WHAT BAD POLITICS LOOKS LIKE: She has a friend!

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2015

Epilogue—What tribal loathing looks like:
Friend, did you happen to sit through Thursday’s long day’s journey into loathing?

The conduct of the Republican inquisitors helped the world see what tribal loathing looks like. As one example, it can leave you asking questions like the ones shown below of the person you loathe.

Rep. Martha Roby (R—Alabama) is asking the loathed party about events on the night of September 11, 2012. In fairness, Roby only adopted this tone as the evening drew on:
ROBY (10/22/15): Who was at your office when you left? Was Cheryl Mills, your chief of staff, still at the office when you left?

CLINTON: I don't remember. I know that a lot of my staff were there.

ROBY: I'm going to go through and name them. We'll see if you remember. Jake Sullivan, was he still there?

CLINTON: When— Yes, they were all there when I left. They were all there.

ROBY: OK. Victoria Nuland was there when you left?

CLINTON: When I— When I left, everyone was there.

ROBY: Philippe Reines was there?

CLINTON: I can— All I—I can give you a blanket answer. When I left—

ROBY: No, I'm going to ask specifics.
The inquisitor was going to ask specifics. She went on to grill the suspect, one by one, about a list of staff members.

She asked if Jake Sullivan had been there. She asked about Reines again.

She asked the suspect about Stephen Mull.

“Bill Burns and Thomas Nides?” This was her next question.

In this way, the inquisitor visibly grilled the suspect. Presumably, she was trying to show us that the uncaring suspect went home for the night, leaving staff members to deal with the plight of the brave Americans she, the inquisitor, cares about, unlike the suspect, who is perhaps a roach.

From there, Roby proceeded to another series of questions which seemed designed to show the world that the suspect was uncaring. She only spoke to the president once that night! She couldn’t remember what time!

We were sorry to see Roby descend to this level. During the bulk of the day, she had remained relatively sane as her fellow panelists barked and yipped about various problems, including problems involving one of the suspect’s highly suspect friends.

Commissar Jordan seemed to be on speed during the bulk of the day—perhaps on some bad speed at that.

Roby had comported herself in a saner fashion. Which, to be honest, may have made her just a bit suspect herself.

The congresswoman’s biography is suspiciously squishy.

According to the leading authority on her life, she was suitably born, right there in Montgomery. But after graduating from high school, she “attended New York University, where she received a bachelor of music degree.”

What kind of cockroach does something like that? When she served on Montgomery’s City Council, she even “opposed privatizing the disposal of household garbage!”

Perhaps for these reasons, Roby was forced to prove her revolutionary mettle by grilling the suspect as evening drew on, “asking specifics” designed to show us how little the suspect cared.

We were sorry to see her do that. For us, attack dog Jordan’s tugs on his chain had done a suitable job of showing the face of tribal loathing. Then too, we had other commissars’ apparent sense of shock at the idea that someone might receive emails from a long-time friend—that a long-time friend might even know his friend’s home address, or visit a suspect’s home!

That afternoon, the aptly named Commissar Pompeo had tried to unravel this puzzle. He too was serially specific as he probed this puzzling citcumstance:
POMPEO (10/22/15): I want to go back to a couple things I talked to you about a bit before, Madam Secretary. So Ambassador Stevens didn’t have your e-mail. Is that correct? Your personal e-mail?

CLINTON: I'm sorry, what did you ask me?

POMPEO: Ambassador Stevens did not have your personal e-mail address, we've established that.

CLINTON: Yes, that's right.

POMPEO: Did he have your cell phone number?

CLINTON: No, but he had the 24-hour number of the State Operations in the State Department that can reach me 24/7.

POMPEO: Yes, ma'am. Did he have the fax number?

CLINTON: He had the fax number of the State Department.

POMPEO: Did he have you home address?

CLINTON: No, I don't think any ambassador has ever asked me for that.

POMPEO: Did he ever stop by your house?

CLINTON: No, he did not, Congressman.

POMPEO: Mr. Blumenthal had each of those and did each of those things. This man upon who provided you so much information on Libya had access to you in ways that were very different than the access that a very senior diplomat had to your—to you and your person.
A long-time friend had stopped by her house, revealing access to her and her person!Ambassador Stevens had not!

A possibility entered our heads. Was it possible that Pompeo has never had any friends, and may not understand the concept?

We’ll guess that Roby, a sane-seeming person, has had plenty of friends. That’s why we were disappointed when she went down this familiar old road, which is linked to death and destruction all across the world.

If we might borrow from our Kafka, the commissars had their cockroach! This is the way we humans end up when we surrender to tribal loathing.

Whatever one thinks of Candidate Clinton, twenty-three years of aggressive otherization have helped create the tribal loathing put on display this week. One example from 1994:

We were in our car, with the radio on, when Rush Limbaugh floated the idea that Vince Foster had been killed in an apartment which belonged to the cockroach in question. Out in the country, many people didn’t realize that they were being played as Rush spread his ugly suggestion.

Another example, from August 1999:

We were at home, with our TV set on, when Chris Matthews spent a half hour kissing the aspic of Gennifer Flowers, who had been brought on his “cable news” program to tell us how many people the Clintons had managed to murder.

For our money, one of the low points is shown below. Moments before, Matthews had said that Hillary Clinton had been “offering herself as Nurse Ratched to the cuckoo’s nest here:”
MATTHEWS (8/2/99): Well, you know, I gotta pay a little tribute here. You're a very beautiful woman, and I—and I have to tell you, he knows that, you know that, and everybody watching knows that; Hillary Clinton knows that. How can a woman put up with a relationship between her husband and somebody, anybody, but especially somebody like you that’s a knockout? I don't quite get this relationship.

FLOWERS: Gosh, you make me blush here. I’m telling you—I'll tell you, this—

MATTHEWS: Well, it’s an objective statement, Gennifer. I'm not flirting. So let’s go on.

FLOWERS: How can she do this?

MATTHEWS: Yeah.

FLOWERS: Because she is willing to sacrifice her personal integrity for their political motivation.

MATTHEWS: Has she told you that?

FLOWERS: Has she personally told me that?

MATTHEWS: No, has he told you that his wife is just a pol on the make?

FLOWERS: More or less, yes.

MATTHEWS: More or less?

FLOWERS: More. I would say in our conversations, he never put it that directly. But it was clearly a situation where they were, they were political partners.
Just for the record, there's no reason to think that Gennifer Flowers ever had a “relationship” with Bill Clinton. Beyond that, there's no reason to think that any of these alleged “conversations” ever took place.

Despite these fairly obvious facts, Matthews was very excited. “Hey, we’re coming back with Gennifer Flowers in Las Vegas,” he excitedly said at this point. “More coming back on Hardball!”

When Matthews came back, he asked his guest if she wanted to retract her accusations about “murders.” Out in the country, many people didn’t know that they were being played.

(Flowers’ performance on Hardball was so crazy that she was quickly invited on Hannity & Colmes, where she did the full hour. She used the extra time to tell the world that Hillary Clinton is the world’s most gigantic lesbo. Three months later, Matthews reported that Candidate Gore was wearing three-button suits in a smarmy, sexualized attempt to attract female voters. Out in the country, many people didn’t know they were being played. No journalist was willing to tell them.)

On Thursday, you saw the result of twenty-three years of this sort of misconduct. More specifically, you saw hours of tribal loathing displayed by the commissars.

Presumably, some of the loathing was real. Presumably, some of it was feigned, designed to please the people back home who haven’t realized, down through the years, that they were being played by horrible, grasping people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Matthews.

(In fairness, Matthews is playing for our team now. Tribally, we love him!)

Many people were able to see how silly the commissars looked. Even some journalists were able to see it—though for our money, Amy Chozick dragged her heels just a bit at the Times.

This isn’t about what you think of Candidate Clinton as a possible president. This is about something which precedes what you think. It’s about the way a deeply destructive force gets introduced into the world.

The moronic face of tribal loathing was on display this week. People like Limbaugh, Hannity, Matthews have worked quite hard, for twenty-three years, to create this inchoate loathing, in which the public is told to be suspicious because a suspect’s long-term friend has actually stopped by her house.

We’re going to leave you with a suggestion:

Think about the way the inquisitors looked to you on Thursday. That’s the way We look to Them when they see our own creepy, grasping tribal leaders dissembling and lying their ascots off about those office closings in Alabama, where Rep. Roby lives.

Roby understands the full set of facts about the office closings. Beyond that, she understands what our tribal darling Rachel has done.

By the way, Maddow thinks the Clintons have some “sort of creepy seeming” friends too! She said so to Andrea Mitchell last night, after expressing some peculiar ideas about Bill Clinton’s White House years.

(“Where in the world do these find these people?” the analysts sadly asked.)

Tribal loathing creeps and spreads. It devours the social fabric. It worms its way inside everyone’s heads. It makes each tribe despise the other.

Tribal loathing destroys clear vision. But dear lord, it feels so good!

95 comments:

  1. The "creepy friends" R.M. was referring to Sidney Blumenthal, David Brock, James Carville, Congressman Adam Smith, David Kendall, etc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She named three herself cicero. You may feel akin to the Bobfan type who needs to tell people what Bob meant, but generally people can speak for themselves.

      Delete
    2. cicero, and the guy who says "Bobfan."

      This truly is a special hell.

      Delete
    3. The guy who says "Bobfan," and cicero.

      Discussing who's "creepy."

      Well, at least they are both experts!

      Delete
    4. Gap toothed Somerby rubes defend the tribal chief against all out assault from "others."

      "Creeps" and "spreads" and "social fabric" "devoured."
      It feels so good. Worms!

      Delete
  2. How can they trash such upstanding citizens?
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/23/the-man-who-bought-the-clintons-the-political-business-of-terry-mcauliffe/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby has never spoken of the sinister plot St. Clair reveals to slime Clinton hatched in 2000. Thanks for the link.

      Delete
  3. Wonder how Jeb is doing in his meeting with his mommy about his money problems? Who needs creepy friends when you have creepy relatives?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @3:04

      How is Barbara Bush "creepy" when she is the one who said that she was against another Bush running for POTUS?

      Remember HRC claimed she left the White House "dead broke." Whom did she meet with to discuss her money problems?

      Delete
    2. They are all super creepy.

      Do you think anyone will pay Jeb $200,000 to speak?

      Delete
    3. Why can't that whole family slink away into political obscurity? Every time I see Jeb, he's making excuses for his disastrous brother. W had to redeem Poppy, now the "smart one" is stepping up to redeem the dumb one in the name of "The Project for a New American Century" military remaking of the world.

      Delete
    4. @5:26

      "Why can't that whole family (blank) slink away into political obscurity?"

      Insert Clinton and or Bush name and you posted a winner.

      Delete
    5. @7:33

      Did it ever occur to you that Willie was paid $500k by folks who wanted access to his bride Secretary of State HRC? The same reason they donated millions to Clinton Foundation. It is called influence peddling.

      Delete
    6. That's why they continued to provide donations after she was no longer Secretary of State, I guess. It is called philanthropy. Billionaires get a tax deduction for doing it.

      Delete
    7. @12:48

      Let's see how the donations flow should she loose her bid for The White House. It's called betting on HRC to be POTUS.

      HRC approved the sale of a uranium company to Russia, while Willie was giving speeches to the bank that was brokering the deal, collecting a fee of $750,000. Was that "philanthropy"?

      Delete
    8. She did lose the nomination in 2008. Donations kept flowing. Then she resigned as Secretary of State in 2013. Donations kept flowing. Hillary didn't have anything to do with approving the sale of a "uranium company to Russia" and the donation was years before that deal. There was no quid pro quo and no connection -- these were isolated events connected only in the imagination of a feverish right wing hit-man trying to sell a book (which the NY Times stupidly hyped). The original donation was of course philanthropy because it benefitted charities and the people who are helped by them. This is a tired old piece of conservative propaganda, but you have nothing worse to accuse the Clinton Foundation of, so you return to the trough.

      I've asked you before not to refer to former President Clinton as Willie. You have no respect for anyone or anything, including the people who participate in this blog, so you of course ignore that request.

      I'm done here.

      Delete
  4. With Maddow it's comedy not news. One would think Bob as a comedian could see this. I watch and laugh at the comedy she presents.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You have to be tribal because (1) working together is the only way to get things done, (2) the others are so ridiculous they cannot be allowed to govern, (3) it is how our system works.

    If Somerby means that we should not use tribalism as an excuse to behave unethically, I'm with him, but I don't think dividing into political factions is really the problem. I think it is that people who are losing don't like to lose and they resort to desperate measures.

    How far will the right go to prevent any liberal progress? We are seeing that now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think tribal just means belonging to a group. Used in this context, tribal means defending what your group does *when they are clearly wrong*! Bob is trying to point out media coverage that is wrong and/or misleading. If you defend the media when it is wrong, but supports you point of view, then you are being tribal. How far will the left go to prevent conservative restraint on government?

      Delete
  6. Here's Congresswoman Roby, such a dumb tribalist that she thinks two State Department employees were on Hillary's staff (they weren't), and could accurately say Hillary didn't know we still had a presence in Benghazi (they were wrong).

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjVvBdO0L-0

    She also tried to gauge Hillary's concern for Benghazi by comparing the heights of two stacks of emails, forgetting that there were other means for the Secretary to communicate with her subordinates and colleagues.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Clinton's responses are very clear and very patient yet the comments accompanying this clip are very negative, full of vitriol. They don't seem connected at all to the exchange shown in the clip -- they are mostly just hatred.

      Delete
    2. @5:59

      HRC admitted she couldn't remember when the last time she saw Ambassador Stevens after his swearing in ceremony. What we do know is she didn't communicate with him through her private server email and he didn't even have her email address, yet Sidney Blumenthal was HRC's most prodigious email contact for reasons she couldn't explain.

      HRC also removed Sidney's name from emails sent to her that she passed on to the White House. When asked why she deleted his name, she replied that it is more beneficial to gauge intelligence when the source is anonymous......That may have been her most inane comment of the day.

      Delete
    3. She did explain -- Blumenthal was her friend and longtime associate. Obama didn't like Blumenthal for political reasons (he helped her with opposition research during her 2008 campaign against Obama). It is obvious why she would delete his name from info that might otherwise be useful to the president.

      We also know that she communicated frequently with Stevens through her staff and via other means of communication -- she said so. Email was not her primary way of conducting state department business.

      Delete
    4. It was Brooks not Roby who confronted her with the two stacks of emails (before and after the attack).

      Delete
    5. @ 7:29

      Except HRC did not give the committee the excuse you gave for her removing Sidney's name. That would have been a truthful answer that a pathological liar is incapable of providing.

      Stevens talking to Foggy Bottom but not to HRC directly was the point raised by Gowdy. HRC also failed to provide any records to support her contention that she communicated with Stevens on a regular or irregular basis. If she had, she wouldn't be able to claim that she was oblivious to his 600+ requests for additional security.

      Delete
    6. Stevens calling the State Department was the 24/7 way to reach Clinton. You cannot both complain that she used private email while also complaining she didn't use it enough with Stevens.

      She didn't micromanage the security for each of the State department facilities around the world. No one in their right mind would expect her to. No matter how she communicated with Stevens, she wouldn't have overseen those requests for additional security. She was Secretary of State, not head of security. The State Department already had records of her communications with Stevens through regular channels and those were provided to this committee and previous investigations. Your claim that she didn't provide records is nonsense.

      Delete
    7. Pathological liar -- someone who thinks everyone else lies because he does himself.

      Delete
    8. @12:46

      HRC claimed to take responsibility for the deaths of the 4 Americans. But when it comes to accepting the consequences of taking responsibility she lays the blame at the head of security. Brilliant.

      Libya was HRC's pet project. She was indeed micromanaging the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi and the subsequent situation in Libya. That is why she pushed the YouTube video for public consumption when Benghazi became an embarrassment to the Obama Administration propaganda that Al-Qæda was on the run.

      NTW: The State Department is in full denial they have 95% of HRC's emails as she claims.

      The one communication HRC says she saw where Stevens was asking for additional security, she says she figured he was joking.

      Delete
    9. @ 1:00

      Why do you refer to HRC as "he"?

      Delete
    10. Because I am referring to you, not her. You could be female, but your level of mendacity, crudeness and aggression are generally male.

      Delete
    11. @1:16

      Your comment suggests you are both a misandrist and a sexist.

      Delete
    12. Yes, you are reflecting badly on men in general. I suggest you clean up your act.

      Delete
    13. cicero,

      Listen jackoff, Secretary testified about 1000 times that security requests were directed to the professionals who dealt with security.

      Show me a single piece of testimony from any single witness, from CIA, Defense, Secret Service or any other agency with that responsibility that contradicts her.

      If you have the balls to challenge her testimony than surely you can direct us all to testimony from others. Do you have any, dipshit?

      Delete
    14. @ 10/24 7:29PM - Thanks for the correction. Yes, it was Brooks.
      @ cicero and 10/25 1:16PM - "Cicero" is a masculine name, so it's natural to say "he". Therefore, when 1:16 says "he", cicero should understand the reference to himself, not Hillary. But we do see lots of mendacity, crudeness, and aggression from female Republicans. So cicero's personal characteristics remain unknown.

      Delete
  7. Was Bob always such a deeply disturbed and confused individual? Does he really believe Roby's behavior can be hung on Rachel Maddow? Sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you believe he said anything like that, you are much more disturbed and confused than he is.

      Delete
    2. ANYTHING like that?

      "Roby understands the full set of facts about the office closings. Beyond that, she understands what our tribal darling Rachel has done."

      Delete
    3. Well, you are a very silly person, because that is the none too subtle, direct accusation of Bob's post.

      Delete
    4. Roby understands tribalism therefore Maddow caused Roby's behavior. That qualifies as disordered thought, in my opinion.

      Delete
    5. Bob says Roby is a sack of shit and that she knows Maddow is full of shit. He may mean Roby doesn't think she herself is full of shit. Which means he is very much like Maddow and Roby.

      Delete
    6. He says Roby understand Maddow because they are both tribal beings. The "shit" is incidental.

      Delete
    7. Bob makes an ass of himself trying to be as sympathetic as possible to Roby, actually.

      Delete
  8. You missed Roby's shining moment:

    "Who else was at your home—were you alone?" Roby asked. Yes, Clinton responded. "The whole night?" Roby followed up.

    "Well, yes, the whole night," Clinton said, a wide smile dawning on her face as she laughed.

    "I don't know why that's funny," said Roby.

    However, Roby did demonstrate her relative sanity by failing to ask Mrs. Clinton where her husband was that night and where Monica Lewinsky was.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Tribal loathing destroys clear vision. But dear lord, it feels so good!"

    So tell us, Bob. How do you feel every time you write a screed about how much you loathe Rachel Maddow. Does it make you feel good?

    It must, because you sure do devote a lot of your life to it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Again, the bat shit crazy right exposed themselves this week. There are legitimate things about the political press that could be pointed out. Was the fake, page one, damaging story about Hillary placed in the NYT's by The Committee, and if so should that effect the way we view their editorial on said? But the right have made fools of themselves, hateful fools. And Bob goes back to Matthews and Flowers. He must be shell shocked.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Somerby did talk about those fake NYT stories -- there have been more than one.

      Delete
    2. I know Bob talks about his analysts. Does he also talk about fake stories? Who faked them, by the way?

      Delete
    3. If you are asked about the page one NYT's stuff about investigations into Hillary that did not exist, read Joe Conason.

      Delete
    4. I prefer to rely on Somerby's main source:

      "Hillary Clinton's email travails are a genuine problem for her. At best, relying solely on her own server to handle email while she was Secretary of State shows bad judgment, and at worst it might have violated government rules. There's not much question this is going to dog her going into next year's election.

      That said, Jonathan Allen points out that the press is back to its old bad habits as well:
      ------

      The feud between Hillary and the press is sort of like the Hatfields and McCoys: it's now so old, and so deeply ingrained, that it's almost impossible to tell who's more at fault. The press learned to deeply mistrust the Clintons during the 90s, sometimes with cause, and the Clintons learned to deeply mistrust the press at the same time, also sometimes with cause. The result is that Hillary does everything she can to shield herself from the press, and the press assumes that everything she does has some kind of sinister motive. Meanwhile, Republicans sit back and fan the flames, just as you'd expect them to.

      It's gonna be a grim 2016 campaign if this keeps up."

      http://dailyhowler.blogspot.com/2015/07/supplemental-can-this-possibly-be-true.html

      Delete
  11. "In fairness, Matthews is playing for our team now. Tribally, we love him!"

    Bob Somerby. Reminding us that his all knowing insight into our likes, loves, dislikes, and hates is how he demonstrates the quality we all gudgingly admire in him. In fairness.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sanders is attacking Clinton now for changing several positions. This suggests he is not running to gives his ideas exposure or to shift the party leftward, but seriously trying to win nomination. Attacking ideas is one thing but attacking a person, another candidate is different.

    Someone with some allegiance to party would be concerned about weakening the frontrunner in the general election. Sanders has no party allegiance. Apparently he doesn't care whether Clinton's chances are damaged in November. He has deluded himself with the belief that if he were to win nomination, he might be a viable candidate, despite having no foreign relations experience whatsoever and no record beyond domestic issues. Maybe this is a bid for Biden's supporters, but it is ugly because he has no chance whatsoever and can only be a spoiler. He may not care about whether Democrats get to name the next few Supreme Court justices, but I do and I hope other Democrats do as well. This is a big mistake.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't vote for a candidate who has never changed his or her mind. It means they cannot learn or change with the times (or new information). It shouldn't be a political liability when someone changes an opinion on an issue.

      Delete
    2. @11:48

      Except that HRC changes her mind not because of conviction but because of political expediency. She moved to the left of Obama because of Sanders. HRC doesn't have any character, she merely assumes one.

      Delete
    3. She was always to the left of Obama.

      Delete
    4. @ 12:36

      Bullocks. HRC rebuked candidate Obama on his far left anti-firearm/anti religion comment.


      "Sen. Obama's remarks are elitist, and they are out of touch," Clinton said. "The people of faith I know don't 'cling to' religion because they're bitter. ... I also disagree with Sen. Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration. People of all walks of life hunt — and they enjoy doing so because it's an important part of their life, not because they are bitter."

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO6RtBVQFAg

      HRC, April 11, 2008

      Delete
    5. Why am I discussing anything with you?

      Delete
    6. @1:14

      If you have any evidence to support your claim HRC was always to the left of Obama please link to it. Why are you so easily frustrated when confronted with evidence to the contrary?

      Delete
    7. Start with her voting record in the Senate.

      Delete
    8. @2:01

      Voting for the Iraq War puts HRC to the left of Obama? Ok.

      Delete
    9. Hilary Clinton said hands off Social Security, Obama campaigned on "reforming" SS.

      Delete
    10. Hillary is neither left nor right of Obama. They're both Eisenhower Republicans. That's much less bad than any of today's Republicans.

      Delete
    11. impCaesarAvg, what President kind of Republican was Eisenhower? Or was he a __________President Democrat?
      You don't say. I know Robert Welch thought he was a conscious agent of the International Communist conspiracy,
      but that doesn't tell me if he was a Lenin Commie, a Stalin Commie, or a garden variety Trot.

      What kind of President of whatever party are you?

      Delete
    12. Tyler Whig, Eisenhower was an Eisenhower Republican. I'm an august Emperor.

      Delete
    13. Hillary Clinton supported teachers unions over NCLB. Her economic views are from Krugman not Larry Summers. She pledged to end Afghanistan and Iraq and close Guantanamo immediately, not as soon as possible or after the surge or within a year. She was for net neutrality and against warrantless wiretaps and NSA spying, not BFFs with the intelligence community and the Bush-era DoD. She was for the space program. She supported increased funding for basic research in the sciences. She had a more diverse campaign staff and better immigration policies (e.g., DLs for illegals). She supported expanding social programs, especially for women and children and to strengthen families. But Obama's statements about SS were enough to cause me to decide NEVER to vote for him. No liberal says that, ever. I see Obama as someone who appealed to liberal ideals because he would be the first African American elected to the presidency. But I do not see him as liberal himself. Maybe he couldn't be and still get elected. There were clear differences between him and Hillary, more than between Clinton and Sanders now. Their voting records are nearly identical and there is little difference in their programs, except in terms of personal experience, where Clinton has an edge in both working on diversity issues and foreign relations. Her representation of Wall Street is a drawback, but she has always been harsher toward them than Obama and her statements place her to the left of Sanders in regulation of banking -- as Krugman has noted, restoring Glass-Steagel isn't enough and Clinton has proposed also addressing shadow banking. So in that respect, she is more liberal than Sanders. I think that is a good thing.

      Delete
    14. Does Clinton also propose restoring Glass-Steagel?

      I don't think the comparison, more the similarity, in Clinton-Sanders voting records reflects much depth. Consider what came to the floor. An ideological range from Harry Reid to Mitch McConnell. Pretty low bar.

      Delete
    15. Cicero - stop being such a stupid and boring loser.

      Delete
  13. Huffington Post has decided to ignore Hillary. Two articles about Sanders attacking her -- Bernie won't back down! Nothing about Hillary's major campaign event yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-katy-perry-iowa-rally_562c32d8e4b0443bb56433a6?utm_hp_ref=politics

      Delete
    2. The picture Huffington Post showed of Hillary and Katy makes a bad comparsion between the teeth of these two and makes it look like Clinton has an overbite.

      Delete
  14. "And what if the abolitionists had said, ‘You know, I don’t believe in slavery, I think it’s wrong. But you guys do whatever you want to do.’ Where would we be?" -- Ben Carson

    If the Abolitionists had said that, they wouldn't be abolitionists, but that is exactly what most of the country did say during our country's history. It is why we had the Mason-Dixon line and why states were admitted to statehood in pairs, one-free, one-slave. It is why, even in the deep South, some people owned slaves and many did not.

    Why are neuroscientists not required to take an American History course in college -- oh, wait, they are. So what happened to Ben Carson? Was he absent that day?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carson was a neurosurgeon, not a neuroscientist. The Academy of Achievement says he majored in psychology at Yale. It doesn't say if he studied history.

      http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/car1bio-1

      Delete
    2. If he didn't take US History as a breadth requirement at Yale, the need for such a course is pretty obvious. He doesn't seem to understand Nazi Germany any better than he does US history in the 18th & 19th centuries.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. @ 6:04

      Nazi Germany would be European History. Did your GED have any history class requirements? Libs believe Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick thought it was a good idea to disarm German Jews in 1938 not because armed Jews would pose a threat to the NSDAP eventual Final Solution in 1942, but because Jews were committing mass shootings at German schools?

      "However, German firearm laws and hysteria created against Jewish firearm owners played a major role in laying the groundwork for the eradication of German Jewry in
      the Holocaust. Disarming political opponents was a categorical imperative of the Nazi regime" *

      WOLF BLITZER: “But just clarify, if there had been no gun control laws in Europe at that time, would 6 million Jews have been slaughtered?”

      DR. CARSON: “I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed,”.

      *
      "Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons were promulgated by Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, effectively depriving all Jews living under the Third Reich of the right to possess any form of weapons including truncheons, knives, or firearms and ammunition"

      NAZI FIREARMS LAW AND THE DISARMING OF THE GERMAN JEWS
      17 Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, No. 3, 483-535 (2000)
      Stephen P. Halbrook

      http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

      Delete
    5. Where is the evidence having more guns in Jewish hands would have prevented what the Allied armies couldn't?

      Delete
    6. He learned what is finally a technically skill. In terms of history and philosophy, he is bested by most eighth graders.

      Delete
    7. @ 10:16

      At no time did the Allies ever target concentration camps or death camps or rail ways leading to the concentration camps or death camps. The Allies fought for unconditional surrender, not to interfere or stop the Holocaust.

      Delete
    8. @Greg

      What is a "technically skill"? Must be liberal philosophy.

      Delete
    9. We generally overlook typos here cicero, especially when everyone knows what is intended. Grow up.

      Technical skill.

      Delete
    10. @ 11:53

      Generally? What are the exceptions?

      Delete
  15. Biden seems to be auditioning for a reality show. He's still explaining his decision and Jill is giving her reaction. Doesn't he realize he is now politically irrelevant?

    Did I mention he thinks Paul Ryan is a nice guy? It's sad that Biden can't live outside the limelight.

    ReplyDelete
  16. For the record, both Wikipedia and the official Roby bio fail to mention she is the daughter of a Federal Judge (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Fredrick_Dubina).
    I don't know why this piece of information is excluded. He was originally a Reagan appointee, nominally a good thing in GOP/TeaPary circles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For the record, from Wikipedia:

      "Roby was born in Montgomery, Alabama and attended New York University, where she received a bachelor of music degree. She then entered the Cumberland School of Law at Samford University in Birmingham, Alabama, receiving her J.D. in 2001. She is the daughter of Joel F. Dubina, a Senior Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

      Delete
  17. There are three seminal events of major historical importance that cross almost every conversation when Boomer Americans get to know and trust that a new acquaintance is from the same tribe.

    Where were you on November 22, 1963?
    (The day JFK was assasinated)

    Where were you on September 11, 2001?
    (The day of the World Trade Center collapse)

    Where were you on August 2, 1999?
    (The day Chris Matthews let Jennifer Flowers slime the first Boomer President)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As much as I like Oprah Winfrey, she gave Gennifer Flowers a platform in her last major appearance on television. These Obama Chicago pols never quit sliming the Clintons.

      Delete
    2. You mean the "first black President"

      Chicago's own Phil Donahue gave 911 Truthers a platform. Pick a conspiracy and you will find a haven for liberal moonbats.

      Delete
    3. "Pick a conspiracy and you will find a haven for liberal moon bats."

      Good point, cicero. Look how the "liberal" media has provided a haven for the efficacy of supply-side economics for the past 4 decades.

      Delete
    4. @5:13

      Not sure how supply-side economics is a conspiracy promulgated by liberal media as it was the liberal media who dismissed it by calling it Reaganomics, but it isn't even on the radar screen of moonbat conspiracy theorists.

      Delete
    5. The conspiracy is in discussing supply-side economics as if it works for the citizenry of the nation.
      The media (which you have PROVEN is "liberal" through your insistence that it really is "liberal"---despite you having provided no other proof) has treated supply-side economics like it could be an effective policy for the citizenry, rather than the failed economic ideology it is in real life.

      Delete
    6. No fair. cicero did prove the media is "liberal" when he discussed how the owners of business defer to whims and wishes of their workers. Anyone who doesn't see that obvious truth is just some moonbat conspiracy theorist stuck in reality.

      Delete
  18. Today Huffington Post is running an article titled 9 Ways Hillary can Still Lose the Nomination, over a photo of her rubbing an eye, but is that a tear?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They also have an article about how the media ignored a scandal
      in public schools. They never covered any of the excellent work Bob has done covering the media ignoring public schools.

      Delete
    2. I liked it better this weekend when they decided to ignore her.

      Delete
  19. Bob claims: "Just for the record, there's no reason to think that Gennifer Flowers ever had a 'relationship' with Bill Clinton."

    Ok, let's check "the record" and yep, Clinton confirmed in a deposition that he had a sexual relationship with Ms Flowers.

    "The Presidential deposition released today confirmed several revelations reported earlier, including Mr. Clinton's confirmation, after years of denial, that he had had sex with Gennifer Flowers, a one-time Arkansas worker. "

    http://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/14/us/testing-president-accuser-jones-lawyers-issue-files-alleging-clinton-pattern.html

    Bob's a fool.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He said he had a one-nighter, not a 10-year sexual relationship as Flowers claimed.

      Delete