal, somewhat liberal, and moderate by at least 14 points, 20 points in the case of moderate voters. I'm sure it's my fault (eh, Peter? ;-), but I'm not quite sure what you're trying to point out here. I don't think that analysis was very accurate. :-) Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson. |
|
Ok. I misread or mis-remembered some things. Too much multitasking. :-) Sorry.
|
|
neither do some in the black community
always look out for number one and don't step in number two |
|
A pithy article, Indeed.
I well recall the sellout to the 'welfare-queen' crowd: the one-Upping of the troglodyte opposition by beating them to the most reactionary response ... playing contrite now/especially from within yet another formulaic-contest? is as meaningless as it is cynical. Near bottom of replies: James O'donnell Iii says: [February 10, 2016 at 1:08 pm] garners a reply from Judith Levitt, all brief, (then his response to Leavitt.) His comment: "The New Jim Crow" essential reading for all Americans. In short, you are one of my true heroes (along with Amy Goodman, Glenn Greenwald, Naomi Klein, Chris Hedges, and a handful of other titans of principled progressivism); and I don't believe it is possible to overstate your contribution to our national discussion on race. Again, thank you. That said, I have two minor beefs with today's article, and they are as follows: 1) You give short shrift to Bernie Sanders' career-long battle for social justice, including (but not limited to) fighting for desegregation and marching with Dr. King; and 2) you make no reference to the shameless race-baiting campaign the Clintons ran against then-Sen. Obama in 2008, including disseminating their little photo of Barack Obama in Kenya (wearing the traditional garb of a Somali elder) and refusing to state categorically that Obama is a Christian (as then-Sen. Clinton did on "60 Minutes"). The Clintons in 2008 apparently concluded that ghetto-izing drug references and feeding into a little Islamophobic "birtherism" might help them win... which was shameless and morally reprehensible. As much as I respect your work, I feel strongly that you should have included both of these significant points. The Young'uns ain't got the in-your-face original Proof which the now-Geezer-group carries within our very own neurons. I hope that enough of these impatient ones/now also overloaded by techno-distractions: ... will somehow view the Clintons' insulation and early-on machinations: from today's 20-20 hindsight. (That's a Lot to expect from callow yout ... fingers-crossed time, in Spades.) |
|
So, you forgot Bill Clinton was the first black president? :)
Alex "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." -- Isaac Asimov |
|
I was reminded recently that WJC being the "first black president" wasn't a compliment.
|