Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
MrWendel
MrWendel's Journal
MrWendel's Journal
March 31, 2016
A mainstream media headline about the New York primary (“Clinton Moves Goalposts Again”) is unsupported by the facts of the article.
Last July, HillaryMen warned that insidious process stories in mainstream publications constituted a risk to Hillary’s public image:
The overarching point was that these articles are more harmful because they are less obviously negative:
Eight months later, with Hillary closing in on the Democratic nomination, we get this:
Here’s what the article says:
(More in link)
ANALYSIS: A Classic Case of Casual Anti-Hillary Media Spin ("Goalpost" article BS)
http://bluenationreview.com/classic-case-of-casual-anti-hillary-media-spin/A mainstream media headline about the New York primary (“Clinton Moves Goalposts Again”) is unsupported by the facts of the article.
Last July, HillaryMen warned that insidious process stories in mainstream publications constituted a risk to Hillary’s public image:
Process stories – and the potent anti-Hillary frames they deliver – were one of the single most effective weapons against Hillary in 2008, painting a nefarious image that she was unable to alter or escape. Although Hillary is subjected to the most vitriolic language imaginable, the majority of negative coverage she endures comes in this form: a seemingly innocuous news article, editorial or blog post that manages, paragraph after paragraph, to deliver character-destroying frames.
The overarching point was that these articles are more harmful because they are less obviously negative:
To the casual reader, it may not be entirely obvious how damaging this type of reporting is for Hillary’s candidacy. But in aggregate, articles like this that appear regularly in major media outlets paint a portrait of a scheming, unprincipled politician. That portrait is often reflected back in polls and interviews – and ultimately at the ballot box.
Eight months later, with Hillary closing in on the Democratic nomination, we get this:
Here’s what the article says:
When Hillary Clinton lost the New Hampshire primary to Bernie Sanders in February, Robby Mook, her campaign manager, took the long view and declared the nomination would “very likely be won in March, not February.” The campaign is now taking an even longer view, with April now being the month they hope to put Sanders away.
(More in link)
March 31, 2016
Now John Kasich...
Is the Republican inability to eat New York Pizza with your hands a thing?
Are you kidding me?!?!
First Trump...
Now John Kasich...
Is the Republican inability to eat New York Pizza with your hands a thing?
March 31, 2016
by Tommy Christopher
Facing a close run against Bernie Sanders in upcoming primary races, former Secretary of State and current Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton is beginning to show the bare knuckles of the brawler she needs be to win. Following a campaign rally at the State University of New York Purchase campus on Thursday, Greenpeace activist Eva Resnick-Day asked Hillary if she would reject donations from fossil fuel interests, and Clinton laid into her but good:
(More with video in link)
Hillary Clinton Slams Sanders Campaign ‘Lies’ in Confrontation With Activist
http://www.mediaite.com/online/hillary-clinton-slams-sanders-campaign-lies-in-confrontation-with-activist/by Tommy Christopher
Facing a close run against Bernie Sanders in upcoming primary races, former Secretary of State and current Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton is beginning to show the bare knuckles of the brawler she needs be to win. Following a campaign rally at the State University of New York Purchase campus on Thursday, Greenpeace activist Eva Resnick-Day asked Hillary if she would reject donations from fossil fuel interests, and Clinton laid into her but good:
(More with video in link)
March 31, 2016
By teacherken
Today’s New York Times has a pointed column by Charles M. Blow written in response to the now well known recent remarks by Susan Sarandon, a highly visible surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nominee.
It is column that should be read by ALL partisans during this Democratic primary season, even as its occasion is in response to a Sanders supporter.
Blow certainly takes Sarandon directly to task with these words:
But his point is far broader than that, and is expressed succinctly in this part of his column:
(Rest in link)
Charles M. Blow: "Bernie or Bust" is Bonkers
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/31/1508408/-Charles-M-Blow-Bernie-or-Bust-is-BonkersBy teacherken
Today’s New York Times has a pointed column by Charles M. Blow written in response to the now well known recent remarks by Susan Sarandon, a highly visible surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nominee.
It is column that should be read by ALL partisans during this Democratic primary season, even as its occasion is in response to a Sanders supporter.
Blow certainly takes Sarandon directly to task with these words:
The comments smacked of petulance and privilege
No member of an American minority group — whether ethnic, racial, queer-identified, immigrant, refugee or poor — would (or should) assume the luxury of uttering such an imbecile phrase, filled with lust for doom.
But his point is far broader than that, and is expressed succinctly in this part of his column:
Be absolutely clear: While there are meaningful differences between Clinton and Sanders, either would be a far better choice for president than any of the remaining Republican contenders, especially the demagogic real estate developer. Assisting or allowing his ascendance by electoral abstinence in order to force a “revolution” is heretical.
This position is dangerous, short-sided and self-immolating.
If Sanders wins the nomination, liberals should rally around him. If Clinton does, they should rally around her.
This is not a game. The presidency, particularly the next one, matters, and elections can be won by relatively small margins. No president has won the popular vote by more than 10 percentage points since Ronald Reagan in 1984.
(Rest in link)
March 31, 2016
By teacherken
Today’s New York Times has a pointed column by Charles M. Blow written in response to the now well known recent remarks by Susan Sarandon, a highly visible surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nominee.
It is column that should be read by ALL partisans during this Democratic primary season, even as its occasion is in response to a Sanders supporter.
Blow certainly takes Sarandon directly to task with these words:
But his point is far broader than that, and is expressed succinctly in this part of his column:
(Rest in link)
Charles M. Blow: "Bernie or Bust" is Bonkers
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/3/31/1508408/-Charles-M-Blow-Bernie-or-Bust-is-BonkersBy teacherken
Today’s New York Times has a pointed column by Charles M. Blow written in response to the now well known recent remarks by Susan Sarandon, a highly visible surrogate for Sen. Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nominee.
It is column that should be read by ALL partisans during this Democratic primary season, even as its occasion is in response to a Sanders supporter.
Blow certainly takes Sarandon directly to task with these words:
The comments smacked of petulance and privilege
No member of an American minority group — whether ethnic, racial, queer-identified, immigrant, refugee or poor — would (or should) assume the luxury of uttering such an imbecile phrase, filled with lust for doom.
But his point is far broader than that, and is expressed succinctly in this part of his column:
Be absolutely clear: While there are meaningful differences between Clinton and Sanders, either would be a far better choice for president than any of the remaining Republican contenders, especially the demagogic real estate developer. Assisting or allowing his ascendance by electoral abstinence in order to force a “revolution” is heretical.
This position is dangerous, short-sided and self-immolating.
If Sanders wins the nomination, liberals should rally around him. If Clinton does, they should rally around her.
This is not a game. The presidency, particularly the next one, matters, and elections can be won by relatively small margins. No president has won the popular vote by more than 10 percentage points since Ronald Reagan in 1984.
(Rest in link)
March 31, 2016
by Lindsey Ellefson
The case of the “D.C. Madam” was, as Rachel Maddow reminded viewers last night, “explosive.” A woman named Deborah Palfrey was accused of operating an illegal escorting empire in the nation’s capitol, and though she insisted everything she did was legal and by the books, she couldn’t prove it because she never kept names or records of her clients. All she had was phone records and those that were released made for good news fodder but couldn’t save her from a possible prison sentence of over 50 years. She killed herself in 2008.
But there are some records that weren’t released. A court order has barred Palfrey’s former lawyer and the current custodian of the records, Montgomery Blair Sibley, from releasing those mysterious records, but Sibley has been hinting lately that he just might defy the gag order.
(More with Video in link)
D.C. Madam’s Lawyer Confirms He Has Phone Records That Could Impact Election
http://www.mediaite.com/online/d-c-madams-lawyer-confirms-to-maddow-he-has-phone-records-that-will-affect-election/by Lindsey Ellefson
The case of the “D.C. Madam” was, as Rachel Maddow reminded viewers last night, “explosive.” A woman named Deborah Palfrey was accused of operating an illegal escorting empire in the nation’s capitol, and though she insisted everything she did was legal and by the books, she couldn’t prove it because she never kept names or records of her clients. All she had was phone records and those that were released made for good news fodder but couldn’t save her from a possible prison sentence of over 50 years. She killed herself in 2008.
But there are some records that weren’t released. A court order has barred Palfrey’s former lawyer and the current custodian of the records, Montgomery Blair Sibley, from releasing those mysterious records, but Sibley has been hinting lately that he just might defy the gag order.
(More with Video in link)
March 30, 2016
New York | Hillary Clinton
March 30, 2016
New York | Hillary Clinton
March 30, 2016
By Liberal Librarian
Somehow Sarandon did not find John Edwards' support for the Iraq war so repugnant as she does Hillary Clinton's.
Noted Bernie Sanders supporter Susan Sarandon had this to say about the prospect of a Donald J. Trump presidency:
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/714612094843404288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Let me tell you a bit about revolution.
As anyone who reads my profile on Twitter knows, I'm a son of Cuban emigres.
Both my mother and father were sick of the Batista dictatorship. My mother was sanguine about the possibility of a Castro takeover. My father was a bit more perspicacious.
The Revolution happened, and within a couple of years my lower middle class father had his barber shop expropriated by the Communists. Private enterprise was an enemy of the people.
My family escaped Cuba, but I have no doubt that the stress brought about by the loss of of his livelihood and fleeing to a new land led to his ill health later in his life.
I have pictures of my dad when he lived in Cuba. He was a big, strapping man, full of life and vigor. Within a year of arriving in New York City, he suffered a heart attack and stroke. I never knew the man in those pictures.
People like Ms. Sarandon who speak cavalierly about "revolution" are the same type of people on the Right who speak about sending troops to every brush fire war across the globe. They have no knowledge on what they're speaking about, but they think their fantasies accord them a special insight.
Revolutions are brutish, violent things. Revolutions are more often like Petrograd 1918 than Berlin 1989. Unless you have no other choice, they're not things to be wished for.
The likes of Ms. Sarandon think that we're like Paris in 1789, pushed to the brink, ready for revolt.
We're not. We're the richest country in the world. Aside from the screeching on the fringes, most people are content with their lives. And the idea that a country which can't muster above a 40% turnout in off-year elections would be ready to take to the streets to overthrow a Trump presidency is laughable in the extreme.
If those of us on the left were more concerned with voting in every election rather than engaging in revolutionary fantasies, we wouldn't be in the current parlous state. People like Ms. Sarandon prattle on about revolution; it won't be their bodies on the front line.
Voting for Donald J. Trump, or not voting out of pique, will not engender the Revolution. It will merely be a replay of Ms. Sarandon's most famous movie, where she drives a car off the cliff. It's a fantasy, from which she won't suffer consequences. The rest of us will rue our lot.
On revolutionary fantasies
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2016/3/28/on-revolutionary-fantasiesBy Liberal Librarian
Somehow Sarandon did not find John Edwards' support for the Iraq war so repugnant as she does Hillary Clinton's.
Noted Bernie Sanders supporter Susan Sarandon had this to say about the prospect of a Donald J. Trump presidency:
https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/714612094843404288?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
Let me tell you a bit about revolution.
As anyone who reads my profile on Twitter knows, I'm a son of Cuban emigres.
Both my mother and father were sick of the Batista dictatorship. My mother was sanguine about the possibility of a Castro takeover. My father was a bit more perspicacious.
The Revolution happened, and within a couple of years my lower middle class father had his barber shop expropriated by the Communists. Private enterprise was an enemy of the people.
My family escaped Cuba, but I have no doubt that the stress brought about by the loss of of his livelihood and fleeing to a new land led to his ill health later in his life.
I have pictures of my dad when he lived in Cuba. He was a big, strapping man, full of life and vigor. Within a year of arriving in New York City, he suffered a heart attack and stroke. I never knew the man in those pictures.
People like Ms. Sarandon who speak cavalierly about "revolution" are the same type of people on the Right who speak about sending troops to every brush fire war across the globe. They have no knowledge on what they're speaking about, but they think their fantasies accord them a special insight.
Revolutions are brutish, violent things. Revolutions are more often like Petrograd 1918 than Berlin 1989. Unless you have no other choice, they're not things to be wished for.
The likes of Ms. Sarandon think that we're like Paris in 1789, pushed to the brink, ready for revolt.
We're not. We're the richest country in the world. Aside from the screeching on the fringes, most people are content with their lives. And the idea that a country which can't muster above a 40% turnout in off-year elections would be ready to take to the streets to overthrow a Trump presidency is laughable in the extreme.
If those of us on the left were more concerned with voting in every election rather than engaging in revolutionary fantasies, we wouldn't be in the current parlous state. People like Ms. Sarandon prattle on about revolution; it won't be their bodies on the front line.
Voting for Donald J. Trump, or not voting out of pique, will not engender the Revolution. It will merely be a replay of Ms. Sarandon's most famous movie, where she drives a car off the cliff. It's a fantasy, from which she won't suffer consequences. The rest of us will rue our lot.
March 29, 2016
Rachel Maddow, who has clearly been an admirer of the Sanders campaign, demonstrates her intellectual honesty and integrity with a lengthy analysis of Bernie’s dwindling chances.
(Video in link)
INTEGRITY: Rachel Maddow Speaks Hard Truths About Bernie’s Campaign
http://bluenationreview.com/maddow-speaks-hard-truths-about-bernie/Rachel Maddow, who has clearly been an admirer of the Sanders campaign, demonstrates her intellectual honesty and integrity with a lengthy analysis of Bernie’s dwindling chances.
(Video in link)
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Jul 22, 2015, 02:19 PMNumber of posts: 1,881
